The Labour Humanist

It was the Grey Vote that killed the November election

The Conservative surge in the opinion polls that killed off the prospects of a November election was built upon a large swing away from Labour amongst older voters. The Grey Vote - which accounts for at least one in four voters if you count just the 65+, or over 40% of turnout if you count in all voters aged 55+ - has proved the be the most volatile age-group in the electorate.

Older voters swung from Labour to Conservative in dramatic numbers in the key polls during party conference season. Here's the evidence. In the ICM/News of the World poll of voters in marginal seats the Conservatives had opened up a decisive 56%-32% lead over Labour amongst voters aged 65+ and were ahead 47%-33% amongst voters aged 55-64. In the same poll Labour led the Conservatives 41%-30% amongst younger voters aged 18-24. But doing well amongst younger voters amounts to very little to any party struggling with the Grey Vote, because if its sheer size, and critically, the much higher voting turnout amongst older voters. In this poll a pathetic 16% of young voters said they were "certain to vote" compared 72% of voters aged 65. It's a clear political calculus that any party who seeks power needs to be polling strongly amongst large groups of voters who actually bother to vote. Doing well with the apathetic counts for very little. Here's some ICM numbers:

Certain to vote:
18-24     16%
25-34     37%
35-44     51%
45-54     52%
55-64     69%
65+        72%

Voting Intention
            Lab    Con    LD

18-24    41%    30%    29%
25-34    46%    45%     8%
35-44    45%    41%     6%
45-54    34%    43%    11%
55-64    33%    47%    13%
65+       32%    56%     9%

Source: ICM for the News of the World. Published October 7 2007

With all the usual caveats about the fallibility of polls, and not comparing panels of identical voters, look at two other national Yougov polls to show the large swing amongst older voters. The Yougov polls for Channel Four News over the last two weeks (here and here showed a nine point lead for Labour with voters aged 55+ turn a week later into a Conservative lead of four points. Compared to the 35-54 age bracket where Labour's lead only dropped from 11% to 9% over the same period. The Grey Vote appears highly volatile compared to other age groups.

The Grey Vote may not be on the radar screen of our youth-obsessed media, but there are compelling reasons why older voters should be a priority segment for Labour's strategic campaign planning. The Party has lost ground since 2005 amongst this key sub-section of voters.

There are a range of issues where Labour has a good story to tell, but needs to do much more to improve the quality of life for older voters. Labour's investment in the NHS has transformed both the quality of our local health services and dramatically reduced waiting times for operations. But, there are too many reports around of poorer standards in services for older people. Likewise, long term care is far from being a settled issue, too many voters feel the funding arrangements are unfair and too many older people suffer abuse and neglect in care homes, and yes, Inheritance Tax, needs to be looked at. As Neasa MacErlean points out in yesterday's Observer, there are real issues of perceived injustice within the current system.

Shame on Stephen Timms for spouting insulting nonsense

Ok, count to 10..........no it's no good, I am furious with party vice chair Stephen Timms MP, because he speaks irritating, ignorant and insulting nonsense, and in the process has produced what I see as a disgraceful slur on the character of non-religious voters.

In a speech to Traidcraft - the Christian-based fair trade organisation Timms said:

“There is positive impact when people of faith are involved in the lives of their community, because these people bring valuable qualities in their service which are rare elsewhere and they are qualities modern Britain urgently needs,”

It's is hard to translate that this in any other way than a gross, and discriminatory, slight against the millions of British citizens who lead their lives, quite happily, without a religion. Of course, Timms was brown nosing to his audience, but that is no excuse for this US Republican style rhetoric.

What qualities Stephen, does someone who believes in a faith the paranormal and follows religious rituals bring to a community that I as a Humanist, or the growing millions of other non-religious UK residents, do not?

Timms is saying that when I, as a non-believer, do voluntary work in my community, donate money to local causes, give time and support to local clubs and societies, when I join in and support progressive campaigns, it is of less value and "rarely" of the value of the very same activities undertaken by "people of faith". The contribution of the non-religious is not to be regarded as holding the same value as any contribution from believers. This is bare-faced discrimination against the non-religious and has no place coming from the lips of a representative of the modern Labour Party.

"We" atheists work in our millions across the public services, as nurses, teachers, as volunteers in local charities. But we don't put ourselves above other citizens when we do so. Stephen clearly thinks his Christianity makes him more valuable citizen than any Humanist. Shame on him.

The O Project agrees Timms has insulted the non-religious

"The point is if when speaking to a (thoroughly noble and admirable) Christian organisation he can generalise about them being a faith-based organisation why does he not generalise about them being a charitable organisation, a social-justice organisation or a part of civil society. Surely that would hardly be a slap in the face to them and wouldn’t take anything away from their amazing work.

