An Open Letter To John Bercow About The Speaker's Seat

I recognise that I have written about this situation before, but in light of the 1,967 spoilt ballots (9 Jun, 08:32 on the link) in the recent general election and John Bercow's pledge to ask the Procedure Committee, when Commons select committees are reformed, to reconsider the situation whereby four constituencies have no MP able to speak in debates or vote and one constituency has no properly contested election either, I have written the following letter to him:
Mr Bercow,
The situation with the Speaker's Seat, as it stands, cannot go on any longer. In the Buckingham constituency, electors (not me, since I was under 18 in 2010 and 2015 and very fortunately able to vote in Exeter (my university's constituency) in 2017) have had to vote in three elections where they were unable to express their support for one of three major parties separate to the other two - they have been unable to use their vote to express what policy program they wanted implemented in government. This is a big problem, it means that over 70,000 people are effectively disenfranchised.
The Procedure Committee previously said that the system wasn't worth changing because it would create another rank of MP, the Speaker would not be held accountable by constituents, and there would be no clear place for the Speaker to go after losing their position. They have also said that the Speaker has unprecedented access to ministers which accounts for the Speaker's inability to speak or vote in debates and you, Mr Bercow, have said before that your position is similar to that of a government minister - essentially unable to vote the way they personally wish in debates (and the existence of the Deputy Speakers ensures that, when votes are divided on partisan lines, there is no impact on which way that vote goes), but having more influence in government itself and the policies enacted by it.
On the 'another rank of MP' and accountability points, it seems it would be worth creating this 'new rank' to enfranchise over 70,000 people (over 280,000 people if you include the Deputy Speakers, who are similarly constrained although at least their voters have a choice in elections (which, I note, isn't said to affect the neutrality of said Deputy Speakers, so maybe the three major parties are wrong to stand aside in the Speaker's seat for the sake of defending the Speaker's neutrality)), and accountability could be maintained by the House of Commons who collectively represent the whole country rather than just one constituency. I note that in the Republic of Ireland the Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned at elections and they don't seem to view that as much of an issue there (their seat is not replaced by an elected member, but it's less of an issue there because their fairer voting system means that the Speaker's constituency has other representatives). Also, the whole public can hold the Speaker to account by writing to the Speaker's Office. If the Commons is still concerned about accountability, they could perhaps introduce some sort of national recall system for the Speaker, but I recognise this would be tricky to find consensus on and hard to organise. I think holding the public holding the Speaker to account via the Commons and the Speaker's Office is fine.
As for the Speaker having no place to go after losing their position, because, as the Procedure Committee says, it's not certain that elevation to the House of Lords will always be possible in the future, I don't think this should be much of a concern. If the Speaker, after losing or resigning their position, wishes to be elected to the House of Commons as a typical MP once more, they should use the typical mechanisms of doing so - probably joining a political party and seeking selection in that. It would be up to their individual candidacy and political parties to get them elected, which is the same for anyone else in the country who wishes to become an MP. I don't think that MPs become the Speaker just so they have a good chance of elevation to the House of Lords after their term as Speaker, they become the Speaker because they wish to run the prestigious institution that is the House of Commons, that wouldn't change under a St Stephen's Seat solution.
On the argument that the Speaker's access to government ministers compensates for the disenfranchisement of 70,000/280,000 people, um, it doesn't. Government ministers are still able to resign their position and vote against the government on a certain measure or find a clever way to abstain on an issue (Jeremy Wright (Attorney General) did that latter for HS2). They are also able to speak in debates, and they have significantly more leverage than the Speaker because their potential rebellion or publicly speaking out on a certain issue can force the government to change their minds (for example Conservative ministers thinking that Stella Creasy's amendment providing free abortion on the NHS for Northern Irish women was worth speaking out on and perhaps even rebelling on) and that then forcing the government to change their mind on the issue - a real policy outcome. Various u-turns during the 2015-2017 government were also caused by potential backbench rebellion. Obviously this force is stronger during governments with slimmer majorities and, thus, weaker mandates, but it also happens over governments with decent majorities, like the rebellion on ID cards during the Blair government.
So the Procedure Committee has got this wrong and they must not trample on the rights of 70,000/280,000 people to have proper elections and a proper MP respectively. They should implement the St Stephen's Seat solution which they are aware of. It's not a perfect solution, but in the absence of wider reaching voting reform (like using alternates as they do in France (I think?) and/or proportional representation, preferably STV in my view), it's the course that must be taken. I hope that you will put all these points to the Procedure Committee.
On top of all this, I invite the Procedure Committee to consider the number of spoilt ballots in Buckingham in 2010, 2015, and 2017 as well as consider that many upset by the system may not have voted and many may have voted for yourself, Mr Bercow, anyway or, indeed, for Scott Raven, the independent candidate protesting the system, or the Greens or UKIP (where they otherwise may have voted Labour, Lib Dem, or Conservative) in the 2017 election (similarly in 2010 and 2015) despite opposing the system. There's also been a number of petitions on the issue which have garnered a significant number of signatures.
Mr Bercow, I also call on you to speak out against the current system more publicly when you step down from your position as Speaker, as Speaker Boothroyd has done, since this issue will impact the next constituency whose MP decides to become the Speaker, and it will continue to affect the three constituencies whose MPs are Deputy Speakers.
Regards,
Adam Eveleigh

The Queen's Speech: What is it and what happened?

The Queen made a speech in the House of Lords on Wednesday. In her speech was the government's plans on what they want to do over the next two years (would usually be one year, but Prime Minister Theresa May cancelled next year's Queen's Speech). Over the next week, Parliament will debate the Queen's Speech and vote on it. If the government loses the vote, then this is considered a vote of no confidence in the government, though a proper vote of no confidence may need to be passed before the government calls a new general election. However, it's unlikely that the government would lose the vote on the Queen's Speech, because they're forging a deal with the DUP, who have enough seats for them to win the vote.
In this particular Queen's Speech, there was no mention of plans to end free school lunches and replace them with breakfasts in primary schools, repeal the Fixed-Terms Parliaments Act (which would allow the Prime Minister to call an election whenever they want without the permission of Parliament), introducing a 'dementia tax' to pay for social care, and no mention of a bill allowing new grammar schools or plans for a free vote on lifting the fox hunting ban. All of these things were in the Conservative manifesto (their plans of what they would do after the election) but seem to have been abandoned by the minority Conservative government - presumably because they don't think they could've passed these measures, some of them (all of them?) controversial, through Parliament.
In the Queen's Speech were, however, lots of measures to ensure that the UK can function after Brexit, with powers that were held by the European Union now to be held by the UK. A series of bills were announced to ensure that the UK uses these new powers - on customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards, and international sanctions. Announced plans for the economy were to ensure that there are electric car charging points in all motorway service stations and major fuel retailers, plans to allow more commercial spaceflights, plans on HS2, smart energy meters, simplify national insurance contributions, improve protection for holidaymakers, protect victims of domestic violence and abuse, crackdown on untrue whiplash claims and thus reduce motor insurance premiums, changes to how the courts work, creating a body responsible for coordinating the provision of debt advice, money guidance and pension guidance, give young people the right to require that social media platforms delete information held about them before they turned 18, and there are plans to set up an NHS body to investigate mistakes without an expensive lawyer-led inquiry.
On defence, the government proposes new opportunities for the army to serve in a way that helps them to better serve their family and that fits better with their life aspirations and their circumstances. Part-time service is included in this. On housing, the government pledges to ban letting fees, update mortgage laws from Victorian times. There are a few other miscellaneous bills planned too.
What do you think of the government's programme? Comment below!

