Podcast: David Lammy and the IPPR on why Labour needs a radical new agenda

Thing is that it just isn't possible unless you have accommodation free of charge in central London. The cost of that alone would be more than the minimum wage
I am always suspicious of anyone who regards politics as being about more than the art of the possible, and visionaries always worry me. I think the French and Australians have a much healthier attitude - we expect far too much and wouldn't be happy unless there was something to whinge about

I'm afraid its the public I despise far more than the politicians - its sheep we're up againsr......

This is petty.

The SMF was originally Owenite SDP. When that option collapsed some of the Owenite wing joined the Tories, but the SMF itself shifted to New Labour pretty quickly once they had departed for blue pastures

I'd place them in the centre - socially liberal, economically market-orientated.

It isn't "point scoring" to me it's damn disturbing and sad. So now I am "Petty", guess the truth hurts. Though I am genuinly gutted.

"John Major's favorite think tank" Shrimsley, R (1995), 'Defector from SDP to head Tory research', Financial Times, August 24, p. 7


"two former directors (Rick Nye and Daniel Finkelstein) left to work for the Conservative Party"

1. In did not say all business are immoral Jessica in fact. Guess that's an assumption, no?


2. I am well aware of New Labours position on Constitutional reform, I disagree with you on PR, I believe much deeper Constitutional reform is required that is more inclusive of the public.


3. I arrived at my "assumptions" by researching your very market orientated allies and employers. I am no enemy of the market, but I am not a slave to it either.


4. I accept your correction on "interfering on peoples lives" and concede the point.


5. You make assumptions too, you are desperate for me to be prejudiced against you personally, because then it is easier to tarnish the comments made that question you. Very tribal. On my very first comment critizing you when I referred to you as a "looser", I believe you and your friends called it "abusive". If you think that is abusive wait until you meet the media. Of course your friends did not hold back from naming me prejudiced based upon assumptions and also twisted my language in a disply of "emotional intelligence". I did not name them as abusive I just debated and defeated them. Thier attempt in defending you backfired. Guess that is why you had to call off your pet dogs. Later you accused me of being "petty" when questioning the political allience of your ex-think-tank employer.
This speaks volumes about your character and is not an assumption. I am sure you will use this methodology again when it suits you and when you will "benefit" from it.

6. "I absolutely support open primaries" Lammy, sounds constitutional to me. Time prevents me listening to whole thing again but I remember the statement.

7. I am afraid I shall always question your motives Jessica as you walk in the shadows of people who have set an aweful precedent not only for the party but democracy itself. So I hope you will forgive my motives, though I couldn't care less whether you do or don't. But I do not want to see a repeat of recent events. I spent a great deal of time attempting to help our beloved MP's from thier own stupidity and I don't wish to be put in that position again by other ambitious and unethical people.


This does not in any detract from the fact that you may be a lovely person or not, it is irrelevant. Because you are right I don't know for certain as I have never met you. But that is just it, isn't it, I don't know. So there is no reason for me to take your word for Gospel, if I disagree with you or have my own opinions I shall voice them and despite your attempts to hamper debate, stifle it you will not succeed with me, in fact you have utterly failed to give a full debate or even accept any form of alternative argument at all.

I am sure you would prefer blind loyalty and unquestioning reverence.

7. As for your point on my potentially discouraging women from politics, what tripe. It would depend on the individual person in question. Some women are strong and can debate freely and give back what is thrown at them without taking it to heart, just as some men cannot. I consider that a sexist generalisation and you should be above that Jessica. Once again even using this methodology raises real questions about you motives.

But come on, people who join Labour because of New Labour are the people who joined the Tories attracted to One Nation Conservatism in days gone by.

Hi Ralph, yes I did research my employers and to be honest, one article saying that the SMF was John Major's favourite think tank in 1995 isn't conclusive proof for me that it was. In any case, everyone knew that it had gone through a shift from SDP to soft Tory and then to New Labour. I wouldn't have joined it if it was still about pushing a Conservative policy agenda. I think your petty point scoring is getting a bit pathetic really.