But making faith-based organisations out to be a special case is an insult to those who “have a vision of a world freed from the scandal of poverty, where trade is just and people and communities can flourish” that is not based on belief in a God."

Stephen Timms needs to explain his remarks, he needs to apologise and publicly state that when a Christian and an atheist take part in their community their efforts are of equal worth. Timms holds a campaigning remit within the party's structure, insulting millions of voters in this way is some strange way of carrying out those duties.

Let's hear it for Martin in the Margins

Let's say a big no to tory bloggers placing themselves as the arbiters of what makes a good left wing blog shall we! Added to my list of links is Martin in the Margins - a very fine Labour supporting politics blog with decidedly secular humanist leanings. Lots of interesting and well argued material including this explanation of how multi-cultural education in primary schools can go horribly wrong:

"As a parent, and an erstwhile school governor, it's irked me the way that multi-cultural education often gets translated, especially in primary schools, into multi-faith education. Learning about 'other cultures' is reduced to finding out about the religious beliefs and customs of different groups. Non-white, non-indigenous groups are characterised as unchanging, homogenous cultures defined mainly by faith. Schools think if they've 'done' Diwali, Ramadan and Passsover, then they've fulfilled their multicultural obligations. In my experience, there's very little sense (at least at the primary level) of migrant communities as diverse, living entities, shaped by historical events, and very little sense of the secular and political forces at work within communities.

Defining non-white children primarily in terms of a nominal faith privileges that aspect of their identity above others, including loyalties based on nation, locality or cultural tastes. It also makes it more difficult for children to put any distance between themselves and their faith-of-origin, or to experience school as a neutral, secular space in which they might explore alternatives to the beliefs they were brought up in. And it has a spin-off for 'indigenous' children: they get categorised, by default, as 'Christian'. This subtle re-introduction of sectarian identities is ludicrous, in a nation where a majority are not active believers in any religion."

Harriet Harman wins the deputy leadership contest

Congratulations to Harriet Harman in winning the deputy leadership, it was a good contest, Labour showed it has a depth of talent way ahead of the Conservatives run by Bullingdon Dave an his Eton cronies stuck in their Cholmondley-Warner world. 

Harman's acceptance speech was excellent, indeed the opening section explains exactly why the Conservatives and their cheerleaders aren't fit to govern this country for at least another generation, or two, or three.....:

We remember how things have changed.  I will never forget how, at my advice surgeries in Peckham Town Hall when we were in opposition, my constituents would hand me their pay slips showing £1.60 an hour.  The national minimum wage put an end to that.  There would have been no national minimum wage without Labour.

I will never forget my constituents showing me letters from Kings College Hospital saying “you have an appointment for your hip operation – it’s in two years’ three months’ time.”

That no longer happens now.  Waiting lists have fallen dramatically.  But we know the doubling of investment in the NHS would never have happened without Labour.

Nor will I forget the woman in my constituency who said to me “I’ve got two lads indoors.  One’s 19 and one’s 21.  Neither has had a day’s work or training since they left school.  Can you help?”  But I couldn’t help.  We couldn’t help until we kicked the Tories out and Labour was in Government.

People working for £1.60 an hour, waiting times of over 2 years for routine operations, a generation of young people locked out of jobs and training. The Tories were, and still are, a mixture of cruelty and incompetence, and this country can't afford to go back to the bad old days.

Backing (away) from Benn

Hmm, I posted this comment 24 hours ago on the Backing Benn blog, but they don't seem keen to publish. It's not rude or anti Hilary, but does flag up what seems to have been a highly disappointing response to the Labour Humanist Group's survey of candidates for the deputy leadership. This is what I posted:

What do you think to Hilary’s response to the Labour Humanist Group survey? He seems to really have disappointed a lot of people with his socially conservative we live in a Christian state line and defending of discrimination if it’s “part of our long standing culture”???
Link

http://www.labourhumanists.org.uk/

Labour Deputy Leadership candidates take part in Humanist survey

Labour's six candidates for the post of deputy leader of the Party have all taken part in a survey of their views on issues such as faith control of schools and welfare, House of Lords reform and assisted dying. Their responses are on the web site of the Labour Humanist Group.

The Basil Fawlty model of conducting relationships with party members

Fingers crossed that today's stories of Gordon Brown allowing party supporters more say and involvement in policy development will actually happen. In many ways Tony Blair's approach to the fine men and women who make up the grassroots of the Labour movement was to distance himself as much as he could. I am indebted to this Fawlty Towers analogy from Richard Heller published on Jon Cruddas' web site, which paints the picture splendidly:

"In the last four years we have shed over four million voters and half of our party's membership. It is not hard to figure out why so many of our most loyal supporters have deserted. The government has treated them like Basil Fawlty treats his long-term guests on Gourmet Night. As riff-raff. They have been insulted and sent to their rooms in the hope of attracting a better class of customer. New Labour's Gourmet Night has been as big a disaster as Basil's. The regulars are leaving the hotel and no new customers are coming in to replace them."

