By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
When you are passionate about a political party and its values, as we are at LabourList, it's easy to forget that as the parties compete with each other for support, they all share a common responsibility to prevent public disenchantment with politics in general. 40% of those eligible to vote chose not to do so at the last election - more than the number who chose to vote for the winning party - and turnout at recent local elections has been lower still. Public trust in politicians of all parties is worryingly low, and disillusionment ultimately leads to disenfranchisement.
Everyone involved in politics – including on websites like ours – has a responsibility to try to arrest this decline.
Yet by competing with each other in the blogosphere, we sometimes risk exacerbating these problems – as recent events have proved. When political competition turns into personal attack, particularly if allegations are petty, malicious or downright false, there is a danger that this public disengagement can grow, as all involved are tarnished and voters simply give up on the political process.
And just as negativity and gossip cause people to switch off politics, so does the obsequious peddling of a particular party line. The politics of “we’re always right and they’re always wrong” harms all parties - when it’s employed by all sides, it leaves those without affiliation with nowhere to go but away from politics altogether and towards less blinkered and parochial forms of debate.
Such a state of affairs does more damage to democracy as a whole than it can ever do to any one party. Low voter turnout harms accountability and public debate; it also puts off high-calibre individuals who are considering careers in local government or national politics. Three weeks before the European elections, people are turning to extreme groups such as the BNP as they feel ever more detached from mainstream politics. The harm, in short, it is to our public life.
Yet it is also true that political blogs which support one party and challenge the others can add a huge amount to public life, providing forums for debate and platforms for individuals to articulate their points of view and hear those of others. Being provocative keeps people interested and arouses further curiosity in the process of democracy – and this should include challenging politicians as well as policies, for it's impossible to reasonably argue that personality plays no part in politics at all (just think of Thatcher and the Miners, Blair and Iraq, Brown and the election that never was). But it is possible to be both provocative and challenging to your political opponents and still to avoid being vindictive.
With this in mind, LabourList is changing. Our name remains but our approach has altered.
We will speak to and for those within the Party, and interested observers from outside, who believe in Labour’s values. We will challenge the opposition parties – and the Government too – on the basis of those values and the views of rank-and-file Party members.
But LabourList will not be a mouthpiece for government, nor a place for one personality to push an agenda. Rather, it will become what it always said it would be – a place for all Labour-minded people, and those who disagree with us, to engage candidly on the direction and causes of the centre-left.
And so, over the coming weeks, we will refocus on the issues that matter to party members and voters, and to those whose instinct is to support Labour but who feel increasingly driven away by actions at the top of the Party. We will look again at the economy, public services, ID cards, the need for more openness about the conflict in Iraq, the Lisbon Treaty, MPs’ expenses and Welfare Reform. And while we will encourage online campaigning and engagement with the party leadership, we will never forget that the basis of our strength comes from activism at the grassroots.
In doing this, we will gather a range of views from people from across the centre-left online and offline communities and publish weekly columns and profiles of those who will shape our movement in the future. We will become both a forum for discussion of new Labour policy and a platform for developing the next Labour manifesto. And we will positively engage with – and not antagonise - the right-wing blogosphere, starting with an interview with Iain Dale and a reader debate on policy with ConservativeHome.
In achieving this, LabourList will become a space that is honest, provocative, diffuse and fun. But we will always take seriously the wider responsibility of all political blogs – particularly those bearing the name of the governing party – to political engagement and our public life. We hope that as we implement these changes you will continue to enjoy and value LabourList.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
This site and the, all too predictable, antics of Draper have been an historically significant illustration of how to use political blogging to lose votes.
A suggestion or two just in case you are listening, please lose the Contributors List and especially the bloody photos. It really is like the worse kind of posturing in a student magazine, who cares what these people look like?
Also some real intellectual content (and humour), would be the biggest improvement - its overwhelmingly lightweight: self-righteous, preachy, patronising, amateur and, except you, excruciatingly badly written.
Like I say Good Luck.
I hope that LabourList becomes what you want it to.
I will not, however, be a frequent visitor as ideologically all things 'Labour' are an anathema to me.
Just a last word of advise to all you young and idealistic people: a couple of decades in opposition is going to be tough, especially if Labour is relegated to becoming the 'third' party - or implodes (a distinct possibility).
Don't waste your lives on a failed party and a flawed and corrupt ideology.
It's a big, wide and wonderful world out there. Enjoy it.
Alex Smith refers to "disenfranchisement". Prisoners disenfranchisement is topical given that they are members of society, yet do not have the vote. The law is clear. The government is out of step. It must remedy the situation by a Remedial Order followed by a Bill and Parliament to enact the Prisoners Votes Act 2009.
The way things are going most of us will be locked up by labour soon - without the vote we will have no way of ever getting out...
Sounds like Browns government running scared of headlines/journalists rather than being scared, showing respect or even caring about what the public say.