Hi Ralph, first of all I disagree that I was asking generalistic questions - I asked Lammy a very specific question about why he wasn't in favour of proportional representation and whether this wouldn't be rather closer to the 'radical' change he was advocating. His answer I thought was quite illuminating because it showed that he had simply 'arrived' in his own words at being a supporter of AV. So nothing particularly principled there. But it also suggested that he might be willing to change his perspective. Similarly I asked him whether his support of 'strong government' which is the reason he gave for supporting AV, was part of the problem we face in politics, rather than the solution. He didn't really answer that question except to suggest that we shouldn't become obsessed with mechanisms, which is all very well except that all forms of reform involve mechanisms of one form or another. Setting up or dismantling programmes, bringing in new taxes or getting rid of old ones, introducing the power of recall or removing the power of whips. All these things require detailed policy work, which Lammy seemed to pooh-pooh. It's not the exciting bottom up language he wants to use, but it's practical politics which often makes the most difference to citizens' lives.

I think your post betrays more about your own political positioning Ralph. You assume far too much when you have never met posters and you automatically ascribe bad motives to those who engage in politics. My questions came from the perspective that I strongly care about constitutional reform and that I am tired of the government saying it wants to be radical and then never achieving it. I wasn't setting out a 'New Labour' bent, but having brought it up, New Labour started out in favour of serious constitutional reform and has got lost along the way. So maybe I thought I was being true to its roots.

You have rather misquoted my question about whether the public wanted the state to tell them how to live. Lammy had suggested that the government needed to be bolder on issues such as advertising to children, which I support. But the fact is that any reform which involves stopping people from doing something is called nannyish by Labour's detractors. I wanted to know whether this was a problem for Lammy given that some citizens claim to want to be 'left alone' by government. (Many of our right-wing posters on this site write this quite frequently in fact). It is this fear which stopped Labour from introducing the smoking ban sooner which would have saved a lot of lives. It is this fear which stops Labour banning advertising to children which, even if its impact would not necessarily result in young people eating less junk food, over time I think it sends the right signal as a society that we do believe in protecting young people against marketing which their lack of maturity makes them prone to falling for. So no Ralph, I was not seeking to 'defend by default the actions of the immoral businesses and executives.' If anything I was trying to ask Lammy how he was going to go about thwarting those advertisers who are adamant they should be allowed to sell to children. It's all very well saying one thing, but if you haven't convinced the public, you're on a hiding to nothing. And just to make the point that not all businesses and executives are immoral. They hire four fifths of the population and increase the amount of wealth we have to pay for our health and education. Just because some parts of the private sector do things we dislike doesn't mean the whole shabang is guilty by implication.

Finally, I apologise if my questions come across as meek, but on the whole I don't think that aggressive questioning elucidates particularly interesting answers. It's fun for the listener, but I don't think it helps our politics. Just like I don't think the way in which you interrogate people you have never met on LabourList will encourage more women to engage politically online.

All black shortlists? Give me a break.

2% of this country is black. Yes I would prefer if Parliament was more representative of this part of the community, but we must remember that this is an extraordinarily small community.

Where would you impose an all black candidate? In a south London seat where there is a high percentage of black people? But what about the other ethnic minorities present in that south London community? The asians, the eastern Europeans and the majority white British people? Should we have an all-Polish shortlist to take account of our European Union friends?

Or would you have an all black shortlist in a home counties constituency?

Having all women shortlists is one thing. Although it is also a flawed idea (as all positive discrimination is) at least it cannot be accused of being unrepresentative at the constituency level.

Lets focus on encouraging more black people in politics, rather than levelling down.

How many more 'Radical Agendas' does New labour need? Permanent revolution - sounds more like the interferance by Jobsworth who have to justify their own existence. More tinkering, more fiddle-faddle, more 'Fiddling' whilst Britian rots and goes down the WC of History.

I still wonder where Labour and its arcchitects got their mad ruddy ideas from? Maybe from smoking too much 'Denial, Stuffed up Collective Politcal Backsides where the Sun Don't Shine'.

Bah Humbugs!!!

"I respect Jessica too and I use her as a sort of case study. I guess at the moment she is the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 1997 candidates for Parliament would have been perceived as exciting, modern and refreshing. Today now that we have witnessed the reality of the "right" of the Party."

