The first time I saw Ed Miliband live was at Latitude Festival, where he and 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong were doing a Q&A on the response to the threat of climate change. At that time, I had only been a member of the party for a few months, and I don’t think I really appreciated how well he did, assuming this sort of event to be more popular among politicians than it is in reality. The questions came from dedicated environmental activists, and got right to the heart of areas where government policy just hadn’t quite reached yet. “Would you support a ban on domestic flight?” “How do we stop state-owned banks investing into companies that are devastating the Canadian oil sands?” “Must we go nuclear?”
Franny naturally encouraged people to challenge him, but at the end of the session, she made a couple of important points. Firstly, she highlighted the Britain’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, which detailed exactly how Britain would meet its legislated commitments to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020, and by 80% by 2050. She said that the assembled crowd should not underestimate how much of a step the Department of Energy and Climate Change, with Ed at the helm, had taken with these moves. She then remarked that Labour were clearly going to lose the next election (prescient). But she also remarked that in the next few years, climate change and sustainable living were going to creep up the agenda, as it would become harder and harder to ignore the effects of unpredictable weather and dwindling resources.
Turning to look at Ed, she said “in five years time, those factors could be what make you the next Prime Minister.”
From this vantage point, a Labour Prime Minister, Ed or anyone else, feels a long way off. Labour is at an interesting point, where the party needs to find a balance between embracing and enhancing the positive changes made under the New Labour project – while also acknowledging its failures, and in so doing, re-entrenching the progressive values that we all care about into the heart of our vision for the UK. I don’t think any of us are naive enough to think that we have nothing left to do with regards to eradicating inequalities in health, wealth and social capital (far from it) – or that we haven’t done things which have alienated people who we used to count on to support us.
We need a leader who not only understands that, but who won’t be afraid to make that argument, to hold people to account, and to do it with fire and passion. We also need someone who will draw us all together on the progressive left – someone who understands that a healthy exchange of different views that spring from the same values is a good thing, and not something that should tear us apart. I’m not saying that the other candidates don’t have some of these qualities, and others besides – but Ed has them all in abundance.
In the months since that Latitude Q&A, we have all seen the qualities in Ed that will make him an inspiring, capable leader. He listened to eco activists who told him to consult with the wonderful Professor David Mackay (author of ‘Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air’) on climate change policy, and ultimately hired him as an advisor. At Copenhagen, we saw him stay awake for days, and yet, he was sharp enough to act when he did to take control, halt proceedings, reassess the situation, and ultimately ensured that even though we didn’t get the deal we needed, we didn’t walk away with nothing, rather, we had something recognised and substantive to build on – plans for which were laid out in the ‘Beyond Copenhagen’ plan. When Gordon Brown was at his lowest ebb, Ed Miliband was among the first to leap to his defence, telling the circling sharks that people had underestimated Gordon his whole life, and that they shouldn’t make this mistake of doing it again.
And in the run-up to the election, the manifesto that he took a lead in authoring had real focus and ambition. This was notable in the area of welfare: “Are you for a residual welfare state that is just for the poor, which is the Tory position, or are you for a more inclusive welfare state? What the Tories are saying about child trust funds, child tax credits and Sure Start – they’re saying, ‘let’s residualise, let’s make the welfare state just for the poor’ but [this goes against] all the evidence in terms of maintaining public support [for the welfare state]. Why does Sure Start work as an institution? Because it brings people together.”
We have had some difficult weeks since we lost the election. But when Ed launched his leadership campaign, I was instantly assured of what I had known for some time – that Ed’s stall for Labour leader is already prepared: his brilliant track record – his willingness to listen, to evaluate and to act. And the early stages of his campaign – notably the launch of the Living Wage campaign – have assured me that he will practice what he preaches, and will take the entire movement with him.
I trust him absolutely with our future, and will support his campaign every step of the way.
Categories: Labour Regeneration
Tags: 10:10, climate change, copenhagen, ed miliband, franny armstrong, gordon brown, latitude festival, living wage, nuclear power, oil, sure start, transport, welfare
The Fabian Society: crystallising our causes to fight for
January 19th, 2010
When I first called Richard Angell to get his advice on how I could become more involved with the Labour Party, one of his first pieces of advice was to join the Fabian Society.
Eight months in, and I’m glad I did – through local meetings, their excellent literature and the London conferences, I have been able to reap some great insights and progressive solutions into today’s issues, as well as meeting many wonderful people.