On 8 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a press release announcing that it had launched the second stage of consultation on prisoner voting. The first thing to note is the slow progress this is all taking, given that it is 5 years since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying all prisoners the franchise is in violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention. The second thing to note is that the deadline for submissions to the Committee of Ministers, which supervises execution of ECtHR judgments, and is considering Hirst v UK (No2) at its meeting between 2-4 June 2009, is 9 April 2009. If the press release timing is a coincidence, it is rather convenient. The UK is under an obligation not only to abide by the Convention but also abide by the Court decision. Arguments have been forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, not only by lawyers representing prisoners but also by prison reform groups, to show that the government has deliberately delayed implementing measures to comply with the Convention and Court judgment. It looks as if the government is trying to trump these arguments, in effect, by saying “look we are actually doing something about it”.
According to the Ministry of Justice press release: “The government believes it would not be appropriate for all serving prisoners to be able to vote and the consultation does not propose giving all prisoners the vote”. What is this belief based upon, and why is it not deemed appropriate? Labour MP Tom Harris writes on his blog “Let’s get one thing straight: the government does not want to give prisoners the right to vote”. Do any of us care what the government does or does not want? Since when does the loser of a war dictate terms? Barrister Flo Krause writes in an email: “30 March 2004. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 6 October 2005. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 9 April 2009. The UK is still pretending it hasn't lost”. The term ‘sore loser’ springs to mind. As the victors, we are entitled to claim the prize, the spoils of war. What this MOJ press release tells me is that it is suffering from a dose of spin doctoring.
Justice Minister Michael Wills said: ‘The government has made it clear that it disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable. But, importantly, the government does not propose to give all prisoners the vote.
‘We will ensure that whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote. Prisoners sentenced to more than four years imprisonment will not be permitted to vote in any circumstances. We believe this is compatible with the court’s judgment and reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody’”.
I am somewhat puzzled how the UK can agree with Article 52 of the Convention: “The judgment of the Court shall be final”, and yet claim it ‘disagrees with the Court ruling’. I don’t know of any public power which allows for such disagreement to be expressed by a public official. What is clear is that the UK has a history of trying to get away with complying with the Court decisions to the minimum extent possible. Hence the damage limitation exercise: “the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable”. Even here, the government appears to be choking on the thought of it. Perhaps a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down? In order for me to win my £20 bet at 20/1 odds with bookmakers William Hill, it has to be …“All or the majority of prisoners to get the vote by the next General Election”.
I could not help but notice how often the government parrots the phrase ‘not all prisoners will get the vote’. Why is the government so frightened at this prospect of all prisoners getting the vote? What would happen if all convicted prisoners got the vote? Would they all rise from the Civil Dead like zombies and march out of the prison gates? It is true that the Court judgment did not say that all convicted prisoners must have the vote, it fell short of that, however the Court did say that any departure from the full franchise needs to satisfy the principles of proportionality and legitimacy. In my view, it is with these principles that the government will find difficulty in justifying disenfranchisement based upon severity of crime and length of sentence.
I am amazed that the government decided to have first one consultation exercise, and then a second. Especially given that it was not a feature of the judgment. I did raise the point that the issue of prisoners’ votes had not been the subject of debate in Parliament; so I would have thought if the government sought to comply with the judgment, then surely putting the matter before Parliament would have sufficed? The obvious problems with both of these consultation exercises are that they lack both due process and fair procedures for any claim to legitimacy. Note how it is claimed that the government’s view …“reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody”. I thought the whole purpose of a consultation exercise was to elicit the views of the public, and not tell them what their views are?
Even though in the first consultation exercise the government said that full enfranchisement was not an option the majority (47%) disagreed with the government and said that there should be full enfranchisement. And only 22% supported continued full disenfranchisement, an option which the government allowed even though it was aware that this was unlawful as a result of the judgment. Therefore it is not the public that is against prisoners getting the vote; rather, it is knee-jerking to this kind of headline, in response to the MOJ press release, from the Daily Express, which scares the government: “EUROPE SAYS: GIVE VOTE TO CONVICTS – thousands of rapists, killers and ¬paedophiles will get the right to vote after ministers caved in to pressure from Europe, it emerged last night”. Neither the government nor papers like the Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mail are a voice for the prisoners. In my view, all convicted prisoners getting the vote will mean that their voice is heard in Parliament for the first time in British history.
Well said Alex!
I admire the hard work you’ve put into LL in the face of such harsh criticism.
I’m sure your dedication to turning things around will pay dividends.
One point though - let’s hear a little less philosophising on the site and more from the ordinary ‘grassroots’ Labour activist camp.
Good luck!
If I had 2 wishes:
1 - Provide a platform to draw attention to locally-focused politics blogs; real politics, not just ping-pong.
2 - Dump Schillings and give the retainer - if there is one - to the EFF.
If I had one suggestion for now as a symbol it would be to drop Schillings.