The NHS needs more funding

It's easy to dismiss calls to properly fund the NHS, assuming that talk of 'crisis' is meaningless and assuming we don't have the money. But crisis means not being able to go to A&E when you're in an emergency, because it's shut, or an ambulance taking valuable extra time to go to an A&E further away, with the consequence that you might not get to the operating theatre on time and might die because the closer A&E was shut. It means really long waiting times. It means being on a trolley for hours because they have no beds, and even dying on the trolley. It means waiting ages for an operation and possibly being in extreme pain or discomfort until it happens.
It's easy to dismiss problems when they don't affect you, but they will, when you need the NHS and it's not there. How do we fund it? Well how did we fund Trident? Did anyone ask where the money was coming from for that? No! Because it was seen as essential, so the government was left to find the money itself. It should be the same for the NHS. Maybe the government needs to reverse its corporation tax cuts, or increase income tax, or borrow to invest in capital for social care or the NHS to reduce NHS running costs. But the important thing is that NHS funding is so essential that it has to be provided. It's not dependent on how the government finds the money, but it must find the money. Just as it did for Trident.
May said absolutely nothing about how she's going to solve the NHS crisis, though she used a lot of words to say nothing, apart from that she wants a 'long-term solution'. If that isn't more funding, and since she somehow claims it's already getting more funding, but clearly it needs still more, does that mean May just admitted to running down the NHS so she can privatize it?

It's no surprise the Tories won't fund the NHS properly, they want everything to be driven by the free market and the NHS is not. Gove tried to privatise education, to an extent, and look at how well that went! Yes it smacks of socialism, but healthcare and education should be provided free at the point of use, designed for people's needs, not dependent on how much money they have. No need to fragment the NHS with more internal market forces, just pay the doctors and nurses and all the other NHS workers to do their jobs. It worked for Norway with education (The Economist, 2013: page 4), they haven't changed their state system for decades but trusting teachers has paid off for them - they're one of the top in the PISA educational world rankings. The NHS will cost a lot, May is right on that, we have an aging population and we're not investing in social care, so costs will massively increase, but we've got to pay it! Otherwise A&Es will be shut when we so desperately need them.

Down's-selective abortion is a mistake

A new procedure is being rolled-out in the NHS which could potentially remove Down’s syndrome from society forever. On the face of it, this seems like a great thing, Down’s is a condition that many want a cure for, though Down’s children often give people great joy and live satisfying lives, but this particular procedure has some quite severe consequences if we follow through with it.

The current prenatal tests for Down’s syndrome are either fairly risky in that it the chance of the test procedure killing the child is about the same as the likelihood the child has the condition (and so not so many mothers take those tests as they would the new one), and they’re not particularly good at identifying when an unborn child has Down’s. The new test should soon be available on the NHS and ‘is done from week 10 of pregnancy and detects Down’s syndrome with 99% accuracy’. Whilst the procedure being safer is of course, in itself, a good thing, the consequence is that virtually every parent is likely to be expected to take this procedure by society and probably by the NHS – even if they don’t have to take the test – as is the case in Iceland. The negative consequence of this is that it becomes very difficult for a parent to choose to keep a child with Down’s syndrome. This is not because having a child with Down’s is depressing and life-ruining (indeed, Sally Phillips, who’s acted in Miranda and Bridget Jones, finds the opposite), though the dominant narrative is that it is, but because society and, thus, government, will probably not be so willing to provide support (practical and financial) for parents who make the explicit choice to have Down’s children. Because whilst it’s not necessarily depressing to have a child with Down’s, it’s certainly hard work, and society has to bear some of that burden. To avoid bearing this burden, society is likely to put pressure on prospective parents of Down’s children to abort them. So, actually, rather than freeing women to have the choice of whether they want to bring a Down’s child into the world or not and thus reducing the pressure on them, the pressure on them is potentially actually increased as they are forced to consider the impact this has on others and as they realise they may not be able to get the support they need.

In Iceland, where the new testing procedure for Down’s is used, 100% (or nearly 100%) of Down’s syndrome pregnancies have been terminated (according to the chair of the Down Syndrome Association in Iceland, apparently confirmed in the BBC documentary that aired October 5th 2016) possibly because of this pressure on women to choose a certain way. In Denmark, 98% of Down’s syndrome pregnancies in 2014 were terminated. In the Netherlands, in 2013, it was 74%. In the UK, it is 90%. In Denmark, screening is automatically planned when a woman is pregnant. In China, 95% of unborn babies with Down’s are aborted, with screening being encouraged.

Is this really just the woman’s personal choice to abort or is society pressuring women into this? With the new test, it is estimated that an extra 195 babies with Down’s could be diagnosed in England and Wales. Given the 90% rate, this means that around 175 more Down’s babies per year could be aborted if the new test is used widely (as it would if introduced in the NHS). The person who wrote the study claims that actually most of these pregnancies with a positive Down’s diagnosis with the new test wouldn’t abort, but given that this person is also the developer of the new test it’s difficult to trust her statement. Really, the only practical consequence of the introduction of this new test, in the long-term, is that it could be that a whole group of people is wiped out because society deems them as abnormal, unwanted and burdensome.

Further, this test and subsequent abortions opens the door to abortions based on selection for other non-life-threatening conditions. People could choose to abort because their unborn is child is diagnosed with autism or schizophrenia, perhaps even low IQ. Because children are deemed to have a worse quality of life they could be blocked from being born with, evidently, no choice of their own in the matter. Yet, despite the very high abortion rates for unborn babies diagnosed with Down’s, the American Journal for Medical Genetics in 2011 found that only 4% of parents with a Down’s syndrome child regretted having them, only 4% of siblings would ‘trade their sibling’ who has Down’s syndrome and only 4% of individuals with Down’s ‘expressed sadness about their lives’. So, whilst of course Down’s syndrome is a condition which is not ideal and one which can get in the way of people’s lives, is it really justified to increase the number of people with Down’s syndrome who are aborted by introducing this new test? Parents are evidently not getting the right information about having children with Down’s – they usually get a negative one or don’t get much information at all which leads them to getting an abortion the vast majority of the time, even though actually parents of Down’s children and the children themselves are happy. Until prospective parent’s of Down’s children are better informed, and until perhaps the abortion rates for Down’s children more closely match the rates of those who actually regret having them and those children who don’t like their lives, this new test which could increase the number of Down’s children aborted must not be introduced.

There needs to be good government support for those who have children with Down’s – so that those who have them are supported in the extra effort required to raise them. Some ideas on extending government support could be: free childcare extended for those with Down’s; Disability Living Allowance (DLA) increased; Carer’s Allowance made more generous in its terms. Whilst suggestions like these will of course be costly to the state, it is definitely worth it if it means that parents get the support they need in raising their children, and Down’s children are harder to raise than those without Down’s. As mentioned above, this doesn’t mean that the parents or their children are unhappy, it’s just that they need the additional support. If the new pre-natal test was introduced, however, it is likely that society would view raising Down’s children as even more of a choice than it does at current and may be less willing to support families who make the choice. Thus, not allowing the new procedure to go through may make society more willing (than otherwise) to support those with Down’s children.

This new test may put pressure on women rather than release it, help open the door to future selective abortion on conditions which are not life threatening and further encourage parents to ignore the happiness of the lives of those who have Down’s syndrome and their friends and families, unfairly influencing their decision. Whilst I think it would be good for the condition to be cured, this is not the way to go about doing it.

