Statement on the closure of The Independent Group for Change

During the internal crisis inside the Labour Party a group of MPs broke from Labour and formed Change UK. As someone alienated from the Labour Party by the very people I had spent two decades fighting in the trade unions I was one of the first to declare support for this initiative.

Sadly from the beginning there were problems in that no attempt was made to actually create a constituency based organisation and the MP's ran it from the centre until after constant intervention by Liberal Democrat activists (which one former member who joined TiG told us was a deliberate plot to destroy a potential rival) poached not just MPs but activists and members.

The Liberal-Democrats cannot and should not be trusted.

As a result there was only a rump organisation around three MPs, Anna Soubry, Chris Leslie and Mike Gapes three thoroughly decent individuals who I wish well for the future.

I have removed all links on this Blog to the groups websites and also that to the Renew Party with whom there was at least some healthy co-operation but are themselves a political dead-end.

A large number of people in and around the group are returning to the Labour Party. I wish them well in their endeavours but have decided to revert back to being an independent activist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of the TIG for Change Management Council

As you know the Management Council convened today and we unanimously agreed to begin the process of closing down The Independent Group for Change. As you know more than anyone, we came together to form our party in response to the broken state of British politics. Last February, in order to do something about this, The Independent Group was formed.

From the outset we hoped more Labour and Conservative MPs would share our courage and leave their respective political parties. Sadly this was not to be. After the EU Elections our fortunes were further depleted when some of our original MPs decided on a different route. From that point onwards, it became harder for us to cut through as a distinctive political force in our own right - but we nevertheless believed it was important for us to have the courage of our convictions and to stand in the General Election so that our constituents would have a full choice.

Whilst there is clearly a need for massive change in British politics, now that we no longer have voices within Parliament, a longer term realignment will have to take place in a different way.

Honesty and realism are at the core of our values, and we therefore must recognise that the political uncertainty of recent months has now given way to a settled pattern in Parliament for the next five years. So this is the right time for us to take stock.

Our values and principles remain the same and they remain as essential as ever - but we need to be honest about what’s happened. We have no regrets about standing up and speaking truth to power when the country needed it. It was always better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all.

But I want to be very clear about what we did achieve. My former Labour colleagues shone a spotlight on the state of the Labour Party, exposing how it had moved to the hard left and was tolerating anti-semitism. I do not doubt Labour shifted its position to a confirmatory second referendum because of the courageous move made by Chris, Mike, Ann, Joan and others. We called out the dangers of the Conservative Party's no-deal Brexit and identified the drift in the party further to the nationalist right wing.

But as I say, we need to be realistic and therefore we have agreed to start the process of winding up the party. We have ended your monthly subscription and are beginning the process of closing down our office and organisation. We will contact the Electoral Commission to de-register as a political party.

We remain hopeful and positive about the case for a future realignment in British politics and would urge you to continue to be active in advocating our values for the longer term.

In the meantime I want to thank my dear friends and colleagues Chris Leslie, Mike Gapes, Joan Ryan and Ann Coffey for their wisdom, advice and courage.

Thank you to everyone who stood in the EU Elections and everyone who worked on the campaign. Thank you to those of you who helped in the recent General Election campaign and who have been active in forming local groups.

And finally a thank you to Sian and Sophie and the many others who were there from the beginning for their hard work, dedication and sacrifice.

With all good wishes,

Anna

Labour needs a good look at itself

Guest Post by Caroline Watson

Like many others, including such as Alan Johnson, I believe that the election results show that the cult that currently holds the Labour Party in its grip has been well and truly rejected by traditional Labour voters, particularly in the North and Midlands.

I think that isn’t because of Brexit, but that it was happening before Brexit, which is why people voted for it. I also think that to write off Brexit voters as racists is simplistic; one of the reasons why people in the former coalfields voted for it was because of the EU’s green agenda, which they see as having no concern for their jobs and communities. In Bassetlaw, which returned a Tory with a 14,000 majority, a coal fired power station had closed only weeks earlier.

