The Problem with the Living Wage Foundation

Since the 1970s, the British trade union movement has increasingly used the underpinning of legislation, directives and guidelines to protect working people. This has had numerous advantages – the protection of mostly vulnerable un-unionised workers being the most obvious, such as through the National Minimum Wage Act. It has, in many areas, however, made the movement dependent on state action, rather than action that has liberated workers themselves. In some cases we have become beholden to it – such as the growing panic about what a renegotiation of Britain’s terms of membership of the EU would result in. We've lost the confidence, and some might say that ability, to win these basic protections through fighting employers. It’s the deepest wound of the servicing culture which the movement is trying to heal.

Increasingly too, unions have worked with other groups, and built new partnerships not only in the context of changing civil society, but also as a result of the changing expectations of potential members in a neo-capitalist world. There have been great benefits to this, and there is no denying that some corporate responsibility programmes, or working to access hard-to-reach workers through community groups like churches have bought real changes. The negative side of this has been the creation of campaigns which have too narrow a focus, often removed from grass-root issues, or have been driven by values not entirely in line with the principles that (should) drive the movement, like agitation, education and class solidarity.

The Living Wage Foundation and its accreditation is a manifestation of the real pitfalls of this approach in two critical ways: firstly, its narrow focus makes clear the problems in alliances with other groups, particularly apparently friendly employers, secondly its failure to implement those values that should drive our movement is marginalising the true voices of working people.

The London Mayoralty – What’s best for Britain

Those of you who are kind enough to read this and don’t live in London, or even in the UK, please don’t switch off. This really isn't a piece intended to inflate parochial politics that directly affects 10% of the population of our sceptred isle. It’s actually the opposite, why we need to have a serious look at the London Mayor, the whole concept, and the personalities we need to make the changes we want to see – not just for the ‘good’ of London, but for the whole of the UK.

All Women Short-Lists – The Great Unspoken Problem

All women short-lists (AWS) have become a common mechanism across the Labour Party in advance of choosing our prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) for the 2015 general election. And I think they’re a bad idea.

This is hardly revolutionary, and as a white, Oxford educated man in a professional job it probably comes as no surprise that this is my conclusion. I'm not so stupid to think that, however elegant my reasoning, this conclusion is perhaps the result of some unseen sub-conscious bias. This shows why it is important that our elected representatives are actually representative of the society who chooses them – only in that way can these deep-seated sub-conscious decisions be exposed to healthy scrutiny.

But indulge me. By way of atonement, let me start with why I think most of the reasons used in opposition to AWS are a load of claptrap.

Women Bishops - Some confusion

As a Catholic, I'm not really best placed to comment on the CofE's recent women bishops debate. I believe in a centralised Church, with authority centred in the Magisterium and the Holy Father. I am confused as to why when your theological experts, your men (and women) of prayer of apparently consecrated and sacramental standing believe you should take a decision on a moral issue then the laity are not prepared, or obliged, to follow. I believe that matters of faith and morals are absolute, not relative, and am perplexed by the idea that such matters should be put to a vote. Simply put: if the CofE believes women can be priests, then why not bishops? Christ, after all, established the episcopate before the priesthood. More frankly, if you accept that women in the priesthood is possible then surely it is just point blank discrimination to allow others with whom you are in communion to avoid them. Anglicanism is not a set of beliefs to which I subscribe - and I don't subscribe because being a member of the CofE is intellectually barking. Doubtless many think the same of me and my Catholicity.

But, as I said, I'm not best placed to comment on it. I have a right to do so, however, as a thinking human being, and as a citizen in a country where the CofE is an established church and their bishops sit in a chamber of parliament. I stop short of wanting to legislate on it, however - and I find even the voicing of such a prospect (by Ben Bradshaw, Chris Bryant and others) thoroughly unnerving.

Rhetoric and Reality in Corby

A week or so on, what does the Corby by-election show? There's been, and will continue to be, much analysis of the implications for Cameron and the Tories, what the win of such a 'bellwether' seat means for the Labour Party and, of course the impact of local factors on determining such a pleasing result.

This discussion is important, but there's an element of the reaction, from the press and from the Labour Party that leaves me a little cold: the idea of a win in 'Middle England'.