I have had some emails asking me to delete the user accounts of some Tories on this site, most commonly calling for the removal of the user "madasafish".

http://www.labourhome.org/user/madasafish/comments

If you think any Tory users are overstepping the bounds on Labourhome, please could you tell me in this thread - or indeed make a case defending them - and I'll take a decision about deletion.

Thanks,

Alex Hilton
07985 384 859
alexhilton@gmail.com

For the tories who read this site, you really need to work on your vision which has less substance than Cameron.

1. Give people more opportunity and power over their lives
2. Make families stronger and society more responsible
3. Make Britain safer and greener

Hello I’m back again, more angry than before. Last time I was saying how we should be campaigning for a fourth Labour term instead of a Labour leadership change. And today the Tories are reminding us why Britain needs that fourth Labour term.

I was struck by a conversation I had with some fellow comrades at a birthday party over the weekend. Whilst it started with the usual lament over how badly things were going for Gordon at the moment but it quickly turned to an annoyance and quiet anger that the Conservatives were getting such an easy time of it.

Check out this “Inside Housing” email bulletin.  The title of the actual article is the slightly less controversial “Boris lets Tory council slash social housing”. 

It refers to the decision by Boris’s deputy mayor, Ian Clement, to let Tory Council Hammersmith & Fulham approve a new large development with NO social housing at all.  This was only just weeks after the GLA’s own planners branded it “unacceptable”.  This is in White City, which is an area of massive waiting lists and housing need.  The Council even owns the land. 

In order to alleviate overcrowding developers are usually required to set aside a percentage of new build properties for social housing.  The Tories reckon that the area already has enough social housing in that area so bringing in 100% private ownership will for example reduce “housing benefit” claims. 

I am sure of course that this has nothing to do with past Tory Westminster Council “gerrymandering”.  Obviously reserving this development for only private homebuyers has nothing to do with any attempt by this newly elected Tory Council to get rid of pesky social housing tenants? Who might even (God forbid) vote Labour in local elections?  Of course not!

Just wanted to draw attention to this blog post in the Guardian on this subject

So mr Gove how do you explain this little gem.

On the day of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday, let us just remember some of the moral judgements of the Tories.

Colleagues, I hope we’re paying attention and taking note of what the Tories say and write these days. To avoid complete hypocrisy - the criticism they level at the Government now, should be the standard they are rigidly held to later.

If we do, the next Tory government could be a one term affair - unless of course the Tories are genuine - which I doubt.

The words of a union insider to me this week, reacting to Tory suggestions that next week's National Policy Forum will involve a 'dodgy deal' as part of the second Warwick Agreement. I report for Tribune magazine, and on my blog I've posted some thoughts on the atmosphere I've encountered this week. Comments welcome.

Some say that there is no difference between the parties. I spend most of my time on these blogs pointing out why this is not true

David Cameron’s lecture to the fat and poor in Glasgow yesterday to “take responsibility” was the classic statement of conservatism. If the people are poor, it’s their own fault. Or as Dave puts it, “social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make”. The Glasgow citizens aren’t merely people suffering unemployment, ill health and poor housing. They have “twisted values” that have “eaten away at our social fabric". And as it’s the 21st century we have an update to this Victorian morality – they’re not just poor but they’re fat. So we can attack them for that too.

From the Tory Diary at Conservativehome:

Compassionate Conservatism is fundamentally the right thing to do, morally, but there are two different forms of electoral politics at work here, too.  An agenda for the very poorest will win few direct votes but tells middle class and other comfortable voters that the Conservatives are a decent party that won't leave people behind.

So David Davis stands on a platform opposing ID cards, despite only abstaining when Michael Howard ordered his MP's to vote for the legislation.

He opposes the DNA databases and CCTV cameras that his dear leader came up with, as an adviser to Michael Howard.

But his real scandals aren't just supporting capital punishment and Section 28. The real civil liberty scandals are much, much worse.

Why do the Tories say not a word on the government attacking legal aid? Because the government has created 3,000 criminal offences, the legal aid budget soared. So they are attacking it. Of course, the Tories probably want to cut it, but not for the same reasons.