Never had this feeling before, I'm a floating voter

Never had this feeling before, I'm a floating voter.

I've got my ballot papers today for the election of a new deputy leader of the Labour Party, and I still really don't know who to vote for.

As others have said, the quality of the six candidates is really impressive. Any of them would do a good job and there's no way either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats could find six candidates of this calibre.

I think Cruddas, Johnson and Harman are on my shortlist. Still there's no rush to make a decision yet and I'll read with interest when the Labour Humanist Group publish the result of their candidate survey.

Is the Dutch Labour Party "muzzling" activists who want to help victims of religious intolerance, I really hope not

I can't emphasise how much I hope this story isn't true, because if it is, then it is to the eternal shame of our comrades in the Dutch Labour Party. The accusation is that the party are trying to muzzle a young activist of Iranian heritage, Ehsan Jami, who is organising to assist other people who want to leave Islam but face horrendous hurdles, including threats of violence or murder. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing a young Labour activist should be involved with, as I said, I just hope this is wrong is some way, and that I can blog instead about trash media cooking up a load of nonsense.

Updated: Friend of the Saudis to raise money from faith donors and discuss policy with them - are we really that keen on political suicide?

So this must be news to just about every single Labour Party member, but apparently we are about to have the very definition of a man hooked into privilege and a regular liaison of ethically dubious international organisations, not to mention vile governments (strong links to that lovely bunch, the Saudi Royal Family), Anthony Bailey, having a big say in how we as a party raise money AND reach out to faith communities. That is, it is very likely he could be involved in both discussing getting money from religious donors and discussing policy with them at the same time.  From the report in the Guardian:

"...is to chair Labour's Faith Task Force when it launches in July. Separately, he will also tap his network of contacts for donations to boost Labour's depleted coffers."

If you search "our" Labour Party web site for any details of our new "faiths task force" you will find nothing, but Jamie Doward of the Guardian says Tony Blair wants him to chair the task force. (Thanks for the legacy Tone!).

Read this biography of Bailey and see what you think. It looks he is already a governor of three secondary schools (wonder how many meetings he gets to?) through his role in the United Learning Trust which has remarkably been given the right to run 12 city academies with more in the pipeline.

You know, I've only just seen this story but on first reading it's hard to see any positives for Labour coming out of this but you can imagine it stirring up a shower of s*** - and for what reason?  If this appointment goes though I fear it is a ticking time bomb on our prospects of winning the next general election. In fact, Gordon Brown better show some early signs of enlightened leadership and block this appointment asap.

Update: Turns out Bailey has been strongly involved with The Sacred Military Constantinian Order               of Saint George. According to the order's own web site "...its special legacy through               service in the Orient fighting the infidel and the many               proofs of the recognition and regard of the Supreme               Pontiffs." If I may stoop down to sarcasm, this guy's progressive social democratic credentials just keep getting better and better.

 

So this must be news to just about every single Labour Party member, but apparently we are about to have the very definition of a man hooked into privilege and a regular liaison of ethically dubious international organisations, not to mention vile governments (strong links to that lovely bunch, the Saudi Royal Family), Anthony Bailey, having a big say in how we as a party raise money AND reach out to faith communities. That is, it is very likely he could be involved in both discussing getting money from religious donors and discussing policy with them at the same time.  From the report in the Guardian:

"...is to chair Labour's Faith Task Force when it launches in July. Separately, he will also tap his network of contacts for donations to boost Labour's depleted coffers."

If you search "our" Labour Party web site for any details of our new "faiths task force" you will find nothing, but Jamie Doward of the Guardian says Tony Blair wants him to chair the task force. (Thanks for the legacy Tone!).

Read this biography of Bailey and see what you think. It looks he is already a governor of three secondary schools (wonder how many meetings he gets to?) through his role in the United Learning Trust which has remarkably been given the right to run 12 city academies with more in the pipeline.

You know, I've only just seen this story but on first reading it's hard to see any positives for Labour coming out of this but you can imagine it stirring up a shower of s*** - and for what reason?  If this appointment goes though I fear it is a ticking time bomb on our prospects of winning the next general election. In fact, Gordon Brown better show some early signs of enlightened leadership and block this appointment asap.

Update: Turns out Bailey has been strongly involved with The Sacred Military Constantinian Order               of Saint George. According to the order's own web site "...its special legacy through               service in the Orient fighting the infidel and the many               proofs of the recognition and regard of the Supreme               Pontiffs." If I may stoop down to sarcasm, this guy's progressive social democratic credentials just keep getting better and better.