That's a good point - Using Mrs. (ms?) Asato as an example,if I had looked at her background in 1997, I wouldn't have had much of a problem but in 2009, it's a background that screams "more of the same!=careerist with their nose in the trough" and the individual personality has to shine in some way to overcome that (for me at least) and get behind them - none of the current crop of "Nulabour:The Next Generation" do that.

It was how you came across, your questions were very generalistic, which means your motives in asking them seemed to be from a "New Labour" bent and Lammy covered all his bases in answering you. Remember when you carry out an interview the listener is always attempting to appraise the motives of questioner and subject. For example your question about whether people wanted to abide by morals (I apologise if I cannot quote you exact) comes across to me as you attempting to defend by default the actions of the immoral businesses and executives whose interests you may be trying to protect. I also recall that in anwering one of your questions Lammy almost over enthasized the point that was for "New" Labour, now why would he feel obliged to do that oh "Progressive" Jessica, why?


The tone of your voice was interesting when you asked some of your questions came across as meek.


I don;t think you even close to testing this man with a question, I think one of the others came reasonably close with "What is Labour about?" and Lammy had to refer to an "intray of goverment work" which was not in my view the ideal answer as any Government would be concerned with economy and circumstantial reactive events, I think a more proactive answer would have been better, I think he got there in the end though.

Is this the same David Lammy who exhibited such a brilliant mind on Celebrity Mastermind?

Jessica do you research your prospective employers? I mean that wasn't even research it was 1 minute and wikpedia....

It is no wonder you don't remember when you are inhabiting a parallel Universe, this wouldn't be the Universe of delicate alignment shifts from Labour to Conservative by any chance? (Joke ok)

What did you do, just turn up, walk in and start researching?

Though I am sure you are correct in the place being completely "Labour", I would possibly rule out working for Tony Blair as a credential for being Labour minded.

Here is some more...

In 2001, Robert, Lord Skidelsky was replaced as chair by David, Lord Lipsey. Since that time, the SMF has moved closer to the Labour Party and was associated with some of the policies of Tony Blair's New Labour, particularly issues of public service reform. This recent association is illustrated by two former directors leaving to work for senior Labour Party politicians.

Well I have to say that I don't remember that strapline being used at all when I worked there, if anything it was pretty much completely Labour. I arrived in 2002, and the Director who recruited me went to work for Blair in Downing St, the one after now works as a special adviser, and two other members of staff who worked with me at the time are also currently working as advisers.

Guess you have some "parallel" life issues to solve, please read:

Wikpedia

The Social Market Foundation (SMF) is a British public policy think-tank based in Westminster, London. It was set up by supporters of David Owen after the Social Democratic Party (SDP) was disbanded in the late 1980s. It aims to promote and produce policies supporting the “social market”. This was the concept of the SMF’s first publication, published in 1989, in which former chair, Robert Skidelsky, argued that:

“ The use of the phrase "social market economy" signifies a choice in favour of market economy. It means that we turn to the market as a first resort and the government as a last resort, not the other way round … Having said this, there remains a substantial role for government. Adding the word "social" to "market economy" is not just a political flourish … A social market economy is, above all, one which is embedded in social arrangements regarded as "fair". [1]


"Founded in 1989, the SMF was cited as ‘John Major’s favourite thinktank"

Hi Ralph, I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I did work at John Major's favourite think tank unless I was living a parallel life. I worked at the Social Market Foundation which if anything came from SDP roots and helped to provide the intellectual foundations for SureStart, and then Progress which is a Labour organisation.

I respect Jessica too and I use her as a sort of case study. I guess at the moment she is the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 1997 candidates for Parliament would have been perceived as exciting, modern and refreshing. Today now that we have witnessed the reality of the "right" of the Party.


The "set" career path that the political "class" take simply raises too many questions as to motive. Working for a right wing think tank, association with Progress a group that seeks to promote "New" Labour throughout the party which leaves many shuddering because of what "New" Labour has become and how it is perceived. As a group of self interested people seeking thier own advancement and the advancement of thier dubious private sector pals. There does not seem to be an interest in the very people that gave most of these twits (not Jessica in this case as she has yet to become an MP) power.