Or, what about the fact that in the last 30 years, around 1,000 black men have died in police custody? When the MacPherson report recommended measures to prevent racism in the police forces, the Tories denounced it as "political correctness". These are small measures, like logging the ethnicity of those they stop in the streets, to stop police harassing black men. That is the kind of 'paperwork' the Tories want to rid us of.

Howard was challenged by Doreen Lawrence about his opposition to these reforms at the last election. He stuttered "I didn't know I was going to be asked about this".

And the piece de resistance. Last year, a cause of mine was brought to the forefront of the attention of those here in Britain. It was that of the Burmese opposition. The crime of Aung Sun Suu Kyi is to have won an election.

At the last election, David Davis admitted, and yet kept a policy to be elected on, that is the greatest butchering of civil liberties. Jeremy Vine asked him, whether if the Tories proposed to withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, would mean turning away Aung Sun Suu Kyi if she turned up on our boarders seeking asylum.

He was forced to admit that yes, it would mean turning her away.

The so called leading libertarian in this country, so concerned about civil liberties admitted that he would turn away one of the world's leading fighters against tyranny.

Wow.

After the Tories accusing Labour of sleaze in the past few months, have the Conservatives not been watching their back yard enough?

It is often said that New Labour are just Tories. I'm disappointed in the government for not showing its left-wing policies. Furthermore, they too often make right-wing noises on welfare, taxation, the uber-rich, prisons and immigration.

But if you want a more accurate defenition of this government, I suggest to you what I've done: don't listen to anything the government SAYS. Ever. Look at what they do.

There is an older group in our party, who can maintain Campaign group style scepticism of American foreign policy, or Europe, but who have firm anti-fascist credentials. People like Harry Barnes, Ann Cryer and Dave Anderson can maintain scepticism of our foreign policy, but do not pretend that even when a repugnant Republican administration is in power, that the United States is the enemy. They do not fail to criticise both sides, and understand that Islamic jihadism is a form of modern day Naziism. They understand that sectarian warfare wouldn't just be solved with a United Ireland, or giving Bin Laden "what he wants" (does that include Spain? Will a misogynist, gay hating anti-semite who says that the worst act commited in the West is Clinton's affair with Lewinsky suddenly declare peace if we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?). They seek to make sure that we defeat Islamic fundamentalism with aggression in our hearts, rather than through weapons. They care more deeply about rebuilding Iraq, and defeatin World Bank neo-liberalism than saying "See? Told you."

It seems to me, that because of our foreign policy, the left will not endorse any left-wing domestic policy (or they endorse it quietly, or worse, ignore it). It perhaps gives a justification to the government, to continue with triangulation. But let us run through why this government, while it can be more left-wing in many areas, is still on the left.

Ray Lewis, Deputy Mayor of LONDON has resigned with immediate effect due to allegations of serious corruption.

24 hours earlier, Boris - the clown-mayor of london stood side by side with Mr Lewis and expressed FULL CONFIDENCE in his sleazy deputy. The allegations included sexual impropriety. (the tories favoured form of sleaze)

 

 

I have always been sceptical of affirmative action. I do however, support Barack Obama's policy on affirmative action, on the basis of economic background.

In the UK, when UCAS forms have to be filled in, the detail of your parents' education has to be mentioned. The right-wing media immedietly denounced this. Consider this. One student who went to an expensive nursery, then a private primary school, followed by an Eton education, enjoying one-on-one tuition, and then further private tuition and gets 3 A's, is compared with a student who gets 3 B's, lives on a council estate, and went to a comp with 25 people per class, having to work every night in a fast food restaurant to bring in money for their family. Isn't it probable, that in equal circumstances, the second student would do much better than the first?

Nonetheless, I was sceptical of this current bill. My worry was that affirmative action would just cream off richer women and minorities.

But I read in the papers (which I still maintain I loathe), of an encounter in Westminster:

David Heathcote-Amory, saw a black woman walking on the member's terrace and demanded to know if she was an MP. "Yes, I am actually. Are you?" Dawn Butler, the former adviser to Ken Livingstone replied. He snapped to his colleagues: "They're letting anybody in nowadays."

