http://www.labourlist.org/there-is-nothing-wrong-with-discrimination

Yesterday I read with interest Ian Silvera’s LabourList post “How to get more women and ethnic minorities into politics: the sober way”.

Ian started by saying “Positive discrimination is oxymoronic”. And for me this is the essence of where both Ian’s article, and argument, goes wrong. Let’s be clear about this – there is nothing necessarily wrong with discrimination. That might seem an odd thing for a Labour activist to say but it is true.

Our society discriminates all the time, with good reason, and with the acceptance of pretty much everybody. When my local hospital wants to hire a new surgeon in their Neurology department they discriminate in favour of applicants trained and experienced in Neurosurgery. No matter how many times I apply, my training and experience as a local union rep in a call centre doesn’t ever get me an interview. And quite rightly too.

Similarly, when primary schools and nurseries are recruiting people to work on site with or near children they routinely discriminate against convicted and registered sex offenders. Does anyone really have a problem with that? Of course not, it is discrimination but it is entirely relevant and proportionate.

It is sloppy thinking to just say “discrimination” is wrong. What is wrong is to discriminate on irrelevant or unreasonable grounds. So whilst it is fine for Derriford Hospital to tell me I am utterly unqualified for the role of Neurosurgeon due to my total lack of qualifications and experience, it would not be fair, reasonable or legal for them to say that a qualified Asian surgeon couldn’t apply because they had an “all white” recruitment policy. That discrimination would be on irrelevant grounds (as surgeon’s ethnicity has nothing to do with their ability to do the job) and therefore unreasonable.

This is important and relevant to the argument around how we get a more representative PLP. The level of BME and female representation in the PLP is much better than it was, and we are streets ahead of the other mainstream parties. But I don’t 20% of MPs being women is something we should celebrate – it is an absolute scandal and utterly shameful. Our party is still not doing anything like nearly enough to get proper representation from women and minorities.

Ian went on to make the point “If you give special privileges to one group in society, then you discriminate against another.” That appears to be superficially true and hard to argue against. But as I have already said there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination per se. So the question is, in some seats is it relevant and reasonable to discriminate in favour of women and minorities in parliamentary seat selection?

At a time of declining voter engagement, and general disillusionment with politics it is more than ever important for us to take steps to ensure our legislature feels representative of the people they represent. Parliament is still drawn from an incredibly narrow pool. What we are doing at the moment isn’t enough, we need to do more. And if the Labour Party does not take a lead on this, no mainstream party will.

I am a straight, white, able bodied male. And the reality is that people like me as a group are not discriminated against in terms of political involvement. All women shortlists may mean that individual men, in individual seats are unable to stand. But this is not the same as some sort of institutional discrimination against men. The truth is most of the PLP are straight white men. As a group we remain over represented, massively in parliament.

All women shortlists are a proportionate and reasonable response to a big structural problem in political representation. Discrimination? For sure. Is it a flawed mechanism with big problems of its own? Absolutely. In politics we rarely have the luxury of choosing between the right path and the wrong path, good and evil. Sometimes we have to choose between difficult options both of which might seem in some ways unpalatable. All women shortlists and under-representation in parliament is one of those areas, but the benefit of having them more than outweighs the cost.

I’m not against the idea of the Future Candidates Program (in fact I think it is a great idea). But for me a lack of skill, preparation and training isn’t the reason why we don’t have a fully balanced and representative parliament. However uncomfortable it might be for some of us to admit, there are a large number of institutional, political and cultural biases in our party toward white men. It is these institutional barriers that must be overcome.

And the only thing we have so far come up with that works well is All Women Shortlists. They have been undeniably effective (though much work is still to be done). Until such a time as we can come up with a better alternative, and one which the evidence suggests is likely to be more effective then we have to stick with it. And if that means that as an individual I and people like who look like me wont be able to stand in my particular seat (Plymouth Sutton and Devonport – a key marginal) then so be it. Socialism is about the collective good. A representative balanced parliament is a collective good and one that I for one will fight for.