On the other hand I welcome Jessica to the Fabiens, as I am one myself and have learnt a heck of a lot about our MP's by meeting with them at Portcullis House and at Westminster. Many of the MP's motives are fairly easy to rumble, when they give you an "informed lie" or "well researched lie" or whether they cut to the chase you can generally tell when they are lying. Though there are exceptions who are tough to crack.

But remember Bill, all think tanks, including the Fabiens are unelected and unrepresntative of the public and they can have great influence and be biased by private funding. Should I choose to stand independently I shall leave the Fabiens also. But this is a big decision and rests with what I perceive when I return to the UK, I will be speaking to very many activists, in the midlands, Norfolk, the North West and North East and then back to London to see how things are in Barking.

In the end Labour will have to change or cease to be what it once was. The direction the leaders of the party seem to want to take is in duplicating the uS system of a democrat vs republican situation, they want to distance themselves from socialism as many of them seem to be embarresed by it.
They have been seduced by celebrity and people they deem to be "successful".


Ed Balls cannot hide his arrogance I guess and his smirk irritates everyone. Some people cannot or do not try and hide thier inner demons whilst others may just look smug and arrogant but turn out to be ok people. Guess it is also in the tone and words they use.


Being in the background can be of great value as the "players" cannot quanify you or challenge you as you do not live in the "public" eye. They cannot seek for dirty secrets or write articles to the ruthless tabloids about you that are not true. There are members of the parties (all three) that do this kind of stuff.
The downside is that if you try and help politicians, they will milk the situation and take all credit for themselves. So in a word, very little. This has been the cause of much angst in the party and the resulting fall of membership.
Members truly feel "locked out".

Which is fine, as we will see who is "locked out" of Parliament at the General Election and this is bad of course because it leaves the public with very little to choose from at the General.
A discredited sleazy untrustworthy Labour Government or a discredited sleazy untrustworthy Conservative Goverment, both in love with the markets and in opposition to accountability at the top echelons of society be it public sector or private sector....

I don't think I said anything that suggested that democracy shouldn't come from the grassroots. In fact I expressed the point that Lammy's support of the Alternative Vote wasn't particularly radical because it locks in strong government which I'm not sure is helpful for the sort of democracy we deserve.

I have respect for Jessica. I can not explain why as I have disagreed with a number of things she has said both in articles and comments, but I do see that she can make a difference. I said this weeks ago in a reply, but it is people like your good self Ralph, people like Jessica and I'm still waiting for Hadleigh to return, he's got a sensible head and good ideas by the sounds of it.

I agree though, politicians are out of touch, on all sides. There is no trust between the political class and the electorate any more because the electorate have been betrayed, lied to and generally been treated as idiots for over 30 years. I will admit I get very tribal when I see certain Conservative politicians, but I'm wondering whether that feeling really is tribal or whether it is anger triggered by face recognition. The reason I wonder that is because I get the same feeling when I see Ed Balls as I do seeing Ken Clark.

What is the answer to all this though Ralph? How can those in the background really change what is happening at the front?

Hi Ralph. Why did you think I was out of my depth? It's really interesting I think that you didn't comment on any of the other contributors. Was I so much more stupid than everyone else in the conversation? I think it would be fairer if you substantiate your accusations sometimes.

Yes, I gave up defending the toilet trash bandwagon sycophantic morons some time ago.


I gave up trying to protect them four weeks ago. I have already made complaints of the strongest possible terms to some Ministes and MP's. David Lammy on the podcast is just backing up what I have been saying for years. But any reasonable person knows they have completely failed in representing thier people in Parliament and of course display no integrity whatsoever, though some still do.


David Lammy's podcast is the example that some MP's are just behind the curve, whilst if you listen to Jessica Asato's questioning she is beginning to realise those of us telling her about the importance of physical experience is incredibly important in effecting policy. They are fundamentally out of touch not just on policy but on basic human morality.