Life Without an MP: The Failure of UK Democracy

In this article I will allude to the posts of Speaker of the House of Commons, but also those of the three Deputy Speakers who are subject to the same constraints. Unless stated otherwise, any argument made in this article for the Speaker also applies to the Deputy Speakers. Also note that ‘they’ can be a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

The problem

One of the current absurdities of the unwritten, ‘uncodified’ UK constitution is that the Speaker, who is strictly nonpartisan and presides over debates in the House of Commons, is an ordinary MP. The Speaker, currently John Bercow, is not allowed to participate or vote in debates and thus represent their constituents in Parliament. The Speaker is allowed to cast a vote in order to break a tie, but even then, by convention, the Speaker follows a precedent set by Speaker Denison where they will vote in favour of the status quo. Again, the Speaker is unable to represent their constituents in Parliament.
The tradition of representative democracy in the UK is that there is a strong MP-constituent link, where each MP represents a constituency, currently consisting of around 70,000 people eligible to vote (most people aged 18 or over). The MP then represents their constituents in Parliament by voting on certain issues and the speeches they make, since they take their constituents’ views into account alongside their party’s views and their own personal views. Their constituents ultimately hold them to account, since they can be voted out by their constituents in a General Election. MPs also bring particular issues that their constituents have to the attention of the government, which is an important function, but since people can often contact the relevant government department anyway this isn’t the MPs’ most important role. Their most important role is voting on legislation in Parliament and it is here that constituents’ views can have a real impact.
MPs’ personal views and the views of their party often takes precedence in how MPs vote. MPs often take a ‘Burkean’ view of their role which allows them to vote the way they wish with a clear conscience – since if they believe voting a particular way is in the interest of their constituents even if their constituents don’t agree then they will vote the way they want. MPs also often vote the way their party votes because if they do so then they are more likely to receive a ministerial or shadow ministerial role at some point in the future (if they are a Conservative or Labour MP, in particular), though Jeremy Corbyn has shown that frequent party rebels can also rise to the top of a party and thus reward other rebels. However, it is also true that MPs often vote with their party because they agree with what their party believes!
Despite these two factors that determine how MPs vote, the views of constituents are still extremely important. As an example, let’s have a look at the support (or lack thereof) for HS2. Not many MPs that live in constituencies which are affected by HS2 (High-Speed Rail 2) support HS2 – if they did, they would run the risk of being voted out by their constituents, even if they represent safe seats, such is the strength of anti-HS2 feeling in those constituencies. Even Jeremy Wright, a government minister, abstained on the HS2 Bill’s Second and Third Reading because of the influence of his constituents. As a government minister, normally he would be bound to vote in favour of the bill or lose his place in the government.
John Bercow opposes HS2, but he can do very little to help further the views of his constituents on this matter. He can speak to government ministers and ask that they change their mind on HS2, but the act of mere persuasion rarely works in Westminster, only hard votes will do (and hard votes matter, considering the Conservative majority is so small). As it happens, there’s a massive majority in favour of HS2, with both Labour and the Conservatives supporting it, but with a vote and with the ability to speak in debates, Bercow would have much greater influence in Parliament in trying to turn the tide. But he is the Speaker, he does not have a vote and he doesn’t have the ability to speak in debates.
In fact, it’s even worse than that, due to convention, Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats don’t contest the Speaker’s seat, presumably to help preserve the Speaker’s neutrality. This means that not only do the Speaker’s constituents have no opportunity to sway their MP in favour of their view and for that to have an impact, they also have essentially no opportunity to vote in an MP who is more in line with their views (excepting UKIP/Green voters, in the last election).
It should be noted that the three Deputy Speakers do keep their party affiliation upon becoming Deputy Speaker and their seats are fully contested, however they also have no say in debates and no vote. If the Deputy Speakers are included, however, around 280,000 people are disenfranchised thanks to the current Speaker system.

The solution

Since the Speaker doesn’t have the privileges that an MP has, and thus can’t represent their constituents properly, the Speakership should not be held by an MP per se, it should be a Commons staff role.
This proposal is relatively simple, what would happen is that the Speaker, upon becoming a Speaker, should no longer be a Member of Parliament but should be considered a member of the House of Commons staff (even though the Speaker was previously an MP). A by-election should then immediately be held in the now-vacant seat so that the Speaker’s previous constituents can have an MP who represents them.
This idea is called the ‘Speaker’s seat’ or ‘St. Stephens’ seat’. It has been suggested in the past and has been rebutted by MPs on the very few occasions it has been considered.
The first objection that MPs have had against the St Stephens’ seat idea is that it creates a ‘second class’ of MP, because someone who was made an MP can be essentially elevated to the rank of Speaker and are then protected from being voted out by constituents. However this is not really a problem. It is true that the Speaker would be unique in being the only Commons staff member who is elected from and held accountable by their MPs and that becoming the Speaker would be a way for MPs to get elected and then avoid being voted out, but actually due to the convention whereby the Speaker is uncontested in elections this basically already happens. Further, because the Speaker gets no vote and no say in debates, their role is rather administrative anyway, it is something of a mixed blessing.
There’s also a suggestion that there’s not enough compensation for the Speaker. Under the current system, if the Speaker steps down and is not offered a peerage, they still have a seat where they can stand for re-election. However, with the St Stephens’ seat, a former Speaker would still be able to stand for re-election to the Commons via the process everyone else has to take part in. If anything, the St Stephens’ seat system will only contribute towards ending the current culture of ‘career politician’ which the public often gets up in arms about.
The second objection that MPs have had is that the Speaker is better when they are held accountable by MPs. Under the St. Stephens’ seat idea, however, all it does is remove their constituency, MPs still hold them to account. Further, the public can attempt to remove the Speaker via MPs and they can make complaints to the Speaker via contacting the Speaker’s Office, so the public can still hold the Speaker to account (perhaps a unique recall election system could be created uniquely for the Speaker if that isn’t enough). Indeed, it makes more sense that the Speaker, the presiding officer of the House of Commons, is made accountable to the whole country rather than their own constituents as is the case currently.
To further counter MPs’ claims above, the Republic of Ireland’s Dàil Èireann’s presiding officer, the Ceann Comhairle, is previously a normal member of the Dàil who is elected to the position of Ceann Comhairle by their fellow members and is thus no longer a TD (Irish equivalent of MP). They don't have a by-election, I think they should, but that's not as much of a problem in Ireland because they have multi-member constituencies.
Of course, it would be far better and result in far more enfranchisement (via the end to wasted votes, and proper representation of different parties) if some form of proportional representation was introduced across the UK (and other electoral reform, such as votes at 16, was enacted). However, removing the Speaker’s status as an MP with a constituency would be a fairly quick reform which would instantly enfranchise 70,000 people and doing the same for the Deputy Speakers would enfranchise 280,000. It should be done.
Please, give us a voice. As a Buckingham constituent, John Bercow's constituency, I urge you to guarantee me a vote in the next election. John Bercow has said he would stand down by the next election, but he may not do and, in any case, that would only mean the disenfranchisement of another constituency. I want an MP who I can influence, alongside others, and who can speak and vote in debates. I want a vote in the general election, just like everyone else does. I am not the only person who is annoyed, 1289 people spoiled their ballots in the 2015 election for the Buckingham seat, and, of course, many people only reluctantly cast their ballot for Bercow, the Greens or UKIP or didn’t vote at all. It would be far better to make a simple reform to the system and resolve this issue once and for all.
So sign the petition here (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/121673), and just as importantly, share it! The petition has less than a month to run, the more widely you share it, the more likely it will reach 10,000 or 100,000 signatures. This is our chance to resolve this centuries-old injustice.
Edit: As of 15 August 2016 the petition is sadly closed after reaching 180 signatures and falling very short of the required amount. I can't find one but if there is an alternative petition that can be signed by people who agree with the article please comment below.
Edit #2: Here's an up-to-date petition! I also corrected a statement where I said the Ceann Comhairle's constituency get a by-election after they are elected - actually a by-election is not held, the constituency just has one less TD.

Who’s Resigned From the Shadow Cabinet and Why Does It Matter?

The Labour Party is facing a rebellion at the heart of parliament, with a series of high profile resignations sending the party into turmoil. But what does it all mean? Since 23 MPs have now left the Shadow Cabinet, at the time of writing (the remaining members of the original Shadow Cabinet are Jeremy Corbyn, Tom Watson, Rosie Winterton, John McDonnell, Andy Burnham, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett and Diane Abbott), not all of the Shadow Cabinet members who have left will be listed below – however the most important will be detailed.