1. Great Night for the Tories.

Whatever you think of them (and i’d guess most people reading this would have a fair few choice words!) one has to admire the political skill with which Cameron and Osborne have conducted their affairs of late. They were dealt a pretty darned tricky hand, in a large part of their own making. They badly misjudged things in 2008, made the wrong call about early cuts and economic stimulus and allowed Gordon Brown to win part of the argument and gave Labour an “in” at the 2010 General Election that probably we were not expecting. They didn’t do enough to win an election (which as I have mentioned several times previously was a gaping own goal) and given the Tory appetite for Regicide there must have been some worrying moments.

Tories consulting omens about early election.

But they acted really rather boldly in forming the coalition, and in doing so have landed themselves in a much stronger position that they could possibly have hoped for at this stage in proceedings. Whilst the Liberals have taken nothing but grief for their part in the coalition (more on that later) the Tories, and Cameron in particular have been able to garner a fair amount of credit for “doing the right thing”. However much it is bollocks, they have created a narrative of acting stoically in the “National Interest” under difficult circumstances on the economy and however unpalatable it might be for us on the left they are winning the argument with “the man on the street”.

The big story yesterday for me was the buoyant performance for the Tories in English elections. Rather than being unpopular due to the government and finding themselves in a retreat and a collapse their position held up (in fact at the time of writing they have enjoyed a moderate improvement winning around 4 extra councils and about 80 extra cllrs). They remain solidly the party of Local and National government in England. The Tories will see this as a great platform to be able to win a general election. With their coalition partners massively diminished, AV having gone south and Labour enjoying mixed results at best, they might even start thinking about a snap election at some point if the omens look good….

2. An awful night for the Lib Dems.

If Cameron and Osborne were on a sticky wicket the day after the 2010 general election then Libs were on a stickier one. They clearly hadn’t really expected to get into the position they were in (despite surely their whol electoral strategy being predicated on that outcome), they had made promises they couldn’t keep (and in the case of the tuition fees never had any intention of keeping). I guess they had little choice but to go into the coalition (though hindsight certainly suggest they would have been better off with a supply and confidence deal). I think their real tactical error was the massive love in they engaged in. That they seemed to willingly become the “human shields” for the worst ill effects of what the government was doing was just ridiculous (why does Danny Alexander always give the treasury bad news?)

Well they have “got theirs” and big style. The party took an almighty kicking, their local activist base has been decimated and destroyed. The big prize, of electoral reform, has gone south (and some! Let’s be honest) and their bargaining position has been totally undermined. They can have no credible threat in any negotiations with the PM because he and his party know that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party simply cannot afford to be going to the polls in an election anytime soon. They are locked in an embrace in the coalition hoping that the economy improves closer to the election. What they must realise though in their heart or hearts is that even if it does it is probably going to be the Tories that reap the benefit.

I suspect between now, and the next election, the Liberal Democrats are going to have a fair few awful nights like yesterday. Ho hum, you reap what you sow.

3. Mixed night for Labour.

I said in a piece I wrote for LabourList yesterday that it was “Time for Labour to Wake Up“. Now I stand by that blog in it’s entirety. What happened in Scotland was a disaster, and I am very surprised that we were unable to garner a majority in Wales. But winning 800 councillors across England was a really positive start in terms of the party bouncing back (after what was a crushing, crushing defeat last year). What is clear to me though is the scale of our gains (especially in the context of the Tory vote holding up so well) are not pointing to us coming back to power in 2015. Things are not as bad as they could be, but not as well as we hoped. I hope yesterday shatters the illusions of anyone who thinks we just need to turn up  next time and we will win.

4. We didn’t vote to keep FPTP in perpetuity.

Perhaps my ballot paper was misprinted. But on mine it asked me a very specific question about if I thought we should adopt the AV system or not. I chose yes, most people chose no. John Reid has claimed that there was an overwhelming endorsement of FPTP, Matthew Sinclair (Of the Tax Payers Alliance fame) claims this referendum should “close the door on electoral reform for a generation. I think analysis of the cold hard facts ought to suggest otherwise. Some 32% of people voted for a change to AV, several million and whilst it clearly was rejected there remains amongst a lot of people an appetite for change.