I agree with Alan Johnson, Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips and others that the only way that Labour can save itself is to ditch the Corbyn cult once and for all, along with Momentum, the middle class social justice warriors and identity politics, and go back to being a party of the working class, led and run by the working class. That is what Labour was set up to be and this devastating loss is because it has moved away from its roots in Northern and Midlands towns. It is the Labour Party. The clue’s in the name. It must stop patronising working people and telling them what to think.

What I don’t understand, is why so many people, who apparently want a Labour government, disagree with me. Thursday proved that the current model hasn’t worked. Why do people think more of the same will be different another time?

Perhaps they think that working class people are too stupid to make their own decisions and need to be lectured like children until they believe that men can become women and and all the other ‘woke’ rubbish? That the Labour Party needs them to put the working class right? That, rather than being a vehicle by which the working class can represent itself, and make sure that its members earn enough not to be poor, and not to need benefits or food banks, it should be a means of keeping them helpless and dependent; grateful to the lady bountifuls with PhDs and stoned-sounding Momentum voices who intone mawkishly about ‘the poor and the needy’ and make ‘art installations’ about poverty?

Or, perhaps they think that, if the Labour Party reverts to being led and run by the people by and for whom it was originally created, middle class lefties will no longer have a political home, because the views and policies developed by working class people won’t fit with theirs.

Well, do you know what? They don’t have to. That is the point. That’s why the Labour Party exists. It’s not for the middle class. Perhaps it wouldn’t be for me and I would choose not to vote for it. We all have that right. But I think middle class people who think that the Labour Party shouldn’t change because they might not like it anymore need to have a bloody good look at themselves and wonder why they have ever supported it!

Human Rights Day: Defend Free Speech!

Today is Human Rights Day and as a contribution to raising the issue as we head towrds the General Election it is necessary to remind people that all our rights depend on Free Speech.

There can be no Human Rights without Free Speech!

And yet everywhere there is a growing tendency towards censorship which began in of all places out universities which should be the centre of of developing and discussing ideas both past and present for the future. These are after all our centres of learning.

The Times reported

Academics accused a leading gay rights charity of suppressing academic freedom by encouraging a “censorious” approach to gender identity.

In a letter to The Times more than 20 professors, researchers and lecturers say that many British universities have adopted policies on transgender issues from a template drawn up by Stonewall that does not allow criticism from academics who take a different view.

The stance goes well beyond legal requirements of equality law but academics who question Stonewall’s position risk harassment and complaints from students or colleagues, they say.

Signatories of the letter co-ordinated by Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at Sussex University, include Simon Fanshawe, former chairman of Sussex University council and one of the founders of LGB Alliance, which in October broke away from Stonewall over its approach to transgender issues.


The letter was written in support of Rachel Ara, an artist who is crowdfunding a legal case against Oxford Brookes University for its last-minute cancellation of tutorials and a lecture she was due to give last month. The artist, who is gay and draws a distinction between biological sex and gender identity, said the university’s LGBTQ+ society wrote to the vice-chancellor criticising her invitation. The university said at the time that correct procedures had not been followed.

The LGB Alliance have written a letter to the Vice Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University in support of artist Rachel Ara:

Dear Vice Chancellor

Misrepresentation of LGB Alliance and banning Rachel Ara

Allow us to introduce ourselves. We are the founders of the new LGB Alliance.

It is concerning that the LGBTQ+ society at Oxford Brookes is reported to have described our organisation as being “openly transphobic” and “seeking to isolate trans people within the LGBTQ+ movement”.

As a result of her apparent support for the LGB Alliance, an event featuring artist Rachel Ara to be held on 19th November was cancelled. The LGBTQ+ society sent a letter to Anne-Marie Kilday - condemning the invitation - which it seems the Pro Vice Chancellor then withdrew.

We imagine the news that an artist was banned from speaking at Oxford Brookes sends shudders down your spine. Are Universities not the perfect place for informed dialogue and respectful free speech? And would it not be reasonable to expect an institution like Oxford Brookes to find out whether LGB Alliance is “openly transphobic” before accepting that accusation from a student society?