Hilary Benn

Hilary Benn was sacked by Corbyn after Benn told Corbyn that he had no confidence in his leadership. He fundamentally disagreed with Corbyn on foreign policy and had voted to authorise bombing on Daesh in Syria back in December after being the closing speaker for the Opposition in the preceding debate whilst Corbyn had opened for the Opposition. Corbyn is fundamentally an anti-war politician, having been the national chair of Stop the War Coalition, though he has named three justified conflicts (the most recent being the role of UN peacekeepers in the 1999 East Timor crisis). Corbyn has also said that stopping war and violence is his key personal objective.

Whilst Labour had seemed relatively unified on domestic policy and split on foreign policy, the sacking of Benn shows that this situation is no longer working for the Labour Party (if, indeed, if ever did work). Benn, since his sacking, has focused on Corbyn being a poor leader, rather than their foreign policy differences, however. Regardless, Emily Thornberry, who has been named the new Shadow Foreign Secretary, agrees with Corbyn on issues such as Trident, which will prove very important if Corbyn remains leader of the Labour Party when the Trident vote is held.

Benn’s sacking shows that it will be nearly impossible for Corbyn to continue holding various different wings of the party together in a Cabinet. The patience of even the most conciliatory moderates in the party has run out (with the exception of Andy Burnham and possibly Rosie Winterton; it is difficult to see how Watson, as Deputy Leader, could’ve resigned even if he had wanted to).

Because Benn was the Shadow Foreign Secretary, one of the four Shadow Great Offices of State, this is probably the most important exit from the Shadow Cabinet. However, it would not have amounted to much if the avalanche of resignations hadn’t followed after it.

Heidi Alexander

Heidi Alexander was the Shadow Health Secretary before she resigned. She was the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and had been elected as the MP for Lewisham East in 2010. Her Shadow Cabinet post under Corbyn was her first. Paul Mason has claimed, after her resignation, that Alexander tried to get Corbyn to blame the junior doctors for the junior doctors’ crisis; a claim she firmly denied. She doesn’t, however, participate in picket lines as the Labour leadership frequently do and she even once successfully persuaded John McDonnell not to participate in a picket line of striking junior doctors. Instead of protesting with junior doctors, she pressed for a compromise during the crisis which could’ve averted the strike.

She had supported Andy Burnham’s 2010 and 2015 leadership campaigns. Thus, if crude statements about Labour factions are going to be made, she is probably part of the soft left wing of the Labour Party. The soft left (including Andy Burnham’s 2015 leadership campaign as well as Andy Burnham currently) has been broadly supportive of Corbyn’s leadership. However, Alexander’s resignation clearly shows that this previous tentative support is now all but annulled. Indeed, Alexander’s resignation is a clear demonstration that most of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not put up with Corbyn’s ‘politics of protest’ any longer. They view him as not wanting to get Labour into power and create electable policies, instead preferring to constantly protest against the Tories and diametrically oppose them on virtually everything they do without bothering to find workable cross-party solutions, or even broad-based Labour solutions, to problems.

Lucy Powell

Lucy Powell was the Shadow Secretary of State for Education before she resigned. She was a close ally of Ed Miliband and said that she had ‘never, ever met or spoken to’ Mr Corbyn since she became an MP – yet she was appointed to, and accepted her appointment to, the Shadow Cabinet in 2015. During her time as Shadow Education Secretary, she argued in favour of taking free schools and academies back into local authority control. Again, her resignation clearly suggests that the broader left of the PLP has lost its tolerance for Jeremy Corbyn.

Pat Glass is her replacement as Shadow Education Secretary (appointed Monday 27 June). Glass says that ‘she was never a Jeremy Corbyn supporter when he was running for the leadership’, but she has drawn controversy for calling an elector ‘a horrible racist’. She also suggested that voters shouldn’t bother with persuading their grandfathers to vote remain because ‘the problem is older white men’. One can’t help but feel that Corbyn is having to scrape the barrel due to resignations from MPs who had been broadly supportive of him previously – there are many Labour MPs who don’t make these kinds of offensive statements to voters, but virtually all of them either ruled themselves out of the 2015 Shadow Cabinet or have left the 2016 Shadow Cabinet.

However, as of Wednesday 29 June, Pat Glass has resigned. Resigning only two days after being appointed, this is probably the shortest-ever tenure of a Shadow Cabinet member and demonstrates that Corbyn can't really trust any 'moderates' in the party to join his Shadow Cabinet and that the only long-term solution to the issue if Corbyn remains in charge of Labour (and this seems likely, at the moment) is surely to start MP deselections.

Ian Murray

Ian Murray is Labour’s only Scottish MP. He has (after resigning) said that Scottish Labour supports Sturgeon on the EU in protecting Scotland’s jobs and economy against what he describes as the Conservatives’ ‘utterly dreadful decision to put their party first before the country’. This is a very embarrassing resignation for Corbyn, since it means he may have to appoint a non-Scottish MP as Shadow Secretary for Scotland. However, it has also been suggested that Corbyn could appoint a Labour MSP to the post (there is nothing stopping him from doing this). This would be a rather novel move and it would be interesting if this idea is used by future governments – with a member of the UK executive being also a member of a devolved legislature rather than the UK legislature. However, this does mean that the Shadow Secretary for Scotland would be unable to make responses to the Secretary for Scotland in Parliament. Overall, however, this resignation only added to Corbyn’s problems.

Lisa Nandy

She’s viewed as a solid lefty in the party and Owen Jones, left-wing journalist for The Guardian, considered backing her after Ed Miliband’s resignation. She was the Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Her resignation shows that even those who are ideologically close to Corbyn in the PLP may not necessarily support him. Lisa Nandy has been floated as a potential leadership candidate due to her support on the left of the party, and she could prove a serious thorn in Corbyn’s side in the future.

Owen Smith

Owen Smith is a staunch party loyalist, on the same level as Andy Burnham, so his resignation was very significant indeed. This shows that some people whose main priority seems to be holding the party together (and spending the majority of time attacking the Tories, rather than each other) believe that Corbyn is the one splitting it apart, not the resigners from the Shadow Cabinet. So Smith, a noted unifier, decided to join the resigners. Corbyn has often relied on Labour members and MPs calling for party unity to support his leadership from a non-factional perspective. Owen Smith’s resignation makes this far more difficult.

Angela Eagle

Angela Eagle’s resignation was particularly important of all the resignations. As Shadow First Secretary of State, she was the second-in-command of the PLP. She stood in for Corbyn when Cameron was away at PMQs, making a number of impressive performances – including exploiting Tory splits on the EU before the referendum, which went down well in the media. Again, her resignation is a clear illustration of how badly Corbyn has lost support in the soft left areas of the party. She also has been floated as a possible leadership candidate, so much has she impressed Labour moderates. During her time as Shadow First Secretary of State and Shadow Business Secretary, she has sometimes refused to directly praise Jeremy Corbyn, however she has focused on attacking the Tories and has certainly been a key unifier. Apparently she spent over 24 hours trying to contact Corbyn’s office before she resigned but got no response. She has also, since resigning, decried Corbyn for refusing to effectively respond to any criticisms she has made of him.

Her exit from the Shadow Cabinet should’ve prompted Corbyn’s resignation, but Corbyn has been too stubborn to be moved, knowing that his shadow ministers (even if they have Labour interests at heart) are only resigning en masse to try to remove him from the ballot of the next leadership election. For the sake of his own position, Corbyn can afford to wait.

Angela may run in a leadership race, according to breaking reports. However, going from fourth in a deputy leader election to beating Corbyn in a leadership election in just 10 months might be a step too far for the Wallasey MP.