It is simply wrong to suggest that everyone who voted “no” wanted to clearly say that they supported first past the post. There was a campaign group called No2AV Yes2PR, I know anecdotally loads of people who voted “no” because they didn’t like AV specifically whom might have voted differently to a referendum on some form of PR.

I think we have to get real though in the recriminations a little. Yes the “no” campaign lied profusely, yes they were shadily funded by nasty Tory scum who see the present system as the best way of protecting their narrow self interest. But, in the final denouement, AV went down because people didn’t like or want it. David Allen Green put’s it quite simply here on his Jack of Kent blog. And can it really be a surprise? Now I imagine that I won’t say these words, in this order, all too often on these pages but….

Nick Clegg was right (god that feels weird). AV really is a “miserable little compromise”. Despite being a vocal and forceful advocate of Yes2AV I didn’t want the AV system. It is crap. It’s only virtues is that it wasn’t as bad as what we have got at the moment. And you know what I don’t really know anyone else in the Yes2AV camp who doesn’t to a greater or lesser extend think something along these line. The truth is we really didn’t believe in it, and that was always going to make it an impossible job to sell.

I support electoral reform because I believe that fundamentally in a democracy the make up of our parliament ought to reflect the views of those who vote. For me this is “Democracy: 101″, our current system does not do that. Millions of people who support UKIP, the Greens, etc. just simply do not have their views represented in our parliament and this is just plain wrong. If a question about voting reform is ever put to the British people again it has to be on the basis of a system that would delivery some sort of proportionality. It will have to be something the campaigners actually believe in, something we can positively advocate.

5…. But in practice it is FPTP for the next two parliaments at the very least.

I think when the public express such a strong view  on the topic it is always going to be seen as a compelling narrative of “status quo prevails”. I think there is no milage in reforms trying to get a proposal before the public for the next 10 years at least. People will simply be annoyed at being asked again even if the question is different. Unless circumstances change (and should 2015 deliver another hung parliament and coalition that would do it) then the argument will be different and better.

I think what needs to happen is reformers now have to look to make positive cases around changing other aspects of our system. Lord’s reform, constitutional reform, how local democracy works. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and maybe the best way to demonstrate that changing the election system for the commons can make things better is to deliver successful reform in other areas. There is a lot wrong in our politics and our system. Let’s focus our energy on making good things happen and see where it takes us?

My Union is the CWU, and many CWU members who have tried to contact our MPs over the last few years about the various government wheezes to privatise the Royal Mail will have experienced the frustration that comes from this. Even “our” MPs in the Labour Party that the CWU affiliates to, who promised in their 2005 Manifesto to keep Royal Mail in public ownership treated us with disdain as we rallied against Peter Mandleson’s plan to sell us off.

As a member of the Labour Party I am proud of many of the achievements of the Labour government, I want our party to be successful. But I don’t support Labour blindly and unconditionally (like the way I support my beloved Plymouth Argyle) I support them because I want them to deliver better outcomes, for the poor, those disenfranchised and for workers and Trade Unions. And unfortunately, if truth be told, 13 years of Labour government were often a disappointment.

It is hard to make a compelling case that the position of Unions; in terms of membership, political influence or the legislative framework we operate within; is dramatically better in today than it was in was in 1997. The truth is the strictest organised labour laws in the Liberal Democratic world are still firmly in place.

And whilst there was always an element of the New Labour right immensely distrustful toward Unions or even openly hostile the truth is this wasn’t and isn’t widespread in the party. It wasn’t ideological Labour opposition that meant 13 years of Labour Government didn’t delivery properly for Unions or working people. Rather it was our political system.

Put bluntly under a First Past the Post system there is little incentive to play to “core support”. There may be votes in coming out to bat for Unions and workers, but under our current political system they are not the right ones, or in the right places.

