Red Rose Forum

Jeremy Millard (LI Member, Denmark, LICC Secretary)

For me the Conference did not start well organisationally given that, apart from my ID admittance card, nothing was sent to me in advance. I thus arrived in Manchester on Saturday 23 September with no idea or knowledge as to my specific duties as delegate nor any meetings I should attend. The situation did not improve over the next few days as, despite endless tramping around to find someone, anyone, who could tell me what I should do or where I should go, all I could acquire was the Conference guide intended for all Conference participants whether delegates or not. Some officials I spoke to even doubted that I had not been properly briefed, but later in the week I met other delegates who had had similar experiences, which clearly showed that my experience was by no means unique. On Monday morning, the first full day of Conference, I eventually tracked down my delegate material, but too late to confer with more than a few colleagues.

About half the votes concerned constitutional and rule changing amendments, many of which were quite complex. In each case I listened to the arguments and made a vote based both on speeches from the floor (although often these were contradictory) and taking account of the Party’s recommendations, as well as on my own convictions and my knowledge of LICC and LI views. Votes on Iraq and the leadership question had been sifted out of all formal discussion, rightly or wrong, apart from one amendment which proposed that the leader should be re-elected each year, which I voted against as did the vast majority of other delegates. The substantive policy issues requiring specific votes ranged across climate change, housing, rights at work, corporate liability (e.g. for accidents), pensions, funding of political parties, citizenship and equalities, and health. In each case voting was on quite specific aspects, and again I voted according to my knowledge of LI and LICC opinion generally, as well as according to my own convictions.

If organisationally the Conference left something to be desired, I found that the range of political discussion from all parts of the Party, including members of the government, was at a very high standard, very varied but also very open and honest about mistakes and uncertainties. Particularly in the closed delegates-only briefings with members of the government there was a great deal of candid talk, including about Iraq (Afghanistan was seen by most delegates as much less divisive in principle although not in terms of implementation) and the UK-US relationship. For example, Des Browne (Defence) was very open about the issues as well as very robust in his defence of the government stance generally whilst acknowledging the problems and ambiguities. Margaret Beckett (Foreign) was very direct about the recent Lebanon conflict and the fact that certain European countries as members of the Security Council (which she wouldn’t actually name despite this being a closed meeting) had been calling publicly for an immediate ceasefire whilst blocking it behind closed doors by not enabling the Security Council to actually meet. Hilary Benn (overseas development), my personal favourite at the Conference, was passionate, highly committed and extremely concerned about Darfur, and described in detail what the British government was doing in this case, as well as more widely in development terms. This, and the Africa policy generally, must be one of the government’s greatest achievements, if as yet far from completion.

Other strong Conference themes, both on the floor as well as in the large number of fringe meetings, included:

• the health service, about which there was both discussion on the dangers of, and limits to, privatisation and outsourcing, as well as on the interesting plans for a health service constitution which would enshrine the limits of private sector involvement and the working conditions of staff, as well as enable the devolution of many decisions from central government down to regional health trusts
• our relationship with the US and what happens when Bush goes
• our relationship with a Europe which will soon be 27 members with more still knocking on the door
• the rise of China and India
• the environment and climate change (the LI Brussels Branch organised a very successful fringe meeting chaired by Neil Kinnock and featuring the new Environment Minister David Miliband)
• the slippery issue of ‘empowerment’, including how to devolve more power down to individuals, neighbourhoods and communities, the democratic deficit, possible resulting problems like a postcode lottery, etc.

Peter Mandelson was active in many of these fringe debates, including on UK-US relationships, Europe and global trade, perhaps wanting to influence future directions now we know important changes will soon be upon us? David Miliband was likewise very prominent -- maybe one to watch for a future leadership bid?! All ministers mixed quite freely with us plebs at the fringes. Maybe this is normal, but as my first full Conference I found it heartening. I personally was also very pleased to meet the ex-Danish Prime Minister, Paul Nyrup Rasmassen (Social Democrat), of whom I am a great fan, especially as he is the father of the Scandinavia ‘flexi-curity’ model aiming at both economic strength and full employment with good well-paid jobs. Paul is also President of PES, the Party of European Socialists

The left-of-centre think tank IPPR (Institute of Public Policy Research) was, like Demos, very active in organising fringe events, and are currently undertaking research inter alia into ‘Brits abroad’. (LI members are encouraged to take part by filling in the questionnaire on http://www.ippr.org, and participating in the online discussion. ) IPPR had not initially considered examining overseas voting issues, but as we in LI have argued, in a globalising world, which the UK Labour government is right to embrace, people are working, living and retiring in different countries more than ever before, whilst political and democratic rights are not keeping pace with these developments. After discussions with IPPR in Manchester, this is an issue they will now be considering, including at a workshop in London in January 2007 to which we are invited.