Living life in the real world develops your values and increases your range in addressing challenges and moral conundrums, a good value sytem comes about by experiencing the tough times as well as enjoying the good times. These moral values are essential in determining priority on policy (just look at the U-turns and crap policy ideas being spewed out at the moment it is truly laughable), physical experience in any profession will help when legislation is being devised for that particular sector and that is why we need people with the experience , because they will understand the issues and dilemmas of that workplace.


We are lacking all at the moment and the idea of a political class must be dealt with. When I return to the Uk I will have a deeper understanding of the situation, but I am very angry. I have been active in the Labour Party since 1982 and the one denominator which always defeated my arguments, when I debated with my father, was the idea of looking after the people life had been cruel to. Compassion and moral duty were the essential principles.


If Labour is divorced from these principles then it can longer consider itself a party of the people or in fact of bringing power to the people. If this is the case, then there is no major force in our countries politics that defends and by implication represents our people and protects them from the negative aspect of corporations and those powerful individuals/bodies that exercise power cruelly. If this is the case then our democracy is in big trouble.


Look at what happened in Rome when the Republic senate became dominated by elites who lost touch and support of the people...as I said to Jon Cruddas as we discussed the BNP, when the Republic (democracy) fails, Hail Caeser!

I told Stephen Timms MP that a scarifice must be made by MP's (before sending out an email warning when the expenses story first broke) to show the public they understood the pain so many were going through as a result of the recession, now an even bigger sacrifice is going to be made.

I have to admit I am tempted to state that if I stand as an independent I will do it for the minimum wage...I reckon that might give me an edge or have me locked up as a lunatic lol.

There can be no renewal until the honour is put back into politics.

In days gone by if a politician was caught out, if the department they were in charge of made a serious error, that politician wouldn't need to be asked once. They would offer their resignation almost immediately to the Prime Minister because it was right to do so and honourable. Where has that honour gone to now? There is no responsibility taken by ministers for their actions, no real punishment for indiscretions and few have the spine to do the thing that would gain them respect from the general public, walk away from public office and resist the urge to whine to the newspapers.

Politically we have GB who spouts about his religious upbringing, resurrects the memory of his father and claims to be right and honourable. 10 seconds later we hear a lie. Of course the journalists question him, but the majority in that room, the people watching on television and probably half of GB's backbenchers sit in stunned silence. They really can't believe it and do you know why? I don't think any of them realise that the honour has left politics as it has left some of our towns, streets and certainly some of our workplaces.

I was taught to always admit when I was wrong and I readily accept that in my younger years I didn't do that. I wish I had, but I didn't. Then I reached a turning point in my life and I realised that I was lying to myself, to others and it had no honour. I admit when I'm wrong. But what does it matter?

Well actually it matters a lot and this is what our current politicians do not understand. If, when faced with something you clearly know you have done wrong, you decide to simply say sorry, it doesn't convey anything other than you are willing to apologise and expect forgiveness in return. Admit you were wrong, explain why you think you were wrong and apologise and people respect it. They may still disagree with you, they may even hate you for what you have done, but they will respect you for admitting it.

That is the 'renewal' we need, a return to what is honourable and what is right. When I hear GB say it was the right thing to do, I genuinely shudder because he's said it so often it makes me shudder more than when Ken Clark was prancing about the HoP with a cigar wedged in his mouth in the mid 90's. I look at Peter Mandleson, the man who was made a peer to save GB's skin, and he wouldn't know honour if it came and bit him on the backside. And then there is Mr Balls, a man whose smug looks can only be matched by Portillo and whose politics are as shallow as a puddle on concrete. Not a single one of them is worthy of being called a Labour MP. In times gone by, GB would have resigned over the 10p tax, Mandleson would not have been allowed to return to government and Balls, he wouldn't have been allowed into the Party in the first place.

I watch people here daily tearing into the Labour Party and in my gut I want to reply in defense, but I can't. The Labour Party I see bears no resembelence to the Party that rebuilt Britain and I seem to spend a more time arguing against the Party than supporting it. Thats not right is it?

