Navigating the Compass conference

Sorry, I can’t resist a pun, however, I was in fact recommended to become a “navigator” by one of the workshop speakers, so perhaps it is actually quite apt. The 4th annual conference of “Compass” took place yesterday at Central Hall, Westminster. The web site claims “Compass is the democratic left pressure group, whose goal is to debate and develop the ideas for a more equal and democratic world, then campaign and organise to help ensure they become reality”.



The journey to Westminster was a bit confusing. The district and circle lines where closed due to engineer works (which caused the conference to start very late). A practice of the “Trooping of the Colour” was also taking place close by at Horseguards. The conference went on all day. I will break this up into 2 posts, morning speeches and them post something later on work shops and closing session.

Neal Lawson, chair of Compass, was the first keynote speaker. I think he was trying to attack the current labour government while at the same time saying he was giving Brown the benefit of the doubt. He was “optimistic” over Brown and wanted to move beyond the “politics of betrayal”. However, the left must offer Brown support when he gets things “right” and constructive but friendly criticism when he gets things wrong. I bet Brown can’t wait for the constructive stuff. He ended by reminding people that it was Margaret Thatcher (of all people) who said “socialism is never defeated”.

Dave Prentis, the general secretary of UNISON (who had sponsored the conference) spoke next and gave a well received speech. He spoke about a new political landscape that is taking place “another world is possible”. A “new course for our country”. “Gordon says he is listening, our job is to make sure he is”.

Then Deputy Leader of the TUC Frances O’Grady, who was introduced by the great “hope” of the trade union movement! More good stuff on managing globalisation (see previous posts).

An extra speaker was Mustafa Barghouti, Palestine information minister (a former Presidential candidate and not Hamas – seen as a “moderate”) who gave a tub thumping speech on Palestine. While it went down well with the audience, I don’t think simply blaming Israel for all the ills in the region is going to change things. In fact I think that such rhetoric lets Israel off the hock, since most people would accept that in this complex conflict there is more than one party to blame (including the British) and will dismiss his views as mere propaganda. Which just plays into Israeli’s hands and enable them to successfully paint all their opponents as extremists and terrorists who they can’t do business with? I think that Mustafa knows this.

Final speaker was Ken Livingston. Another Bravo performance. Part “cheeky chappie” part Left intellectual and free thinker. He admitted that in the past the Left has been wrong about how to respond to globalisation. Giving subsidies to London manufacturing industries had completely failed to do anything to protect them. Instead he has now gone on the offensive for social progress by acting globally. London was part of an international consortium made up of the 40 biggest cities in the world. Which had combined to use their purchasing power to arrange multi-billion loans to retro fit for energy efficient, purposes every public building in London? Nothing to do with central government. Ken said “this is globalisation” not just leaders going to international conferences held in nice hotels. He finished by talking about local income taxes which if he could set at 2% in London would solve practically all its social problems. He recognised that you need to set taxes at a point which is a bit painful but not so painful that they (City financial services) would “bugger off”.

see picture on main blog of Tower Hamlets Labour Party activists Cllr Anwara Ali (and local GP), Cllr Bill Turner (UNISON member) and Law centre worker Amina Ali (who has been short listed as a PPC in Bristol)
I'll post the report on the workshops and closing sessions later



Display: Sort:

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#1)

Am I missing something in Ken's apparent solution against globalisation??? I'd think that energy-efficient public buildings and 2% extra local tax would INCREASE our costs while we face cheaper (Chinese) imports that're destroying our jobs. I find Ken's twisted interpretation of the term "globalisation" (if reported correctly) rather off the mark. I think the TUC is taking a more substantial approach by insisting that child-labour is not used for Olympic goods: we should extend this line of argument and refuse to buy products which are sweat-labour based. That'll not only improve workers' rights/conditions GLOBALLY, but bring up the prices closer to reality.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#5)

Hi Sian I think that the global agreement on funding to make public buildings e/e was suppose to be self financing. Ken's argument (rightly or wrongly) was that it would make financial sense and be very environmentally positive. It would be an example of positive globalisation! The 2% local income tax was in his very Cheeky Chappie vein, he knows he will not get 2% however, there is a very good arguable case that the UK should fund local taxation via income tax rather that council tax

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#8)

First, thanks, but still, hopefully you'd concur with me that signing a global (albeit green) agreement is not what "globalisation" is normally understood as; that should be called an "international" (not global) financial arrangement perhaps. Secondly, isn't local income tax essentially a LibDem idea? Surely the "poor" pensioners living in million-pound houses in Wimbledon would "luv" it! ;-)

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#11)