The same slanders against this bill, were said of one of the best acts of the Wilson administration, the Equal Pay act.

Harriet Harman has consistantly maintained loyalty to the government, but fought hard for progressive policies against people like John Hutton (why doesn't he just defect to the opposition?).

She reminded me in dark times, why I was a Labour voter. The pay gap between full-time workers is 17%, and between part-time workers, a shocking 40%. She said: "Do we think she is 40 per cent less hard-working, less intelligent, less qualified?"

It is a major factor in low pay that 70% of those on the minimum wage are women, and 40% of part-time workers are on the minimum wage. Feminism isn't some metropolital liberal worry about not enough female FTSE 100 directors, it is at our red beating heart of social justice.

Apparently though, not all agree. The Daily Mail has suprisingly been against this, normally being a much more wise and thoughtful paper. They say that women "choose less well-paid jobs" because they want "more time with their families". The Mail would have to imagine that every woman had a family, and that they had them in teenage years for this to be true (oh, wait, they DO think that every teenager is pregnant). The pay gap sets in long before women decide to have children (and contrary to the Mail's warnings, women are having children much later).

The Women and Work commission found that after just 5 years, the pay gap between those who have earned first-class degrees is 15%.

Indeed, the bill doesn't go far enough. Harman had to compromise with Hutton (who I just want to deport) on pay audits. Also, it was the Tories who not long ago, were mocking the government for not supporting pay audits.

Why do many conservatives like to pretend that there is no ideology in between cut-throat, tough luck, lassez-faire Thatcherism, and throw-you-in-the-gulag communism? These particular conservatives are more politically ignorant than I thought.

Pay audits, whereby private firms who underpay female workers can be named and shamed, enhance economic competition. It strengthens our economy, and social justice at the same time.

On the most contraversial part of the bill, it doesn't ban white men from getting jobs, as spun by the Express. It gives employers a legal right to balance skewed workforces, whether largely female/male or white/thnic minority. They are under no legal requirement. I have been to primary schools where the workforce was largely female, as have been the secondary schools I've been to. Employers would have the right to balance the workforce with more males. That's it. This is what the controversy has been about.

Now we return to another fine Labour woman, Barbera Castle. The same arguments were shot at her, word for word. We apparently can't afford gender equality in a time of 'recession'. This argument is potent, as most low-paid are women, so the wages of the low-paid would rise.

It is the same principle as tax cuts for the rich during times of recession. A recession used to be when a factory owner had to close his fourth factory. If you give tax cuts to the rich, he will open a fifth, failing factory, and spend the rest on boats and cars. If you give tax cuts to the bottom half, they will go out and spend the money in the local economy, allowing the factory owner to re-open the fourth factory. Everybody wins.

A feminist agenda would do wonders for the economy. The estimated NPV of universal childcare, on a neutral estimate in 2003 would have been £40 billion over 65 years. The top estimate, was £93 billion. Wasting women's education and skills costs us £23 billion a year.
Don't believe me? In Norway, they mandated that 40% on corporate boards had to be female, and business growth soared. Mckinsey found that stock growth went up by 53%, when there were more women in senior positions.


Never fall for David Cameron. He defines himself as a 'progressive'. That doesn't mean anything. Would anyone call themselves 'regressive'? George Osbourne says there is "much to learn" from George W. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism'.

This is what Boris Johnson ran on. His first act? Slashing half-price bus fares for poor Londoners. Would he be bewildered to know that many can't afford 4x4's? Apparently not. About driving these Chelsea tractors he says:

"Tee hee, I said to myself ... out of my way, small car driven by ordinary person on modest income. Make way for the Nissan Murano."

It isn't that the Tories are toffs (they are). It's that some can go to private schools, which allows them to be shocked by low pay, and poverty. Harriet Harman follows in the tradition of people like Attlee who have done so. Most of the Tories don't know any other world though.

This bill defines what Labour is for, and I hope it starts the process of bringing back soul to the party.