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but there isn't the will for political change that there should be because everyone is so concerned about being in office that it blinds them to what is the right course of action. If the electorate saw politicians show some spine, if politicians spoke plainly and ensured that what they said was as truthful as is necessary, and if people could define what has benefited both them and the country over a given time period, we wouldn't need electoral reform, parties wouldn't have to keep rebranding themselves and employing media consultants, spin doctors and speech writers. I was asked a question about what has the Labour Party done for me since 1997 and the honest truth is, I'm still thinking about it. Again, that is not right is it?

Done, I asked him to call you (will be Monday) but it is worth chasing him up early.

It's a shame it is only 2 days away. I'll ask Jon on your behalf.

I do know about it; am trying to find a way to get in! There's an interview about it (and other things!) with James Purnell in today's Guardian, which I'll get around to shortly...

Alex, do you know anythong or been made aware of the Demos meeting?

I totally agree with every point that you make, Tom - except one.

"The New Labour "rebuild a sense of society" means immigrant ghettos (sorry, multicultural communities) and the BNP elected to public positions because we've totally lost touch with our traditional workingclass support.

There's a difference between a multi-cultural community (I live in one: flags supporting fifteen different countries on display within 50 yards of my flat during the last World Cup) and an "immigrant ghetto" which is essentially a monocultural enclave. As for "traditional working class support" ... I'm not sure that that kind of class analysis is any longer particularly useful, or even valid: the days when production was labour-intensive have largely passed, and the labour/capital division must now be broadened.

But I certainly wouldn't disagree about the alienation that many of Labour's traditional supporters feel: the gross negligence in failing to even attempt to provide decent Council (preferrably NOT the pseudo-corporate "social") housing, keep functional community nuclei like small shops and post offices, and lack of understanding of the effects of gross and insensitive community relocation schemes (including impact of immigrants, but also the often-loathed "slum clearance / urban improvement" schemes of the past 40 years) are all real and legitimate grievances.

I seriously hope not.

Well I escaped when I saw the credit crunch coming, waiting for stirling to come down (which it did in Feb) and moved my money back in to pounds, made a tidy 10% on my money in four weeks. I have to admit it is the first time I made a profit out of a recession.

Well I got fed up warning this MP of this and that MP of that, none of them listened so I think I deserved a year out working in South Korea. Hadn't had a holiday in seven years so why not?

"What he had to say reminded me somewhat of Harold Wilson's oft-forgotten argument that "the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing"."

That now seems "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."

I agree.

James Purnell, Jon Cruddas and other special friends are having a meeting (Demos think tank) about "renewing" Labour. It will be interesting to see what these very impractical people conclude. Apparently they were the think tank that adopted the "Third Way" methodology, which of course has been used many times in history by politicians including Roosevelt. So this didn't really come up with anything original. That would of course require talent, creativity and real substantial experience.

Very true.

The New Labour "measured compromise" is endless support for international corporate capitalism without any concern for the British workforce.

The New Labour "middle ground between the unions and the employer" is that the employer always wins, after all, they pay for all those events at Conference and we need their donations.

The New Labour "rebuild a sense of society" means immigrant ghettos (sorry, multicultural communities) and the BNP elected to public positions because we've totally lost touch with our traditional workingclass support.

The New Labour "well intentioned public service" have become target driven, league table fixated and full of technocratic based corporate-styled management who are more interested in the balance sheet and their 'salary package' than the services they provide. The prime example is the NHS PFI Hospitals are full of high-tech gizmos, graduate nurses who are too posh to wash and contract labour on the minimum wage who are not paid to care.

Etc. etc. etc. .............

The reality is that New Labour has made Britain a truly dispiriting place to live and work.

And what have the Tories got to offer the people: "the heir to Blair".

I would like to emigrate, but I've been credit crunched !!!!!

I agree with much of what you have said Ralph. To my mind the problem runs deeper than the politicians themselves, or even the activists of each party. You might be able to class it as the system, but the real problem seems to be the complete lack of honesty within government and I see nothing in the Conservative party, or anyone else for that matter, that challenges that.