The LGB Alliance held our inaugural meeting on 22 October with an invited audience of former employees and supporters of the lobby group Stonewall, doctors, psychiatrists, academics and lawyers with expertise in child safeguarding.

We expressed our intention to challenge the unscientific concept of gender identity, our commitment to supporting the rights of LGB people, our wish to stop untested hormone treatment and surgery on young people who do not easily fit into gender stereotypes (particularly girls) and our commitment to respectful free speech and informed dialogue. I wonder which of these was thought by your Pro Vice Chancellor to be transphobic. It may also be of interest that one of our speakers was a trans woman called Miranda Yardley and there were other trans people present whom we had invited to the meeting.

We attach a link to the article in the Sunday Times describing what happened in case you have not seen it.

It is the view of the LGB Alliance that, at minimum, you should issue an apology to us as a group and Rachel Ara as an individual. It is most unfortunate that your institution has rushed to judgement on something about which you appear to know very little.

Finally, may we say that we would be delighted to speak to you, your Pro VC or your LGBTQ+ group if you would be interested in really understanding what we are about.

Kind regards Kate Harris & Bev Jackson

A week through the radio.....

In this age of fake news and misinformation on the Internet I still choose The Times, Radio 4 and the World Service for my primary source of news. In fact since my enforced retirement I watch very little TV other than for DVDs preferring the radio for information and entertainment. I also tune into Radio 4 extra for old fashioned comedy and sometimes drama.

For music there's Planet Rock or radio Caroline depending on my mood.

As we enter the last week of one of the most divided and cantankerous general Elections I remember with so many people voting against the one they dislike rather than for their choice. Same for me. I am voting against Corbyn not that this will surprise my readers.

However at the beginning of the week I caught the tail end of a Radio 4 documentary about the millions of people who don't vote. There are so many and questions were asked bout whether voting should be compulsory or not. I believe people should use their vote but no one should be compelled to.

Thing is there are so many   who really do choose to say "None of the above" for a whole variety of reasons. A lot of those interviewed said their vote didn't make a difference. Many of these lived in "safe seats" where a donkey standing for the dominant local party would get elected.  I'm sure there are a few but I digress...

What really bothered me were those who said they didn't understand any of it. Some people take no notice of politics whatsoever. I was always shocked that one of my managers in the civil service admitted she never read a paper or watched the news. Strange especially in a public servants case. We had to always ensure impartiality which meant at least keeping a minimum eye on current affairs.

Then there was a programme about Lawrence of Arabia from the time when Britain was a, if not the major power in the world. It seems that our dramatising of the man was not shared by the Arabs. they mentioned him as a figure in their struggle but not to the extent that warranted a cinematic epic as much as I liked the film. Our imperial past still influences many in the background.

Today we were treated to a programme about the fall out between Hindu's and Sikhs in this Country following the Indian governments storming The Golden Temple in Amritsar held by Sikh militants. Three hundred people were killed. This was followed by Indira Ghandi's assassination by her Sikh bodyguards. Tragedy all round that reached our streets for a while.

The programme then turned to Ray Honeyford  a Head Teacher in a Bradford school who wrote about the problems of the failure of cultural integration. This led to protests outside his school by Sikhs. Something happening over LGB rights in Coventry today. My how times don't change just the groups that protest. This time it was local Muslims  prompted by extremists in their community.

Which brings me back to the coming election. With the possibility of large scale tactical voting the seeming collapse of the Brexit Party vote and many traditional Labour voters rejecting Corbyn the road ahead is set with difficulty. At least election night should prove interesting so plenty of strong coffee ladies and gents.

Return to you sofas for the election results!

In the meantime The Who's new album is released today. It's much more pleasant listening than yet another droning contest between Boris and Compo.

Demonstrate Against Anti-Semitism!