Other Shadow Ministers

Not many of the shadow ministers who don’t attend Shadow Cabinet are particularly well-known, however Stephen Kinnock, son of Labour leader Neil Kinnock who battled against Militant entryists in the 80s and 90s and perhaps viewed as on the soft left of the party, was one of the more notable resigners. He represents Aberavon and has battled for his constituents in the steel crisis, fighting for government intervention to save the Port Talbot steelworks. Given that this is calling for a heavier government hand in the steel industry and even an element of protectionism to prevent Chinese steel dumping, this has placed Kinnock somewhat close to Corbyn’s views on this issue – thus, it is notable that he has resigned despite Corbyn’s Labour’s support of #SaveOurSteel. Kinnock was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Angela Eagle, the former Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Shadow First Secretary of State. He resigned before she did.

Another well-known junior shadow minister who resigned is Jess Phillips, the member for Birmingham Yardley. She was a parliamentary private secretary to Shadow Education Minister Lucy Powell. She opposed debates in Parliament in honour of International Men’s Day, suggesting that it was women who weren’t represented well enough anyway, not men, and she has spoken out sharply against sexist abuse that has been made at her. In an interview with Owen Jones, she said that she wouldn’t stab Corbyn in the back, but in the front (and only if he wasn’t helping the Labour movement), and she has clearly done this, with an honest, straightforward but respectful (as far as one can be respectful when metaphorically stabbing someone) resignation letter.

The new shadow education secretary has also revealed that she will not be seeking re-election, causing more selection headaches for the leadership.

What happens now?

We now essentially have two Shadow Cabinets in exile. The former being a group completely intolerant of Corbyn (thus, generally speaking, from the centre of the party). This group includes Cooper, Kendall, Reeves, Harman, Leslie etc. The latter being a group which could only tolerate him for slightly under a year (thus, generally speaking, from the soft left of the party). This group includes Benn, the Eagles, Owen Smith, Powell, Heidi Alexander etc.

Since it seems that Corbyn will not resign due to Shadow Cabinet resignations, because there are just about enough pro-Corbyn MPs in the party to fill the Shadow Cabinet, even if they are clearly not the best candidates for their roles, it is up to the centre (or, ‘right’) and soft left of the party to find a candidate who can beat Corbyn in a leadership election and who can make significant progress to solving Labour’s myriad of existential problems. This includes:

• An appropriate response to Brexit which can attract metropolitan Labour Remainers and working-class Labour Leavers
• A stance on immigration (taking into account the (perhaps unlikely) possibility of ending free movement via Brexit) which, again, can hold Labour’s more socially conservative working-class and more socially liberal metropolitan supporters together. But equally, whilst this policy should not ignore anti-immigration sentiment as Corbyn’s approach has seemed to do, it should not be an unconvincing fudge which pleases no-one like Miliband’s policy
• A radical reforming stance on the economy (with big, new, perhaps centrist, ideas) but one which is more fiscally credible than Miliband-Corbyn’s ‘capital account deficit and current account balance/surplus’ policy – or, at least, someone who can clearly communicate better than Ed and Jeremy and can convince people that this really is fiscally credible

They also need someone who can look like a leader – this will be very subjective indeed, but someone who can communicate with the media rather than attack them would be a good sign of someone who the media could portray as a good leader. The fact is that we do have to take the media’s response into account when choosing a leader, because we will be largely relying on the media to communicate our message in a favourable manner. Attacking them simply doesn’t work, as Corbyn has demonstrably proven.

Corbyn’s strategy from now on will be to consolidate his power further by using his considerable support from the membership (who remain sovereign in the Labour Party). A leadership election between him and a more moderate candidate could be very close indeed, if he wins then the only way he can ensure he has a supportive PLP and a perhaps credible left-wing Shadow Cabinet is by starting MP deselections. This is, of course, a last resort, but Corbyn has no choice after essentially losing two unity Shadow Cabinets and losing a vote of no confidence by an unprecedented 172-40. The PLP has run out of patience for Corbyn, and if Corbyn wins the leadership election then he will be quite right to have lost patience with the PLP.

If Corbyn does win the leadership election, then it is anyone’s guess what the rest of the PLP will do. Mass defections to Farron’s Lib Dems will certainly be on the cards, as will creating a new party SDP-style. They also seem to be already seeking to form a ‘proper’ Official Opposition (one which represents the majority of Labour MPs), but how successful they are in that completely relies on Speaker John Bercow’s receptiveness to the idea. Still, it was interesting that in response to Cameron’s EU statement on Monday, so many of Labour heavyweights such as Harriet Harman, Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn (who received a particularly loud cheer) made speeches. Perhaps making a point that the Labour frontbench does not really represent the Labour party as a whole. Cameron seemed to help them, not talking about the Labour crisis directly, but instead thanking individuals for campaigning with him to make a clear, united case to Remain; making implicit digs at Corbyn for not doing so (and, perhaps, losing the referendum for Remain).

We need to learn from Miliband, not derail the party

Too often in the current Labour leadership debate, people call for Labour to drop virtually all their current policies and standings - which are popular with many people who would contemplate voting Labour. Many feel very strongly that immigration has contributed a lot to our country - but, simultaneously, we have to try and take the pressure off our budget (even though migrants make a significant net contribution to the economy and tax revenue!) as many rightly feel that none should be taking anything at all - until they have contributed to the economy (a two or four-year qualifier would be a half-decent test of this, although maybe it should be based on time in work). This and the much more important reason of immigrants being employed and reducing 'natives'' employment (which can be partially fixed by stopping exploitation of migrant workers) are good reasons why immigration should be restricted.

However, Labour should comprehensively reject the xenophobic argument of restricting immigration because they may be terrorists (very few are) and the fact that people think Britain is no longer 'Britain' as a result (even though we are all immigrants somewhere down the line) because this is not inclusivist or tolerant - values Labour resolutely stands for even in its Blairite Clause IV.

This is essentially what Miliband tried to do - and did well (in theory, at least) - in his term as Leader. He balanced views with expert finesse and held the party together in its defeat. Many call for a rejection of the 'unity' approach. This is not the right way to repair the party. The reason why this approach of Miliband's failed was because the reasons for the policies weren't communicated anywhere near well enough.

Let's take the economy for example - he held that the market was fundamentally broken: the banks needed to be broken up, as did the energy companies, and rail and bus services needed greater public control. The reason was to reduce prices - ultimately - but he simply didn't get this across to the public. He said he would break up the banks - but he didn't say (or clearly) that this would increase competition and thereby force them to offer the public better deals to get service. He said he would give the public sector a greater role in rail - but he didn't say that it was because rail is a natural monopoly, people don't have any choice in company and have to accept the price they're offered, so it may as well be run by the state and have all profits reinvested. He then failed to make obvious to the public why investment needed to be upkept for economic growth and to reduce the deficit. Indeed, Evan Davis ruined him when he gave Miliband the best chance of explaining why he wanted to run a capital account deficit and balance the current account!

He also failed to point out enough that the Tories were not making these pledges and he failed to ask 'why' often enough and then counter their arguments. Miliband was an economic reformer - as even The Economist (not a leftist magazine by any regard!) recognised - and he was an excellent one at that, but he wasn't a performer and this is what ultimately lost him the election. The public didn't understand him well enough and stuck, rather reluctantly, to 'the devil they knew'.

It is very important that Labour doesn't learn the wrong lesson from this. The answer is not to ditch all of Labour's policies and go with the Tories on many key issues because they have a mandate - they have a slim, reluctant, mandate and we must fight for our own large and enthusiastic mandate in 2020. It's also important that Labour doesn't go massively the other way and draw the conclusion that Miliband didn't go far enough: this really would alienate the 'centre ground'! They must unify all the country's inclusivist, tolerant viewpoints into a coherent policy programme and communicate it far better than Miliband did.