We've had so many years of figures being manipulated they no longer mean anything, to the point we have Alastair Darling may actually believe the numbers he relays on things like inflation. We hear a lot of moose-talk about education and for the most part those in education work damned hard, but what sort of backup do they get from the politicians? When its going good, it is all down to the current education minister, but anything goes wrong it is the fault of the teacher, the headmaster or the teaching assistant. Words such as 'investment' are thrown at us until we don't listen any more, and a lot of the time the politicians must think we are blind.

Yes, I can see the brand new hospital in St Helens for instance, but the fact it has a 15foot drop surrounded by glass with a bridge to MRI department is possibly the most stupid design ever imaginable. Has the designer ever had need for an MRI department? Were they aware that some of those who are diagnosed with brain tumours have irrational reactions to heights and would only be able to reach the MRI department there if they closed their eyes and were pushed across the bridge? I'd say that was more than a minor flaw in the design, hospitals should be putting patients at ease and catering for conditions, not looking like some bastardised shopping centre. Anyway, I'm getting off the point. Yes, it's a new building, but it lacks the staff to run effectively. There was 1 receptionist covering a multitude of desks around the hospital - how is that supposed to work? You turn up for your appointment but nobody even knows you are there because she is on the other side of the hospital booking someone else in. When she finally arrives, she is so bad tempered and probably knackered, patient care and attention is reduced to grunts and the pointing of fingers.

On the bright side though I'm sure the local councillors had a few MPs milling around for a photo opportunity outside the new building, all very impressive and proving to the electorate that money is being pumped into hospitals. It proves you can spend money alright, but it doesn't mean you're spending it wisely and in the right places! For crying out loud, give me a few million quid and I can spend it on schools for you, I'll get bouncy castles and ice-cream vans onsite. It won't improve the education, but the kids would be smiling to their parents at home time - hows that for spending wisely? It's silly isn't it? But thats what politicians are doing in effect. They spend money on things that look good for the photo op, they spend money on things that will make a catchy headline in the newspaper and the really difficult stuff, the decisions that take real courage and conviction to push through, well we'll announce something, then sweep it under the carpet for another year.

And there is your reason for the dishonesty. It isn't about solving the problems of Britain anymore, its about what sounds good. Don't bother tackling the causes of crime, just take a mobile phone from a hoody. Don't create new jobs that will change people's lives, just manipulate the unemployment figures so they don't include a certain benefit any more. Why bother building affordable housing when you can partner with the private sector and put your trust that a company director will put the welfare of the local people before profit! On the surface, to the politicans at least, they're doing their jobs but are they? Are they doing anything other than wasting millions every year on a building that caters for their every need, allows them to flout the smoking ban that they put in place for the rest of us, sit in the main chamber when they can be bothered and have a snooze and then fill out those expense forms for the long trip to the taxpayer funded house that they hope will double in value before they quit being an MP and move to the private sector.

Nothing is being done! We can cheer when money is spent on a new project, but do you not see, it is money down the drain. Nothing is really changing other than the bank balances of MPs, we're not changing lives with our debates, we're tinkering around the edges and trying to make things look good. Britain needs an industrial base again, it needs exports, real exports. Wealth creation from the service industry? That isn't going to happen is it because as the money gets passed about, it gradually dwindles with a tax here and a tax there or it goes abroad to the foreign investors running the company.

You'll stand by while politicians do absolutely nothing about energy suppliers hiking bills to the point where our old can not heat their homes, or young families sleep in one room to keep the bills down. As long as the politicians collect a bit of tax at the end of it to pay for their next publicity stunt, what the hell does it matter if some old lady freezes to death? Sure, she manned an anti-aircraft gun in WW2, but we don't talk about that anymore because it might upset the Germans. We're all so busy watching what we say to each other because we might offend, bashing on and on about our rights and all the while in a so-called civilised society we allow a private company to extort money from old aged pensioners to the point that it kills them. Sorry if that is too graphic description, but it is the truth.

I don't know about you, but I accept that there will be policies I do not like. Unfortunately politics isn't about being popular, it is about making tough decisions for the sake of the country, spending the money in the public purse wisely and making sure that the country as a whole runs smoothly. Can someone please explain where ID cards, Trident missles, the sale of the PO, mass immigration, taxes so high they are essentially refunded in the form of tax credits and a goverment system with more layers than a celebrities wedding cake has to do with the effective running of the country?