There is only really any political mileage for our parties in seeking to please a small and narrow band of voters who tend to switch allegiance, and who tend to sit in seats that also change hands. And usually, but not always, Trade Union and workers rights are not at the top of these peoples list of political priorities.

I live in the “Plymouth Sutton and Devonport” one of three seats in Plymouth and the only marginal swing seat, it has changed hands every time the government changed for a couple of decades now. My vote really matters because the parties think the seat may change hands. I get listened to, parties spend time and money trying to get my vote. But for those living in the “South West Devon” or “”Plymouth Moor view” constituencies also in Plymouth their voices and votes count less, because the seats are “safe”. All to often those most passionately in favour of Union and workers rights sit in these sort of constituencies.

The more seats that become like “Sutton and Devonport”, and the harder parties would have to work to get to win these seats the more different views will be listened to in politics. And many of these voices will be more sympathetic to Unions and Workers. Having the fictional “Ford Mondeo Man” as the only person setting political agendas in the UK isn’t good for Unions. Changing the rules of the game can only benefit our members and our unions, and in doing so it will make the UK a better and fairer place to live and work.

Under AV there would be many less safe seats, many more places where politicians and parties would have to listen, and work for our support than they do at present.

At the moment we have an awful destructive Tory led government pushing through ruinous cuts designed to benefit the rich and hurt ordinary people like us. But in truth only about 35% of people actually voted for this. The vast majority voted against fast and early cuts (Though our Liberal Democrat chums seem to have forgotten what they promised on this).

But despite this the ludicrous voting system we have at the moment has massively over rewarded the Tories. And the net result is that ordinary people like my members in the CWU are suffering at the hands of a government that has no real democratic mandate to do the awful stuff they are doing. And we are going to suffer for generations. AV will not solve this issue but it is a step in the right direction.

This could be our last chance for a generation to make politics better, fairer and to make politicians work for, and answer to us. Vote “Yes”, I know I am.

I thought it was an interesting view that was worth a full blog post riposte, I mean who wouldn’t want the Lib Dems to get a kicking and the General Election early? I know the thought of that really pleases me.

The trouble is for me it just doesn’t add up. Clearly electoral reform is important to the Lib Dems (and all small parties for that matter) and was one of their big objectives coming into coalition government. It would inevitably be a slap in the face and a sap to the morale if there is a no vote.

The real winner if if No2AV wins.

But will this destabilise the Government and bring forward a General Election? From the Liberal perspective of course not. They are polling in the doldrums, 8, 9, 10% consistently over a long period of time. The party are taking most of the flak for what the government are doing, have a leader who is “Political Kryptonite”. If there was a General Election tomorrow the Parliamentary Liberal Democrat party would be wiped out.

Perhaps there are a few Lib Dem members of parliament that put conscience, belief, integrity and ideals before career (Vince Cable? Simon Hughes? Can you hear us……) but are there enough of them with an appetite to put themselves out of a job, which let’s face it is the most probably outcome if there was an election any-time soon. Anyone think this is even remotely credible?

And even if it was possible what would it be likely to achieve? How would resigning from the Government help their cause? Having lost a referendum on electoral reform if they then in a fit of pique also prove, in the eyes of reform detractors, that coalition government is unstable and unsuitable they will have hammered an extra nail into political reform for a generation. They just won’t do it.

But that isn’t to say the coalition is unshakable granite. It isn’t it is just looking at it from the POV of attacking the Liberal Democrats is the wrong angle. No the weak link of the coalition isn’t the Lib Dems, they have no choice to to hug tight and hope for the best. The weak link is the Tories, specifically the Tory right.

Lets remember in reality the 2010 election was a bit of a disaster for Cameron. He had a gaping own goal, a tired unpopular third term government widely discredited and out of gas. The most unpopular Prime Minister in ages. And a economic downturn of a scale not seen since the 1930s. He should have won a thumping majority maybe even a landslide but he came up short.

The Tory right were furious, they believed that this was because Cameron had been weak, too centrist. Had they tacked hard to the right on immigration, law and order, the family and low taxation they would have won a resounding victory (I mean that worked out well for Major, Hague and Howard right !). They felt let down.