Hi Sian - I think that Ken is right about the use of term "globalisation" in this context. After all Globalisation is mostly about "international financial arrangements". So far the "right" have dominated the globalisation agenda. This initiative by international cities changes the rules (somewhat). There are problems with a local income tax; it is an idea that has been floating about for a long time. Council tax is usually regressive. I don't want Labour to return to penal income tax rates (98 %?) but I do think that the very rich are not paying enough tax relative to the enormous incomes some of them have. There has to be a balance, and at the moment the balance is wrong.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#2)

Yes a good conference but I think the Mustafa Barghouti presentation was a mistake. Although I think Mr Barghouti is a moderate who recognises Israel he did not say this in his speech. He spoke of Palestinian women and children being killed in the violence, but not about Israeli women and children being killed by rocket fire. He simply called for the Palestinian authority to be recognised, but as he knows, this won't happen unless Hamas renounces terrorism more explicitly. The EU are in fact pretty close to recognising the authority but this speech will not help the Palestinian cause. Compass' credibility has not been helped by this misjudgement.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#3)

Indeed. I think we need to have a more neutral view on Israel/Palestine. We can't only condemn Palestinean refugee camps being bulldozed, but not condemn a bus shelter being blown up in Tel Aviv. I always remember that zionism has always been an important part of socialism.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#4)

That was when the Jewish peoples were the oppressed; now they are the oppressers; Zionism is the equivalent of Facism these days, and I for one, have lost complete sympathy with the Israelis, and that includes the Israeli Labour Party and the founders of Israeli socialism, people like Shimon Peres, pale shadows of what they once were and what they once stood for.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#6)

Swatantra - please don't fall into the trap of equating Zionism with Fascism. This is what the extremists on all sides want. A lasting peace in the region will only come about via compromise and negotiations on all sides. Your recipe is for continual total war and potential genocide. Which may be what you want?

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#7)

I also would like to se a negotiated settlement and that means israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders, with an explicit regognition of a viable Palestianian State, and Jerusalem designated as an 'international city' rather like the old post war Berlin, under the control of Israel, Palestine and perhaps the Vatican or the UN.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#9)

I feel all the comrades are talking (sometimes even rather excitedly!) at cross-purposes perhaps: though all are right from their own point of view. The fundamental problem is (or was, historically) POLITICAL: to begin with, the Palestinians of course didn't like the idea of "foreign" Jews - mainly displaced from Europe - would come and drive out the Arabs from their own land and artificially create Israel on Biblical grounds. (How far does one go back in history to reclaim land? - Can the Greeks go back to southern Italy???) So, despite Israel being recognised by the UN as a separate state, the Arabs tried to snatch it back MILITARILY in 1967; and failed. And Israel, realising its geographical vulnerability, seized this "opportunity" to grab the West Bank as a buffer zone, along with Jerusalem as an extra bargaining chip for future negotiations. And, as we all know, both sides have been trying to resolve this conflicting view MILITARILY (in their own self-rightous way!) ever since; and failing increasingly! However, I think, particularly in post-Soviet era, it can only be resolved ECONOMICALLY, and by the only super-power left: USA. If USA floods Palestine with development finance, the new generation - who doesn't have much firsthand nostalgic memory of living in Israel (unlike their fathers) - may eventually persuaded to grab the opportunity of a better life and gradually reconcile themselves with the economics bargain (instead of continuing to pay a high price for old politics). Sinn Fein and the Irish state (Eire) did very similar things. I think that's the 21st century conflict-resolution model we should all promote.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#10)

If one was to try and take a 'neutral view' of the Israel-Palestine conflict, you would have to conclude that the Palestinians are suffering almost immeasurably more from the actions of the Israeli state, than the Israelis are at the hands of Palestinian factions. I can't see how anyone could conclude otherwise and therefore I think it was a progressive step for Compass to invite Mustafa Barghouti to address the conference. Well done to Compass, addressing the key international issues, and on Barghouti's part - what a magnificent speech.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#12)

Hi repub I don't think that current events bares this out. Okay, Israeli usually out-gangsterises the Palastinians, but often not by much. The real point is, did Mustafa deliberately ignorant speech make peace more likely? Was there even a trace of a statemanship response? I think not.

Re: Navigating the Compass conference (#13)

"If one was to try and take a 'neutral view' of the Israel-Palestine conflict, you would have to conclude that the Palestinians are suffering almost immeasurably more from the actions of the Israeli state, than the Israelis are at the hands of Palestinian factions." I'm not really sure a neutral view on this conflict would be. Is it the view of someone who's not directly involved in the conflict? If so, there's an awful lot of different neutral views. I think Compass was right to invite this speaker - because it's valuable to hear what he has to say. That doesn't necessarily mean Compass or Labour should endorse his view of the conflict.