That's not what you said to Sky News...
Also included is Tom Miller, who has been accused of working with Mr Draper to find damaging information about rival blogger Paul Staines, who writes as Guido Fawkes.
Mr Staines told Sky News Online: "It is a bit late for him to be saying he decries the politics of personal destruction. Fine words contradicted by foul actions."
And Harry Cole, who writes the Tory Bear blog, said Mr Miller should not be "pious".
"He has been at the heart of the LabourList camp for a while now and should be the last person, bar Draper, to be signing up to clean blogging pledges."
Mr Miller declined to comment.
Sky News
Are Sky News being slanderous too? With your legal mind and all?
I considers Guido's claims and indeed the comment to be slanderous, and have asked for him to retract it.
As the eponymous writer of the Analects of Confucius said, "If things don't change, they'll stay as they are".
There's a lesson there for us all.
There is nothing more annoying with politics than this!! All political parties are guilty of it, no matter the colour of their rosettes. It would be great to find an arena for debate where this was left behind. Well done Alex, I wish you every success.
But not by me, dear Celia: I think we have to be responsible for our actions, and for myself, I gave Blair the benefit of the doubt for far longer than I should have done. Blairism was an aberration and the surviving Blairites a pestential nuisance with their trouble-making and greed.
Good start, Alex. Thanks!
I don't really want to see another List of Labour's achievements or the Tories treading air with more marketing flannel but it might give someone ideas for topics.
Good statement - there is a massive opportunity here for LabourList to lead policy debate.
I welcome your commitment to ensuring that the site remains a forum for Labour minded people to come together to engage candidly on the direction and causes of the centre-left and that we don't forget that the basis of our strength comes from activism at the grassroots. And, whilst recognising the need to argue our case with our opponents, if we are to attract more grassroots activists to the site, either to contribute or comment, we do need more regular use of the Delete button for comments which are posted for purely malicious/vindictive reasons and which add nothing to the debate.
Good luck!
Johanna
Whilst I like the general layout of LL, navigation can sometimes be long-winded.
How's about increasing the "Recent Posts" shortcuts to at least ten - this could be done without taking up more space by just having the title, which is all that is needed?
Can you believe, some people are STILL going on about how everything is the fault of the Tories, twelve years after they left power.
A duodecade in politics is a very short time. Expect THOSE emails to feature whenever spin and smear are used by Labour!
But if you don't want to give an answer...
I am sure you will make an excellent job of it, as indeed, you have been doing. I also admire the way that you tolerate some of the more objectionable right-wing posters and allow them to appear as written. I just wish some of them would be more responsible and stop using scatalogical (and worse!) langauge.
Purely for the sake of clarity in this 'new start' for LL...
Guido says "No indication as to what has happened to Tom Miller, who aided and abetted Derek in his smear operations."
One of Guido's commenters says "Tom Miller’s role in Dollygate didn’t go unnoticed. Baldrick got the boot as well."
Any comment?
Please don't be so thin-skinned.
Just posted a comment and it was 'sent to an administrator'!
Too scared for an open forum on here? A bit like Brown disabling comments on his Youtube clip.
This is the web guys. Don't pretend to embrace it and then remove the right to open discussion. That's what makes a blog a blog...Jeez...I knew this site would be like this...the same as your party...out of touch...over-controlling...I'm surprised your not charging for it...
What a joke! Just another example of a simple exercise that Labour managed to screw up.
Though I suppose this place will make for good reading over the next 12 months. Nothing like a bit of car-crash viewing as the wheels fall off this government...
Let battle commence.
A nation mourns! :(
Both Gordon Brown and George Broussard are similar types of people, and being a similar type as well I've chewed off more than I can handle at times and got bitten by that as well. While I don't subscribe to the equally bad ship and patch mentality of Microsoft there might be some useful lessons in there for both Labour and Labour List.
Anyway, I'm glad Labour List got itself fixed *NOW*. People like the sound of where it's heading and are supportive. I expect Labour can take a lesson from that. If nothing else it might help the party drop some baggage and discover the whole world isn't against them. That's got to be a great start to something. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
From what you write LabourList v2.0 sounds like a distinct improvement. Good luck on your endeavour.
This is pretty damning stuff. Clearly you believe Gordon Brown should go now. Who who do you want as leader?
Please, can someone take a look at the overall site design? If nothing else, then fix the fonts - this bit is easy and can be done sitewide via the stylesheet. There is a stylesheet, isn't there?
The reason I say that is I'm picking up a whiff of Branson style ego at the expense of helping the reader and wider community succeed. Don't say it's not true because I've read the same books and we're all swimming in the same pond.
Labour List must keep the readers success at the front of its mind and not forget to promote blogs off the beaten track. It's hard to be this humble and give away success but unless it does it will just become another generic give us the money business.
I hope that the majority of regular posters will support this direction - and that many new people will feel able to join and participate.
I like the change already.