An addition to Labour's sensible commentariat: Atul Hatwal

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Last year I wrote about Labour's thoughtful commentariat - the sensible lefties willing to accept the fact that cuts do need to be made, and willing to engage with the real political debate - as opposed to those irresponsible voices on the left who would condemn anything the Coalition does as "out of touch" "Tory cuts" made by a "Cabinet of millionaires", and so on. 

One of the four I wrote about, John McTernan, has since left the British political scene, and is now working as Australian Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard's communications director. However, a different sensible left-wing voice has emerged to take his place. Atul Hatwal is the Associate Editor of Labour Uncut, and I've collected below some of his best contributions to recent debate. 

Hatwal blames Ken Livingstone's defeat on "political cowardice" by Labour's high command. He writes:

"In 2010, Livingstone was publicly campaigning against a Labour candidate having just been selected via a fixed selection process almost egregious as the one which unfairly barred him in 2000. Right was not on his side and as a candidate he was much diminished after his 2008 loss. Expelling Ken in October 2010 might have prompted an independent candidacy, but so what? Ed Miliband would have seemed a strong leader, Labour would have got a better candidate and London’s proportional voting system would have helped neutralise the electoral impact. ... More than Ken Livingstone’s disastrous campaign, this hypocrisy, this abject political cowardice by Labour’s senior political figures will be the real travesty."

Hatwal warns that Labour's regular poll leads could count for very little by election time, because...

"...by 2015 [it is likely that] there will be some form of economic upturn, and Leveson will have concluded. In this more benign political environment for the government, even allowing for Number 10’s serial bungling, would Labour’s 3% lead hold? The lesson for Labour is that the party cannot rest on its current lead. History, and London’s election, shows it is likely to be much closer in reality. To resist a Tory fightback, Labour needs to press the advantage. Now."

Ed Miliband's £5,000 party funding cap appears radical - but could the unions bypass it?

By Matthew Barrett
Follow Matthew on Twitter.

Ed Miliband appeared on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. The big news to come from the Labour leader's interview was that he appears to want to take the lead on party funding. At first glance, his comments seem to present a fairly radical approach to party funding:

"I’m determined to move on this and it’s going to be uncomfortable. All political leaders will have to make decisions that are uncomfortable for them and here are my proposals. First of all, we’ve got to have a low cap on donations. Not the £50,000 that the Prime minister talks about, £50,000 is double the average wage. I say a £5,000 donation cap, a proper low donation cap. Secondly we’ve got to have much tougher limits on spending, more comprehensive limits on spending and lower limits on spending and, thirdly, parties are going to have to diversify where they get their income from, much more small donations. ... When I talk about a £5,000 donation cap, it’s got to apply to donations from the trade unions. What I say is this; the large donations from the trade unions would no longer happen under this system."

Miliband knows a £5,000 cap would cripple both parties. The Conservatives are too reliant on a relatively small pool of large donors, and Labour are too reliant on big union donations. But Miliband also knows Labour would be able to get past the £5,000 cap. Miliband refused to answer a question about whether the £3 political levy every union member pays should be opt-in, rather than opt-out. Miliband said several times that transparency in Labour spending is more important than whether the levy stays opt-out. We must be suspicious, therefore, of the possibility that the unions would manipulate the individual levy in order to spread the burden of donations. The levy could be raised, even if gradually, to give more funds to Labour, while staying well under the £5,000 cap.

We've had Blue Labour, Purple Labour and soon there'll be "In The Black" Labour

By Tim Montgomerie
Follow Tim on Twitter

Fiscal conservatism is almost as unpopular in Labour circles as their three times election winner Tony Blair. Nonetheless a few brave souls are attempting to make the case for it. John Rentoul has the story at the bottom of his Independent on Sunday column:

"A Policy Network pamphlet by four authors, including Anthony Painter and Hopi Sen, is called In the Black Labour, playing on the fashion for symbolic colours (Red Tories, Blue Labour, The Purple Book). It advocates, clearly and admirably briefly, the case for Labour fiscal conservatism, saying that the party should try to outdo the Tories in promising to balance the books. It even quotes Ed Balls from 1998: "Left-of-centre governments need to favour tough fiscal policy because from time to time, if economic crises occur, you may have to relax that."

Good luck to all four. They'll need it.

The Left's thoughtful commentariat

By Matthew Barrett
^{Follow Matthew on Twitter}

Following last year's election defeat, there have been two sets of commentators on the left. On the one hand, the all-out, gung-ho "evil Tory cuts!" brigade, and on the other hand, the thoughtful contributors to the debate about Labour (and the left in general)'s future. I should apologise in advance for ruining the careers of those listed below, but here are four of the best of Labour's thoughtful commentariat:

Peter Watt (twitter: @PeterWatt123): Watt is a former General Secretary of the Labour Party. He caused a stir last week by writing: "...the Labour party is obsessed with the cuts. It is us, not the Tories, who are being defined by them. We talk about them all the time. We protest against them, predict the horrors that will unfold as their impact is felt and condemn the government for implementing them. We are so completely stuck in the cuts’ headlights, that we are virtually paralysed. And this paralysis is damaging our prospects for the next election." - "Labour must stop fighting the cuts", on Labour Uncut

He also supported the Conservative approach to recognising the family in the tax system, in a post for Labour Uncut last month: "Labour must therefore rethink its offer to families by the time of the next general election. Simply continuing to oppose the Tories approach will not be enough. In fact, it will also risk alienating some of the families who will by then be benefiting from Tory taxation policies." - "The Tories have got tax right: they’ve just got marriage wrong"