[In practical terms, based on the argument made in this blog post alone, the preferences in the leadership election should be Burnham, Cooper, Corbyn, Kendall (Corbyn and Kendall are both off the rails but Corbyn is marginally closer to Labour's pre-election policies). It isn't voting for Continuity Miliband, it's voting for 'Learning From Miliband'

This blog may elaborate on its rejection of Kendall and Corbyn in the future.]

Labour must genuinely connect with voters

There's been a lot of talk and a lot of jargon about where Labour should go next - be it to the left/being more bold, or carrying on with a Milibandite philosophy but making less mistakes and with a more centrist message or blatantly going after the Tories in supposed 'New Labour' fashion. None of these attempts will work if they aren't rooted in what voters truly think - however, any could potentially work if they are really based on the people.

Instead of thinking about actual policies, we are rapidly descending into a factionalist war between the left, centre and right factions of the Labour Party generally supporting Burnham, Cooper and Kendall respectively regardless of how left or right they really are. Whilst it is somewhat beneficial for there to be a debate on Labour's general direction next, we need to think about how in practical terms we can adopt policies that the electorate really wants and make it as easy as possible for the leadership to win an election off the basis of that.

To some extent, I endorse this 'war' by despising what Kendall has said so far by being too Tory (her support of free schools being a big example), but, as I said, if Labour is truly embedded in the people then what leader we select will matter less.

Labour branch and constituency parties should be talking to constituents constantly, through questionnaires and the like. They should create report and consider the opinions on their constituents and come up with practical policy suggestions, which are both popular and match the party's overall agenda and message, for the Party on a national and local level. Local Party policy can be changed directly, national Party policy should be influenced by National Policy Forum representatives.

With the people from all constituencies genuinely influencing the Labour Party at a local and national level, Labour will be able to change without compromising on its values and win in 2020 - even if Boris is the Tory leader by then!

Stella Creasy, in particular, has a penchant for rigorous campaigning and community-based activism as well as a passion for social justice and she managed to increase her vote share in the last disastrous election. If she makes it onto the Deputy Leadership ballot, and wins, she would do much to restore Labour's reputation in a grassroots fashion which would be independent of who the leader is and, ultimately, what direction they take. But she has far fewer than the 35 MP nominations she needs to get on the ballot and the candidates have only until Monday to get the needed nominations - let's hope she gets there.

Why Labour lost and how to fix it

Labour lost because of three main reasons: Leadership errors and appearance, the SNP surge and a very successful negative Tory campaign. Labour must work out which reasons where the most significant so that it doesn't end up breaking things which work.

Many people blame Labour's defeat on Miliband, primarily his appearance. While he did turn off many voters and, sadly, due to the importance of image in Western society his appearance did damage Labour's fortunes, that wasn't the only problem.

Miliband and his team failed from the get-go. They didn't shout loud enough that the recession was not caused by the deficit, which is a nonsense suggestion economically, but by financial deregulation which the Tories supported and which Labour repented of. This blog has mentioned a number of times this argument, but Labour only started to counter the argument towards the end of the campaign and by then it was too late. Even then, Ed didn't communicate the argument to the Question Time audience that asked it clearly enough and it didn't really hammer home.

Of course, Liam Byrne's 'I'm afraid there is no money' letter didn't help this at all. Although it was meant to be something of a joke in light of Labour already making savings in 2010, the damage was done and Byrne has apologised for this. However, Labour should've pointed out earlier its savings, its record and how meaningless the letter was before allowing Cameron to destroy its record.

There was a deeper problem however. In a sense, Labour couldn't defend its record because it broke away from New Labour and wanted to put some distance with its past. This turned out to be a terrible mistake. The public voted Blair's New Labour into power three times and it was only after the recession and the failure of Brown to defend his performance in saving the UK (and indeed the world) from the most of it that led to New Labour's defeat then. Cameron's centrist appearance didn't help either, of course.

All the 2010 Labour leadership candidates wanted that break with New Labour so that wasn't just Ed's fault, it was a fault in the party's thinking. We listened to the voices that said that Labour needed to appear to veer to the left to differentiate from the Tories and we took action - with disastrous results.

It's about appearance with centrism and leftism for Labour because Labour policy is developed by YourBritain, the National Policy Forum and the National Executive Committee, not really the leadership. However, the leadership sets priorities (on the whole) and presents the policy package in the way they want. They decided (as others have said elsewhere) to go on a less pro-business platform and focused on attacking vested interests which, while important, gave them a negative, anti-status quo image. They should've stressed more their policies on guaranteed jobs, apprenticeships and making work pay earlier in the campaign. However, this was undermined by their loss of the argument on New Labour's spending and their anti-New Labour stance.

Of course, the SNP and Lynton Crosby's campaign didn't help (Miliband was wrong there too, Crosby did very well), but there's obviously a lot Labour can do. A more popular leader, renewed focus on helping middle-class people and defence of New Labour would help - as would maintaining Ed's return back to fighting inequality.

Therefore, over the next five years Labour should fight on a platform of helping the middle class succeed and assisting those who suffered under Tory cuts. Twin aims, two focuses. The balance they take and their success (or lack thereof) of defending Blair's record will be the decider of the next election.

Sadly, austerity-lite is completely necessary

Labour's plans of fiscal responsibility and some cuts in public services (although possibly not much, according to the IFS) are completely necessary.

People often use the example of the US to say that a massive deficit is fine. This argument isn't very helpful for the UK. Essentially, the entire world is dependent on the US (which was the main creator of both the Great Depression and the Great Recession) and vast swathes of the world use currencies pegged to the dollar. If the US goes under, then the world goes under (although the rise of China is lessening this potential impact). Hence the US budget deficit doesn't matter because the world is happy for the US to keep afloat on its back.

The same isn't true of the UK. We provide some financial services...and that's about it. The pound is nowhere near as ubiquitous as the dollar and we don't have anywhere near as many massive companies based in the UK as there are in the US. The UK is nowhere near as powerful as the US politically either.
Cancelling austerity might improve growth, tax receipts and employment, but not enough to actually offset the increase in spending (according to most). It's too much off a risk.

You can't just borrow indefinitely, once the world starts to realize that the UK has no intention to pay off its debts then its credit rating will fall. During a recession, countries won't find it attractive enough (or, maybe, they won't actually have enough money!) to lend to the UK even though we need to increase spending even further.

As 'anti-socialist' as it may seem, we have to continue with 'austerity-lite' (and, a Lab-SNP-Lib bloc might be able to stop cuts after 2016 if they go with what the IFS says) so that we aren't in a massive mess when a recession comes along.

Just borrowing more and more thinking that you never have to pay off your debts is incredibly naive.

It should be stressed that the SNP does have a somewhat valid argument that increased spending will result in increased tax revenues. However, it is highly unlikely that for every £1 spent there will be over £1 received in tax, unless if the economy does far better than predicted. Also, Labour are allowing for increased investment spending because that really does make returns. However, increased welfare payments, as harsh as it may sound, doesn't - and non-core-investment spending probably won't pay for itself very quickly.

Labour are making the hard compromise between fiscal responsibility and compassion. The SNP are inadvertently dodging it and kicking the can down the road which won't help any of us at all when the next crash comes along. Vote for the party that is compassionate and knows what they're doing. #VoteLabour

Minus Iraq, Blair did well - Labour must trumpet the progress he made

It was recently announced that Blair will be helping Labour in their 2015 election campaign. Of course, there was the usual flood of 'warmonger' in anything related to that story and many people - even I - thought it was a poor tactical decision.