Together Against Antisemitism  

National Solidarity Rally

Parliament Square London SW1

Sunday 8th December 

13:15 to 14:30

 Sponsored by Campaign Against Anti-Semitism & Together Against Anti-Semitism

Labour's dangerous manifesto reviewed

Guest Post by Armin Hartinger

This election so far has been unparalleled with hyperbole and vitriol and it seems a forlorn hope to try to make a difference with an article which is, if we're honest, alarmist.

But I shall do my utmost to articulate my points both comprehensively and concisely and hopefully adequately referenced.

Plenty has been written about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Labour's many pledges for social reform. Also plenty has been written about the danger of putting a self-avowed Marxist chancellor in charge of a liberal market economy.

But not enough has been written about Momentum's Labour being a clear and present danger to our democracy. It certainly sounds brazenly alarmist, but ever since I've read the 2019 Labour manifesto in its entirety, have I felt compelled to try to articulate my concerns for I think they've not been given enough coverage in the media.

This is mostly based on the pledges in the Labour manifesto [1] itself, which I will reference by page and if it had been discussed in the press prior to the manifesto launch itself, also with a few links.

Let's start with some facts together with relatively fair but biased commentary.

Item 1 - The voting franchise

On page 82, it is pledged to give full voting rights to all non-citizen UK residents and lower it to 16. As the manifesto itself puts it, "largest extension of the franchise in generations". Now, the voting age has already been lowered to 16 in Scotland and full voting rights are already applicable to some Commonwealth citizens, but even discounting that, we are looking at expanding the electorate by around 8% in one go, to the tune of probably just shy of another 4M voters. With a demographic which I think is fair to say has a strong bias in favour of Labour. We all know how this plays out in those marginals under first-past-the-post.

The extension of the franchise to such a Labour-friendly demographic, while cheesy, isn't per se objectionable, even if I disagree with it, however the distinct lack of an intent to let the UK voting population decide on that themselves in a legally binding referendum absolutely is. To so radically dilute the voting franchise without a public vote on this is profoundly undemocratic.

Item 2 - Abolishing of the House of Lords

On page 81, Labour pledges to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate of Nations and Regions.

Here again, that by itself is not objectionable per se, even if I disagree with this as well. What is concerning however is the desire to not merely reform the way new members are appointed, but to completely do away with it.

The appointed Lords are typically topic experts which are critical to perform expert reviews of proposed legislation while at the same time also more politically detached. Furthermore, in this constitutional monarchy without a constitution, many of those checks and balances which guarantee our rights and freedoms are entangled in arcane rules and roles in the Commons, and the Lords! There is also the question of the Supreme Court, which established in 2005, has taken over roles formerly in the Lords. How far this was successful has seemingly never been explored.

Allowing anyone to change the nature of the roles of the second chamber of parliament requires an extraordinary trust and faith in the competency and integrity of whoever is going to attempt it.

And again, no mention of allowing the population at large an actual say in the matter if they even want this. Via referendum or any other mechanism.

Item 3 -  A constitution for the UK

Also on page 81, Labour pledges to renew Parliament through a Constitutional Convention, led by a citizens' assembly and issuing recommendations.

There is no mention of how this convention will appoint its members and how much weight the recommendations will have and -again- if the people at any point will be polled if they want this constitution, or even this "renewal" process to begin with. Both items are of grave concern.

We should also note in this context the language in the manifesto "how a Labour government can best put power in the hands of the people", which clearly implies that the power isn't in the hands of the people already. That is noteworthy.

Item 4 - Brexit

On page 91, Labour pledge to negotiate their own Brexit deal with the EU scrap existing Brexit legislation and introduce their own "in line with Labour’s priorities" and to deliver a legally binding "final say" referendum. Outside of the manifesto, Corbyn has pledged a neutral stance on said referendum [2].

With this stance public, negotiations will be severely hampered. Which is noteworthy. It also must be said that even with a professedly neutral stance, any presentation of a deal after having invested time forging it and having brought it to signable state, carries an endorsement.

This is important for two reasons:

First, we should once and for all consider the Brexit stance of the Labour leadership to be pro-Brexit. The incentives of leaving the influence and/or control of the EU institutions are simply too powerful and this in my view explains this willingness to give away negotiating strength positions, for they simply pale in importance if one considers leaving the primary objective.