The Tory right didn’t want a coalition, they wanted to go it alone and govern as a minority maybe calling a snap election in a “who governs?” way after a few months. A second election they confidently predicted would result in a Tory majority and a mandate to rule (well more than the God given one they assume as a matter of course!).

So the real threat to the Coalition is the Tory right seeing evidence that actually the Lib Dems are getting a far better deal, that Tory values are being eroded in a sop to the Liberal Democrats, that sacred cows are being sacrificed. But most of all that future Tory prospects are being damaged.

For me this is crystal clear, changing the electoral system in a way the Tories will fear hampers them will cause massive problems for David Cameron and George Osborne in managing their party. The “New Statesman” is reporting a Tory backbench plot to thwart AV if there is a Yes vote. If a Yes was combined with a bad showing in the locals and devolved parliaments for the Tories Cameron would be likely faced with an almighty backlash form both his grass roots and the 1922 committee. There would be many voices saying it would be better to call a snap election than let AV happen.

The reality is if you don’t care about the issue, but you want to give the government a kicking then by voting yes you get so much more bang for you buck. Clegg is a schmuck, an eejit and a wally. But he is a spent force; his own personal credibility amongst progressive voters will never recover. He is finished.

Cameron and Osborne are very real, potent and live threats to ordinary people and our country. They are the real enemy, they are the people whom our fire should be focussed on. And they want a “no” vote. Come on let’s smack Osborne in his smug face and vote YES TO AV!

Well apparently anyway. I’m guessing the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Times, The Telegraph didn’t get the memo. Neither did our TV networks. Or I suppose any of our political parties. Or people you meet in pubs…

No huddled masses here we are British.

Hang on, actually loads of people talk about immigration all the time. And in many ways it dominates parts of the British political agenda and has done so for generations.

And as I write this it is dominating the news agenda because our wonderful “man of the people” PM has today tried to rally his troops by giving a borderline BNP speech controversial call to arms to the Tory right over immigration.

As is often the case when the Right want to talk about immigration many of us on the left find it a little difficult to position ourselves. It isn’t a difficult topic for the right but it is for us.

Often it seems our instinct is to both believe, and to say, that anyone who has concerns around immigration and anyone who wants to talk about the issue are racists or at least motivated by subtle racism. The problem for the left, and for Labour is the uncomfortable truth that this often puts us on the other side of the argument from our supporters. Further it just isn’t true.

It is a real challenge for the left to find a way of acknowledging some of the real and legitimate concerns that can motivate people around this issue. That communities can sometimes change very rapidly and in a way people find hard to understand when large numbers of immigrants move into an area is very real. That changing the number of people, and their demographics in a small area will effect the provision of services and division of resources is clearly a fact.

Many people, and Labour supporters and Trade Union members at that, will have many entirely justifiable concerns around these issues. And having concerns about these things does not make one a racist, and these feelings are not necessarily motivated out of racism. If the left is to be successful we have to find a narrative around these issues that acknowledges these concerns but is consistent with our values around diversity and equality. It is a fine line that I feel New Labour often got wrong (from both ends) in office.

However if you thought those last couple of paragraphs were clearly leading up to a big “but”, then you would be absolutely spot on. I have a massive issue with the demonstrably false notion that “no one can talk about immigration without fear of being categorised a racist”. It isn’t true; people are parties have talked openly about immigration for decades.

My big problem is that actually this just often serves as cover for feelings, thoughts and policies around immigration that are plain racist and motivated out of racism. I don’t really see how anyone can seriously argue that a big motivating factor around why immigration is an issue isn’t in some respects racism.

The vile lies and propaganda that the Daily Heil and the Express, around immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants (and frankly British Muslims) and anyone else they define as “other” or “different” is almost entirely fuelled by bigotry and racism. I have to be honest I don’t think I have ever heard a complaint made in seriousness about white, English speaking immigrants from Australia, America, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand living in the UK.