You do not need me to report on the PM’s speech. Brilliant as usual, perhaps the best yet as oratory, fire and persuasiveness. (Not forgetting perfectly timed Cherie and Gordon jokes.) We have learnt, however, that although important, oratory is not enough and cannot gloss over some very serious mistakes. On the other hand, as a final swansong, it is impossible not also to acknowledge the tremendous contribution Tony Blair has made to the Party and country. Immense positive strides have been made since 1997, all enabled by being in power in the first place. As a member of LI and a committed internationalist, Tony’s push for a debate about global values is an important step forward. Rather than jump on dubious rightist bandwagons attempting to spread democracy like a quick fix through ‘shock and awe’, multi-culturalism at home and peace and democracy globally can only come through the slow, bottom-up identification and building of the values we share in common, of which there are a huge number. But this is another discussion!

Gordon was also extremely good in his own indomitable way. Being formerly a little uncertain about his leadership qualities, I am now moving to support him as next leader. Whilst on the subject of the future deputy leader, both Harriet Harmann and Peter Hain had many chances to display their wares at Conference, and both made good impressions. My personal preference is for the lady, also because I think we do need more women at the very top of politics (I have always discounted Thatcher as more macho than Reagan), but also because I think she would provide a better and more appealing counterpoint to Gordon in the next election. Tactics, yes. but this is also another discussion we should have, methinks, in LI.

What can I say about guest stars Bill Clinton and Bob Geldorff? The latter was a superb spice to Hilary Benn’s gentlemanlyness, using quite a few ‘f’ words and other interesting phraseology, but both seemed to be singing very much from the same song-sheet. Bob made it quite clear that, despite agreeing to input to David Cameron’s policy review, the Tories will have a very hard time indeed from him. And Bill, the best US President since 1945 in my view, was masterful. But is this politics or entertainment -- I guess a bit of both -- but it certainly gets across a strong political message. If anyone can beat Tony in the eloquency stakes, it’s him. He spoke, as he has before, in full support for Tony’s Iraq (mis)adventures, but apart from that urged us, the Party, to be forward looking, whilst recognising the achievements we have made. Embrace change, be the party of change, but ensure that it works for the good of all as part of progressive politics. (The phrase ‘progressive politics’ seems to be the label which now covers centre-left movements at global level, given, for example, that there is no way the US Democrats could call themselves socialists as we still can in Europe.) Change is happening anyway, so if we don’t bend it to our purpose the Tories will surely bend it to theirs. This was the main message, apart from various hilarious and tantalising anecdotes about Bill’s good work fighting AIDS in Africa.  Bill also, which is unusual for him or any ex-President, openly attacked Bush, not just on the latter’s handling of terrorism generally but also on his economic policies, like tax cuts. This was probably because the White House has recently been trying to shift the blame for many current failures onto the previous administration. Bill, having been provoked, is counter-attacking. If only the current Democratic leadership over the water would do the same.

For me personally, and despite serious organisational issues about which I have made representation, the Conference was a great success as a political idea generator and as a platform for future thinking, well aware of course of the massive mistakes and the awesome challenges ahead. It renewed my faith in a vigorous, progressive and forward-looking Party. If some, at least, of Blair’s tenureship can be summed up as a (relatively) successful fusion of the need for both economic efficiency AND social justice (i.e. the Party is no longer sectarian but seeks to serve the whole of society), and for me this is a fair judgement and a substantial achievement, then the future must be to add a third ‘leg’ to these two. This is environmental sustainability, the missing piece, which, when added, will surely also show that progress in one area does not restrict action in the other two but, on the contrary, all three are strongly mutually reinforcing. And David Miliband is the guy with the right ideas. Hopefully he’ll get a chance to put them into practice both under the next leader, but also after the next election. That’s what we should all work very hard for.

Jeremy Millard, LICC Secretary