Whatever your political persuasion, you can't really expect this farce to continue. The logical conclusion to the current situation is that the money will circulate and dwindle until we end up with nothing, then all those nice houses, coffee shops and fancy waterfalls in town centres will mean nothing either. Without industry this country is nothing more than one huge supermarket with more staff than are really needed. Without decent paying jobs for the majority, it isn't the lazy on benefits that are causing the problem, its the thousands who need tax credits just to afford to pay the gas bill.

We need another government like the post-war government. We need another Clement Attlee, someone with a real vision and a real spine who will tell the people the truth, not just what they want to hear in order to win the next election. Scoring points for party political reasons is all very well, but it really isn't getting the country anywhere whilst we have so many problems. Fix the problems, make Britain profitable again, then we can go back to arguing over Cameron's hair style or GB's loose lower jaw. Bring wealth creation to the country and social mobility will happen on its own, crime will ease and equality will be more than just a word in a politician's latest publicity drive.

The idea of New Labour was originally not a bad one. It was the language of measured compromise and fair consensus to reasure the public Labour was not going to descend in to militancy and rebuild a sense of society that had been for so long riddled with needless divisions.
It was also about seeking a middle ground between the unions and the employer and as mutual a relationship as could be possibly be found.


Sadly the project has fallen into the toilet. Measured compromise has become total compromise of ethics and values, consensus is limited to foreign policy and the banks. New Labour has become old Tory with the markets being idolised by MP's more concerned with feathering thier own nests and remaining sycophantic to the rich and powerful.

What began as well intentioned public service has descended into arrogant dismissal of the thoughts, beliefs and values of the public who have once again been sold out by sleazy government. Lammy recognises the original New Labour idea that attracted so many of us in the beginning but as I have said before many times, it is not abour New/Old Labour it is very much about the conduct of politicians.

There is a serious lack of willingness or intent to serve the public and I applaud Lammy's position on the right of recall of MP's who will be made accountable for thier actions. I think Jessica Asato was out of her depth, her friends ay Progress still refer to the decline of New Labour through rose tinted glasses using phrases such as "modern" and "radical". What is modern about the markets? Even in ancient Rome markets and economics were as old as antiquity and the Tories have been wise to this for centuries.

It must be hard on her though to be out of touch with the public feeling before she has even become an MP. That is an achievement I have to say, most poiticians lose the plot when they become to embroiled with procedures and the closetted world that is Westminister.

Lammy surprised me. Though I do not think there needs to be a reform to the voting system (it was not the voting system that caused the recent problems and detracts from the core issue - nothing new here), there is a requirement for a realisation of British identity and moral values. It cannot be for any mere MP to bring this about however as they have no moral position to preach to anybody. It can however be brought about with the involvement of MP's though no individual should seek to glorify themselves or the whole thing falls on it's head.

It will now be many years before such a change can occur though as nobody will trust either main party with such crucial legislation. You can't trust them with the little things, ergo you can't trust them with the big ones.


Glad Lammy has been listening, but unless Labour truly catches up to the curve that is public feeling they will be out of power for a very, very long time. So far Cameron is leading, but neither party understand or displays an interest in being radical enough to take the bull by the horns. We are now seeing candidates of parties producing "pledges" of good conduct. Nobody is going to believe that the candidates will keep to them once elected though any more than the last lot who were going to be "whiter than white" and turned out to be toilet trash.

To date, I haven't been all that keen on David Lammy, who has struck me as verbose to the point of pretentiousness, and this podcast has rather surprised me. His quibbling about the magic of New Labour aside, he is absolutely bang on the money. Democracy does indeed need to be refreshed, and it must come from the grassroots and not the think tanks. This seemed like quite the revelation to Jessica Asato.

What he had to say reminded me somewhat of Harold Wilson's oft-forgotten argument that "the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing".

Is there a transcript or summary of this?

Heavens Lammy just described to Jessica Asato the whole point of the Labour Party. Guess to her the unethical unthinking markets are the be all and end all. But then she did work for John Majors' favorite think tank. Lammy has put things into wonderful context.