Let’s be honest here David Cameron almost certainly isn’t a racist (I doubt many of the metropolitan Notting Hill set Tories are). But by making this speech today he is hoping to drum up support from “Monday Club” Tories who probably think along the lines of Alan Clark and his famous “Send them back to Bongo Bongo Land” quote. He might not be a racist but he damn sure wants to appeal to racists, and he damn sure wants racists to vote Conservative. This is immoral and unacceptable politics and the left just has to be on the side of the angels on this issue.

It leaves us with a troubling conundrum. How exactly do we tackle a complex policy issue that arises fierce passions across the electorate in a way that chimes with our supporters and potential supporters which is consistent with our values? The truth is I do not know. But I am pretty sure that in government Labour did not do well out of the “arms race” with the Tories and the right wing press that David Blunkett and Jack Straw tried to engage in. We need new, and intellectually robust thinking on this and we will probably need it quickly.

When the Mrs Duffy stuff happened to Gordon Brown it was something that had been waiting to happen. The intellectual left has utterly lost touch on this issue in so many ways (and frankly i’d count myself as one of those who is out of touch and doesn’t have the answers). We don’t know how to talk to the white working classes on the issue, Labour and the left have to find a way. Otherwise the agenda will continue to be set by the right. And that is the worst of all worlds.

Compass

I’m a member of the Labour party and proud to be so. I’m also a member of Compass and proud to be so. So what do I think about the decision today by compass to vote to open up voting membership to those who belong to other political parties. Well when I cast my vote I put the little “X” next to the no box so you might think I would be really disappointed.

However I think my response is a little more nuanced than that. Firstly and importantly I did not vote no because I think the idea was in of itself wrong, I just didn’t think it would work.

Apart from a few New Labour evangelists, and knuckle dragging party tribalists I think there are very few people who would believe the Labour party is right on all issues and that we have a monopoly on wisdom. People and Party’s views, policies and positions change. They often change in relation to one another. I am a member of the Labour party but in reality there are many policies the Lib Dems have on civil liberties that I wish the Labour leadership would adopt. And there are huge chunks of what the Green Party stand for that chimes very deeply with sincerely held views I hold. And heck, even the diaspora or crazy batshit mental lefty parties and trots occasionally have good things to say from time to time (that one is for you Rob W !)

For me that the campaigning soft left should have a cross pollination of ideas, and finding the grounds for cooperation areas on which we have common cause and can work together has to be a good thing.

You see here is the real kicker, and I know this pisses off the small “c” conservative Labour party dinosaurs, but UK politics is changing. Us in the party bubbles may still be incredibly tribal, we may see politics as urban warfare, black or white, us or them. But…. and it is a big but, increasingly the public are moving away from that. The public are becoming less tribal, the vote is fragmenting (an excellent take on this from the always excellent Next Left can be read here) and patterns of how people support parties is changing. And you know what barring something utterly miraculous that is going to continue to happen.

Irrespective of what happens in the AV referendum there are going to be more hung parliaments moving forward than we had become used to in the years leading up to 2010. If the Labour party is going to be able to succeed, win power, make real positive changes to peoples lives then we have to be able to find a way to look outward and work with others. For me the “soft left” in the Labour party really ought to be the engine of how this can happen. If the Labour party soft left in Compass cannot work with the Greens and left leaning Lib Dems how are we going to form a coalition if the next parliament is hung but Labour do better?

But despite thinking this I still voted no. Almost entirely as a tactical decision, because I think our politics at the moment is too tribal, too short-term-est, too blinkered. And I think too many people especially in the Labour party either don’t understand how voting behaviour is changing or are choosing to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend things are not going the way they are.

I worry that Compass opening up it’s membership just wont deliver the kind of open, dynamic progressive movement that will ensure that the next government has a progressive character in the event of a hung parliament (or even an outright labour win!). I must say I think the principle outcome is likely to be that Compass’ influence within Labour will be massively diminished.