However, now Labour have made the decision, we must focus on what Blair did right and what Miliband will do right (which Blair supports). Yes, Iraq was a massive mistake - but we can't forget everything else that Blair did as a result. He:

• '[The Government] turned out to be the most redistributive in decades'
• Increased child benefit and income support by 72% (in real terms)
• Gave grants to improve insulation
• Caused child poverty to halve:
• - Extended maternity pay
• - Increased child benefit
• Introduced the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly after referendums
• Resolved the crisis in Northern Ireland - with a very balanced Northern Irish Assembly being created as a result
• Made the Bank of England independant
• Removed most hereditary peers from the Lords
• Created the position of London Mayor and created the Greater London Authority
• Equalised the age of consent for gay sex with heterosexual sex
• Created civil partnerships
• Introduced new employment rights
• Introduced the National Minimum Wage - against Tory cries that it would increase unemployment and inflation
• Increased spending on education and health (after increasing taxes to pay for it)
• Won the London 2012 Olympics bid - presence of Blair at IOC session credited for the win

When Labour face criticism about Blair's record, they must demonstrate that, even though Blair is on the Labour campaign trail, Labour have changed their stance on foreign policy proved by Miliband's opposition of an invasion in Syria previously. Miliband recognized that Britain doesn't always have to agree with the US on foreign policy and should get authorization from the UN on military issues.

The Iraq War was, by far, the biggest mistake of the Blair administration. As was the relative inactivity of Blair's second and third governments in passing legislation (although it did block the Tories from getting into power and reversing the progress made). Labour have many, many policy ideas however and would make sure that the next Labour government(s) is/are active in promoting change.

On the whole, however, the Blair government did a lot for the UK and Labour must remind the public about all the amazing things he did.

Labour does represent the working class - despite appearances

The common accusation that Labour is mostly professional careerist is true, yes, we do need more 'workers' challenging for Labour Parliamentary candidate in constituencies. However, once you're in Parliament you can't really be a 'worker' any more. Also having the university education and having studied the mechanisms involved in Politics and Economics is very useful - 'workers' (commonly thought of as those which tend to be unionized and in more 'manual', low-paid, jobs - bus drivers and the remaining miners and construction workers) don't tend to have had this sort of education which limits their effectiveness in Parliament - since they're less likely to understand things like the difference between debt and deficit, the effects of increased government spending on Aggregate Demand etc...

People like Skinner haven't been very influential in Parliament and for good reason. Even Old Labour heroes like Clement Attlee were career politicians but had working interests at heart. It is possible to be a career politician and to really represent the workers - that's what Old Labour did and that's what I think today's Labour still does - just not according to disillusioned leftists from the Blair era!

Labour is capitalist yes, this is no bad thing! I'm proudly a capitalist socialist. I believe in the free market providing most goods and services with the state providing public services which would be monopolies in a free market. I also believe in the public ownership of production in the form of the state owning public products and workers having more say in businesses and a share of their profits. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually excludable and so capitalism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Those in Parliament are not just interested in business and power - those in the Socialist Campaign Group like Dennis Skinner definitely aren't and I don't think others are either. If they were just interested in business and power they would be in the Conservative Party - Labour does genuinely care about the workers and those less well off - look at their policies! More apprenticeships to help people get work, cheaper university education, lower taxes for the poor, higher taxes for the rich etc. etc...

They are interested in getting into power, and maybe personal reasons are a factor in that, but they do have to make compromises so that they are electorally viable enough to get into power. Otherwise they could never do the things that they want to do! Look at Labour from 1979 to 1995-ish - they were far too left-wing and the majority of people simply couldn't vote for them.

Scottish Labour have got to attack the SNP on their economic policies

Labour have got to attack the SNP's anti-austerity position as much as possible. While austerity-lite seems horrible Labour has got to give it their best shot for this election. The economy isn't doing great, but it's doing better than it was in 2010 and the deficit has to be cut for long-term interests. How do we cut the deficit? By reducing government spending and increasing government revenue. We probably can't just do it with high taxes since that could scare away the rich and actually reduce revenue (although this is unlikely ('The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that estimates of revenue-maximizing tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.'), but this is what some (especially in the UK) think).

They could probably raise the top rate of tax up to about 65% with the pretence of cutting the deficit with the additional revenue but that's just not electorally viable. How could Labour get many of England's seats if they went for such a promise? They would be instantly branded as Old Labour, old socialist and stupid. There are far more seats in England than in Scotland - no matter how important Scotland is.

The SNP have no plans on how they're going to fund their promises (stopping austerity). It's highly likely that they wouldn't bother trying to fund it and they would just increase borrowing. This CAN'T work in the long-term - they're just going for votes in the present. It is Labour that is actually thinking about the long-term future for Scotland, not the SNP, and, sadly, it involves austerity. Although Labour will put much more of it on the rich's shoulders than the Tories will and won't make silly promises like a surplus by 2018 and then more spending which will require massive cuts.

Note: This argument also applies to Plaid Cymru in Wales as well as other anti-austerity parties such as the Green Party of England and Wales, Left Unity and the Scottish Greens. Austerity-lite will help the UK in the long-term while doing minimal damage in the short-term.

The real recession story and how Labour's plans to fix the deficit are better than the Tories'

Admittedly, New Labour made a mistake in spending so much in the previous government and they mistakenly liberalized the banks which was what really caused the global recession which started in the US. The Tories would've done no better - it was the Tories who really liberalized everything under Thatcher and, coincidentally(?) there were more recessions thanks to their liberalization - they were hardly opposing New Labour's liberalization of the banks.

The Tories then supported austerity once the recession hit - scapegoating Labour for causing the recession saying that they spent too much and created too large a deficit (they claimed that government spending caused recession - any economist knows that's completely wrong - who's the economically illiterate party now?). Interest payments were not outstripping borrowing so the deficit was a long-term problem - not a short-term one that caused the recession (as the Tories say).

Indeed, if the Tories got in in 2008 (if there were an election then) and successfully implemented harsh austerity there and then, the recession would've massively worsened due to the sharp reduction in government spending which reduces Aggregate Demand (and so, GDP would've fallen even more). What instead happened was that banks were bailed out (which effectively counts as spending), spending was increased to lessen the effects of the recession (partially in the form of automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefit as unemployment increased) and the effect of the recession was lessened. In fact, Brown was hailed as a saviour of the world for advocating Keynesian spending as a way of avoiding a total meltdown!

In the 2010 election, Labour supported eliminating the deficit by 2020 while the Tories promised it would be balanced by 2015 - which they failed at and are now aiming for 2018 which would require (even more) colossal cuts. Labour are aiming for 2020 minus investment (which pays for itself). We'll see if the Tories do any better at realistic targets this time...

There's good reason why growth has been so horrendously slow and wage rises have been slow to occur and it's because the Tories cut during a recession when, really, you've got to spend to encourage spending. Now that we have a stable recovery we can cut, both Labour and the Tories agree on this.

Why Labour's policy on university fees makes sense

The uni fees and loan system works to an extent - people have massive loans forced on them but they only have to pay them a bit at a time when they're earning a good wage - it's already a graduate tax in all but name! It also means one less thing to fund from elsewhere; you can only raise a certain amount from tax evaders and banks as suggested elsewhere. It's popular to say "scrap the fees" but it would be costly to do so and Labour, with this policy, should help fix the major problems with the current system (still not perfect, but it'll be better).

There's two major issues with the current system that Labour are effectively fixing. Firstly, the levels at which the fees are at means that billions will almost certainly be written off after 30 years losing the taxpayer money so, in fact, reducing the fees by £3,000 could actually be good for the taxpayer (unlike what the Tories say!) Secondly the maintenance grant/loan isn't really high enough for those on poorer incomes to go to university with - Labour will raise it by £400 which sounds like little but it will make an important difference.

Additionally, Labour have correctly identified and admitted that university just isn't for everyone - some people do badly academically and don't want to continue school as it were! University should cost the students something because it isn't compulsory and it shouldn't be necessary to get a good job. Indeed, most of the time the degrees offered at uni don't teach you anything that will be useful for the job; they just differentiate some people from other people, effectively showing one person has spent more time learning an unrelated subject!