As you are aware, Gordon Brown gave the keynote speech, and I was struck by a couple of things. He said that “in this crisis have learned what was always implicit in our New Labour message but we now have to make absolutely explicit: a fundamentally ethical message, that we have to bring to markets something they cannot generate themselves – the values of fairness and responsibility which we celebrate in our everyday lives.” To me, this much is abundantly clear – I am one of those hateful lefties that believe free markets, like communism, to be an impossible, unworkable fantasy. I would particularly emphasise the environment. The theory of free market environmentalism assumes that bad things that happen (such as excessive pollution) can (and will) be undone if the market is truly free. Science tells us otherwise – for example, if the ice sheets melt, they can’t come back under current temperatures, and certainly not if the world gets warmer. Ethically, practically – it doesn’t work. The markets won’t take care of the planet, which means they won’t take care of people.
I also liked what was arguably the main thrust of the speech: “ours is not merely a party in Britain – it is the party of Britain.” Labour is not at this stage now, but this is what it must strive to be – and this means being a party that caters to both the working and middle classes (we’ll worry about the upper classes later). Other reviews have expressed concern at what they see as a move away from Labour’s core vote – but do we have to choose between them and, assuming we don’t, how do we represent that in the policies? There’s a few things I’d like to see (possibly in dreamland) that I consider to be unifying: any new social housing (such as the 30,000 proposed in Birmingham) should conform to the highest standards of quality and energy efficiency; improvements in the quality and eco-friendliness of public transport (particularly buses, which are easily the easiest to update) that make it a viable, desirable and affordable replacement for cars; and finally, to ensure that we are bold in ensuring that state education allows the best possible start for children of all backgrounds.
As Gordon joked, he was but the warm-up act for Peter Mandelson – who used his splendid oratorical skills to imbue the Young Fabians (and some old Fabians) with the fighting spirit and conviction that Labour supporters are really going to need in the coming months when he spoke during the lunchtime period. “We’re going to fight, fight, and fight again” he crowed, adding that he was “schooled in winning”, and was not about to give up now. Big words, but you know what? I got back, and I see that Grace Fletcher-Hackwood and Kevin Peel have started the inspired #mobmonday – simple, unifying and effective – and proof positive that Labour supporters are willing to be creative and put in the hours to get the results.
In addition, The Big Campaign is ongoing, and I myself am looking forward to January 31st, when I and many other Labour supporters from around the country are heading to Bristol East, the constituency of Kerry McCarthy, to join her campaign. So Peter Mandelson is in good company, I feel.
This blog was originally posted on House of Twits.
Categories: Labour Doorstep, Policy Review
Tags: anthropogenic global warming, campaigning, climate change, economics, education, fabian society, gordon brown, housing, kerry mccarthy, peter mandelson, transport
Sustainable living minus climate change
October 15th, 2009
When you care about something so much that it lights a fire inside you, it can be difficult to remain objective when you’re fighting for it. Nowhere is this clearer than with climate change, because those people that believe that a) climate change in happening and b) that it is man-made, know that time is of the essence, and further, that we will only succeed if we are all pulling in (roughly) the same direction.
But not everyone believes those things. I will freely admit that I sometimes get impatient with so-called “climate change deniers”, but in a discussion with Thomas Byrne on Twitter, I realised that the language we use to describe people with these views, and the lines we draw with that language, may not be doing the cause any favours. Ultimately, people do not hold views for no reason – there is always a reason, and we need to think about that more than we currently do.
But as I said, time is running out, and we need to be working together that we agree on: right now. That is why I think we need to make a better economic argument for sustainable living – because everyone knows what is going on in their pockets. The simplest example of this I can give is oil. Oil is running out, and we all know it. When is debatable. In a recent interview with the Independent, Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), said that by their calculations, global production is likely to peak in about 10 years. Most governments are planning for 20 years. But we will have to do it at some stage soon – so why not now? In the interview, Dr Bihol says, “we have to leave oil before it leaves us.” So, why not roll out the infrastructure for electric vehicles? Why not look at ways that we can generate our own power?
This is just one example – I will undoubtedly look at others in the future. But this world is not solely inhabited by people who believe that climate change is man-made, and further, marginalising those you need to work with you is no way to achieve your goals. We are all in this together, and the narrative of climate change should always reflect that – that is the point I wanted to make on Blog Action Day 2009.
This blog was originally posted on House of Twits.
Categories: Sustainable Lives
Tags: anthropogenic global warming, climate change, microgeneration, oil, renewables, transport, twitter