Second, at some point the last Labour Remain stalwarts will realise that they have been duped all along and this will cause an irreparable permanent rift within the party at which point Labour will break apart if not for extraordinary measures. But for now they are needed, so they are being nursed along. As this is a known likely outcome, it stands to reason that if given the choice between a liberal and an authoritarian path of transferring power "to the people", the latter will take precedence in the interest of the party being able to maintain power in the future.

Item 5 - Non-government seats of political power

Here it must be noted, that any new organisation, a fund, or a commission, or however you wish to call it, is subject to potentially being abusively stacked by yes-men and ideological cronies of those who created it. Something to keep in mind, not just for this election for it applies not just for when individuals are replaced in say in the US supreme court, but anywhere especially if an organisation is created or replaced wholesale. Such  unofficial political appointments are typically extremely hard to dislodge.

5.1 The Unions

On Page 62, Labour pledges to repeal anti-trade union legislation, including the Trade Union Act 2016. Note that the above not necessarily refers to the 2016 act alone. On page 62, this is called "Remove unnecessary restrictions on industrial action". Outside of the manifesto, it has been reported that Labour intends to bring back sympathetic strike action [3], including in support of workers abroad [4]. Who or what decides what "necessary" actually means, is anyones guess.

On page 14, trade unions are guaranteed to be a stakeholder in each of the Local Transformation Funds, which are going to be in charge of the distribution of billions of investment.

It's anyone's guess how much will remain of the requirement for secret and fair ballots prior to any strike action. Also what remains of the requirement of 50% of work force support prior to mandatory unionisation. In that context, as per page 17 it is required that all companies bidding for public contracts must recognise their trade unions. Aside from the aforementioned 50%, the voluntary recognition threshold is 10% currently. In effect that means that the mandatory recognition threshold goes down to 10% for any company bidding on public contracts, amounting to near-full unionisation of all industry and commerce.

5.2 Utilities

On page 7, Labour pledges to bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership.

5.3 Internet

Also on page 7, Labour pledges to deliver full-fibre broadband to everybody for free.

By pricing all private providers out of the market, that amounts to the creation of a state monopoly no different to the utilities above. Does it need to be pointed out, that whoever controls access to the Internet, controls the entire Internet experience and is capable of complete censorship to the users? A nation-wide firewall akin to what China has, would become a real possibility, if so desired.

5.4 Private Enterprise

On page 64, Labour will require "one-third of boards to be reserved for elected worker-directors". Please note that this is nowhere close to the German system of having separate consultation boards called a "Betriebsrat" which are ensuring worker representation in decision making.

On page 60, Labour pledges to create IOFs - Inclusive Ownership Funds which will own 10% of companies and pay out a dividend of up to £500 per worker the rest being distributed to a state-controlled fund.

This amounts to a part-confiscation of all private enterprise.

Please note that the manifesto does not mention a limit on the size of the companies to which IOFs will apply. It was reported previously to be limited to companies of 250 employees and above.

5.5 Education

Aside from scrapping SAT tests stage 1 and 2 (page 39) and replacing Ofsted (p40), Labour is to create a National Education Service (p37), abolish university tuition fees (p41) and intends to integrate all private schools (p40) into the NES.

As per page 41, "Labour will make lifelong learning a reality".

A lifelong state monopoly, with entrenched teachers unions, accountable to no one but the state, with all forms of schooling subject to state control.

5.6 Social Justice Commission

As per page 64, Labour will replace the Social Mobility Commission with a Social Justice Commission, based in the Treasury, with wide-ranging powers to hold us, and future governments, to account.

Yeah sure, I could possibly find no fault with a loosely worded commission which has wide-ranging powers to enforce the so clearly defined concept of social justice.

Did this come across as cynical? Sorry. Not sorry.

TYING IT ALL TOGETHER

Let's try to weave this all together into one cohesive narrative. You might have skipped to this section after losing patience with the all the stuff listed above. It's already been the shortened version. I understand and I'll try my best regardless.