And in the end this will harm Labour and the whole left wing progressive movement. One of the reasons I came back into the Labour party fold was that in Compass there was a successful campaigning body for the soft left that seemed to be changing Labour for the better. I imagine there are a fair few others like me. If opening up Compass means that good work stops being done then it is bad for Labour, bad for the Left and bad for the country.

I do ever so hope I am wrong.

Not that bunch of Splitters

Of course it couldn’t last and the left has now remembered who the *real* enemies are… and that of course is other Lefties who do not agree with exactly what we think on every single issue and in every single way.

And the last couple of months have seen ideological purity spats rising up all over the place, from the attacks on Aaron Porter, to the Rentoul mob Labour right attacks on Ed Miliband to the National Shops Stewards Network to the power struggle in the UCU union.

Clearly different people on the left want different things. It is unrealistic to expect the social democrats within Labour who want reform of the status quo, to agree with every thing a Revolutionary Socialist Party like the SWP who want to do away with capitalism want to do and say.

But what I can’t understand is why fight each other, why not those working toward revolution (good luck with that BTW, I advise you all to keep breathing in the mean time!) do the things they want to do and work together with us flakey Social Democrats where we do agree?

I guess it is a utopian dream to expect this, but I was kinda hoping all the same!

UPDATE

Over on Facebook I was challenged by a pal about me always taking a potshot at the left of Labour groups on Lunchtime Legend. Which is frankly a fair cop. Part of my response, which I think is relevant here I have reproduced:-

“A serious point though I am genuinely mad at the left of labour groups for the factionalism, splintering and petty ideological purity stuff. The reason being is they let the Labour party off the hook.

If there was an organised but pragmatic left it would hold Labour to account and probably move the political centre leftwards (in the same way that UKIP are an effective check on the Tory left and centre).

That is why I am amazed that non revolutionary lefties don’t all join the Green party. They are solidly left, well organised and credible. That is the future, and until something along those lines happen then Labour for all the myriad faults is the only game in town.”

But, for me one of the reasons I am political is that I want to change the world, I want to make it better, and sometimes that means trying to change and challenge prevalent attitude. I believe that the Labour party is capable of being a campaigning and transformational force for good in British society, and that is why I am a Labour supporter. The social reforms of the 64-70 Wilson government pushed through by Roy Jenkins didn’t have overwhelming popular support at the time (in many quarters out right hostility) but few now argue they were not the right thing to do.

And it is for that reason that I personally am hoping for a more nuanced drug policy from the Labour front bench moving forward than simply chasing Daily Heil approval. And whilst I understand why Ed has taken the stance he has I hope this can evolve over his period of time as leader.

See for me the essential problem is that we talk about drugs very much in the wrong terms. It is always talked about, as Peter Hitchens does here in the Guardian, in terms of harm to individual users. And for me this is profoundly disingenuous. I don’t know anyone apart from a few crazy pro weed hippies, who claim that drugs are not harmful to the people who use them.

What the debate ought to be about is how best do we as a society, as a matter of public policy, deal with the harm that drugs do. And for me this harm ought to include the wider harm that drug use causes us all. In terms of petty crime, cost of incarceration of criminals, policing, gang violence, organised crime, and international drug trafficking.

I hope that if nothing else we can start to debate the issue of the problems of drugs not just in terms of the atomised harm to an individual drug user, but in terms of the wider harm that is caused the by the issue generally.

I agree with the pressure group “Transform Drugs policy Foundation” in their call for an impact assessment to be carried out into the totality of the cost of our drugs policy. For me it is entirely unrealistic in the short term for the Labour party to campaign for a more sensible and workable drugs policy. So for me the incremental step of campaigning to change the terms of reference of the whole debate might be the way we get a better drugs policy in the future. I really hope that in time the Labour party can adopt the idea of an impact assessment to inform future drug police as official party stance.

But for me one thing is for sure, Bob Ainsworth is right that our current policy isn’t working. Lives are being wrecked all across the world by drugs, and what we are doing now is not in any way arresting this. Something needs to change and if small incremental steps is all we can get right now then that is better than nothing.