To fix the issue above, Labour will introduced vocational (read: actually useful) qualifications and, critically, guarantee apprenticeships by forcing companies holding a government contract to offer apprenticeships. Unlike other forms of education - you don't have to pay for an apprenticeship and it's directly relevant for whatever job you want to go into.

In fact, I am about to go to uni myself, and I am happy to pay a price in my future life for it. If I wanted, under Labour's policies I'm sure I could get an apprenticeship as an accountant and work into a profession that way - as I want to be a politician or lawyer and have more academic backing I will get a degree, but I don't mind there being a cost since I didn't HAVE to get the degree.

Also, Ed remembers what happened to the Lib Dems when they pledged to remove fees - they ended up trebling them and now tell off Labour for pledging to reduce the fees by the same amount the Libs pledged last time (by £3000). He's not going to make the mistake of making an expensive promise he can't keep - however reducing them a bit and increasing the maintenance loan and increasing the relevance of degrees and increasing apprenticeship provision are all things that WILL make a difference for my generation.

Rail (and energy?) under Labour - public and proud!

The shadow transport secretary has announced that sections of our railways will be in public hands as soon as possible! This is fantastic news for Labour supporters and the public in general. Most of the public - including Tory supporters(!) - support bringing the energy companies and the railways back into public hands. Even if Labour isn't planning wholesale renationalisation they are far more in line with public support to the rest of the Westminster establishment (and UKIP); not going with full renationalisation will keep people who want to cut the deficit in the very short-run and the Blairites happy enough to stick with the party.

According to the YouGov article in the second link, the public would also like to see energy companies renationalized. Again, this would be too costly for a few years for it to be do-able given Labour's target to balance the budget in five years, however Labour do want to set prices until 2017 (as the public support) and want to attempt to increase competition to reduce the prices. Hopefully the idea of scrapping franchising in rail and replacing it with something more public will be translated into proper energy reform.

The reason why the public wants the public sector more involved in energy and public transport services is (quite obviously) because we have to accept the prices that the companies give us - competition doesn't matter much since it is tricky to switch providers. As we have seen in even the food market (one which most believe should stay private - and rightly so), the prices were just too high with Aldi and Lidl simply joining the market in the UK, cutting the prices and putting the other supermarkets under a lot of pressure. If even the highly competitive food market wasn't giving us competitive prices for a long time, then what hope is there for energy? It is harder for an energy company to join the market than it is for a food chain to join their market - as the German chains demonstrated.

Rail has a separate problem - if you want to get somewhere via. rail, you have to use the company that provides the service. You have no choice but to accept their prices. Of course you could find another means of getting to your destination, but rail is probably the most efficient and good value means of getting to your destination - it's why you've chosen it. The company knows this and can raise the price significantly knowing that you have no choice but to go with it. This is why rail prices have soared.

It's also ridiculous that rail is privatized because foreign governments have shares in our rail and are making profits from them that our government could be making if it owned it. Money is flowing out of the country for no logical reason.

The private franchises have improved quality to an extent but this may be down to natural technological innovation anyway. Even if they have improved quality, Labour are only planning to bring sections of the rail system into public hands - presumably as and when private franchises expire (as the Green Party proposes) or when they are doing badly. This way successful private franchises won't be stopped for the time being.

In summary - this Labour policy will prove to be a massive vote winner if Labour trumpets it enough.

Foreign aid puts countries one step forward, and two steps back.

Justice is not about punishing those who go against the law, justice is about making things that are 'unjust', 'just'.

The main thing that is unjust in the world, is the fact that people who live in certain countries, African countries being the most infamous, can't improve their terrible lot in life because of factors beyond their control.

Many people say that they aren't working hard enough, which is why they are poor. This is totally wrong. Economies with inferior technologies are forced to compete with economies that possess far superior technologies; no amount of effort is going to mean they win this impossible fight.

This imbalance is caused (on the whole) by free-market policies:

Firstly,  to qualify for aid from foreign  governments, poor countries have to drop the tariffs they put on imports, and the developing country's own goods have to compete with the developed country's goods. The developed country's goods will always win. This means that the developing country have no way to protect its domestic industries. It is organisations like the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), that force 3rd world countries to use free-market policies, or else sacrifice their aid, that are causing this imbalance to happen.

This unjust practice from the World Bank (and other organisations) needs to stop. Developed countries themselves use 'old-fashioned', protectionist policies to shield their industries and keep them where they are today - at the top.

However, in the medium-term, it is just for the richer countries to give some of their large reserves to poorer countries to help them develop. More can be done to ensure the aid is being well-spent or - if it is material aid - being well-used. However, people who suggest that the UK’s aid budgets should be reduced, the UK’s is currently 0.7%, are highly insensitive and possibly even barbaric.

0.7% is barely anything of the UK's GDP. Yes, there are people in poverty in the UK but the amount of poverty in the UK is relatively low, when compared to the countries where aid currently goes.

In addition to that, there are often good organisations run by richer people in the UK that can look after those who are poorer – be it by food banks, homeless shelters or social security. In fact, the current Prime Minister supports this method of helping the poor and he calls this attitude the 'Big Society'. Whilst the 'Big Society' may not be a perfect idea, as it does not reach everyone who needs help in the UK, it is a more than is offered in poorer countries at the moment.

So giving 0.7% GDP or more in aid can help those countries provide welfare services to care for those who are suffering from the free-market policies, whilst we try to correct the unjust free-market policies.

We, as individuals, can also take actions to improve the situation.

We can make a concerted effort to buy Fair Trade products, such as Dairy Milk chocolate, which ensure that the people producing the raw materials used in the product are paid a decent amount (and a premium from Fair Trade which is spent on developing the community).

We can lobby our MPs to put pressure on the World Bank and our governments to stop requiring developing countries to use free-market policies and subsequently crushing their domestic economy.

We can donate to organisations like Tearfund, that work to help people in poorer countries get on their feet and teach them how to produce on their own, instead of sitting back and spending more and more on things that we don't need and which bore us after a few days.

Labour needs to stay where it is - not move to the 'centre'!

Labour needs to stay where it is - not move to the 'centre'!

Tony Blair said recently that Labour need to retake the centre ground. What he means by that isn't really clear, of course, but it can be presumed to mean keeping things as they are on the whole. I imagine he would probably oppose the move to reinstate the 50p rate of tax, cancel the energy price freeze and allow NHS privatization.

However, the moves that Tony Blair would probably support would be suicidal for Labour to implement. The fact is that in recent times, although the average position of the voter has remained about the same, voters on left and right have become more radicalised.

We can see this in the sharp increase of support for the Green Party, the SNP (and, to a lesser extent, Plaid Cymru) [and UKIP] on the left [and right] respectively. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats, who pose as the centrist party, have massively fell in support.

Labour have recognised that, on the whole, even the left are against the unrestricted immigration from the EU and have adjusted their immigration policy to a balanced, sensible one to account for that shift in opinion. However, really, Labour should be seeking to win back the voters moving to the Greens and the left nationalist parties which could lose it the next election.

Back in 2011, people expected Labour to win in 2015 because it would take the votes from the Liberal Democrats, but because it has also lost votes to the left of the party, this no longer seems feasible. Yes, Labour has also lost votes to UKIP, so it should speak its ideas on immigration loud and clear and say why they will work and why UKIP's ones won't to win these voters back. Most people think Labour don't talk about immigration enough at the moment (despite many of Miliband's conference speeches being on the issue) and it should attempt to rectify the issue.

So, Labour's issue is actually not being left-wing enough if anything! Although it should stay where it is to continue attracting disillusioned Liberal Democrat voters. Miliband should do his best to ignore New Labour voices like Blair who are advising for a different era - what works best then won't work best now.