More than any manifesto by any party or any individual I have ever read, the Labour Manifesto 2019 seems to be about a transfer of power and it makes no attempts to even hide it. Hiding in plain sight, as they say. In favour of socialist ideology and with an unparallelled capacity to be abused in bad faith. It is not a coincidence that people like Corbyn and McDonnell have in the past made their intention clear to transfer power "irreversibly" in a state populated with "cradle-to-grave" state services. This should send any committed democrat a shiver down their spine. In a liberal democracy, nothing should be irreversible and the state should have monopolies only when absolutely necessary.

I wrote at the beginning that Momentum Labour presents a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Now, let's be fair. Let's call this a worst-, or at least bad-case scenario, of a Labour leadership, which instead of a group of moderate social democrats primarily concerned with the preservation of our rights and essential freedoms, were a group of radical socialists primarily concerned with establishing a socialist republic perhaps even with "democratic" in its name but not in practise, like they all were.

Like many non-violent attempts in history at taking permanent control of a country, this is best achieved by subverting and changing existing institutions to preserve a veneer of legitimacy. It would do so first by shifting the voting demographic in its favour so should any plebiscites be necessary in the pursuit of the ideological goals, or if the implementation of irreversible change exceeds the length of one legislative period and more another contested general elections (or by-elections) must be fought, that these have a high degree of success.

This is achieved by extending the voting franchise to the young and to migrants (I forgot to mention right-to-work for refugees on arrival p71) and by buying the votes of the students by scrapping tuition fees. In my opinion, not by coincidence a portion of the demographic less familiar with the working and political life in the UK than the rest of the population.

It is those students, which can be mobilised as necessary, which are a seat if not primarily one of political power, but one of force (potentially disruptive) to be wielded.

More potentially disruptive force can be wielded through the power of unfettered unions, which together with sympathetic strikes and full unionisation of all utilities can hold the public to ransom for all sorts of ideologically-driven demands.

A state-controlled education monopoly ensures that the young are suitably educated to the expectations of the state alone.

Control of Internet access ensures that alternative ideological influence is being filtered out.

Having part-ownership and part-control of nearly all companies together with near-full unionisation ensures the compliance of private industry. If that influence then reaches as far as editorial control of the press is up to anyone's imagination.

And if all that were not enough, the lack for a requirement for a super-majority (as in other countries) to make constitutional level change through a new constitution, means that our future rights and freedoms are literally up to defined by the Labour leadership. For better or worse. At this point it should also repeated, that for none of these items a public mandate via a referendum is being sought.

But we are a country with a proud long-standing legal tradition, so any possible violation of property rights or personal freedoms would be subject to legal challenge at the Supreme Court (staffed by Lords - Lords, what Lords? Whoops!), which functioning might or might not be tied to the House of Lords (Abolished! Whoops!) or subject to interference by the EU commission in Brussels (Brexit whoops!) or the EU parliament in Strasbourg (Brexit whoops!) or legal challenge at the EU court in Kirchberg (Brexit wops!). We'd have to helplessly witness our rights and freedoms being redefined without us being able to do anything about it.

So the bottom line to all this boils down to this: We are expected to have faith into a Labour Party leadership lead by a lifelong radical socialist, who is surrounded by various "ex"-communists, flanked by a Marxist chancellor, to completely rework and redefine our democratic process and our democratic framework and that in the process of these they will act completely responsibly and neutrally and will not abuse the power thus granted to the to them -by virtue of winning the election alone- to their ideological benefit.

I find that notion to be completely ridiculous and I hope that I speak not just for me, but also for you by stating:

WE DO NOT WISH TO HAND RADICAL SOCIALISTS THIS KIND OF POWER. NOT NOW. NOT EVER.

-------------------------------

[1] https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/jeremy-corbyn-defends-his-pledge-to-stay-neutral-in-second-referendum
[3] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-backs-workers-right-20935812
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/john-mcdonnell-labour-will-let-workers-taking-sympathy-action-for-overseas-counterparts