However, there are other serious things we can learn from today’s figures. Firstly, the unemployment rise disproportionately hit women, who made up 21,000 of the rise, putting female unemployment at the highest level since 1988. The cuts have long been identified as disproportionally hitting women, who make up the majority of the public sector workforce and are hit by benefits changes such as cutting child benefit, and these figures are a further example of the fundamental unfairness of the government’s economic strategy.

We can also see that youth unemployment has hit 20.2%, well over double the national rate. But at the same time the government cuts away opportunities for young people by scrapping EMA, increasing tuition fees, cutting funding to advisory services like Connexions and closing youth centres. We saw the state of some of today’s youth in the riots last week, and it is undoubtedly the case that some of the root causes of the riots were down the socio-economic situation of the rioters; living in a heavily consumerist society without the means to succeed in it, pushing them to crime and looting. For the first time in recent history, the opportunities of children are lower than those of their parents.

A third thing we can learn from today’s figures is that the unemployment is disproportionately concentrated in the poorest areas of the country. The highest unemployment rate by region is in the north-east, at 10%, while the lowest is in the south-east, at 5.8%. In the regions it stayed at 7.7% in Scotland, up to 8.4% in Wales and up to 7.3% in Northern Ireland. These are simultaneously the areas which are receiving the highest budget cuts to their councils (as high as 8.9%), which both contributes to the unemployment and cuts away services to those who at the same time have lost their jobs. Hence, those who are carrying the largest burden of the cuts and our poor economic recovery are those least able to do so; the least well-off in society who did nothing to cause the crisis which got us here.

A final thing these figures show is that part-time employment is at 1.26 million, the highest figure since records began in 1922. While the provision of party-time jobs is good insofar as it allows people who would otherwise not be working to work at least some of the time, part-time jobs do not adequately provide enough for a family or even an individual to live above the poverty line. This is especially true with 5% inflation and the fact that the sectors which offer most part-time employment, such as supermarkets, restaurants and other high-street shops, mostly do not pay a Living Wage.

All of this shows that it is in fact time for Plan B. Dave Prentis of Unison is correct to blame these figures on the disastrous economic policies of the government and the TUC has for months now been calling for a Plan B, a plan which emphasises growth and protecting those most vulnerable in society, rather than leaving them with the highest burden to protect the Tory donors in the City. Those in the Labour movement must fight against the Coalition’s cuts agenda until they change course or, even better, we kick this government out.

They must not be successful.

At the time of writing, Labour MP Frank Fields is working with Tory MP Nadine Dorries[1]  to push through harmless-looking but poisonous changes to the Health and Social Care Bill –changes designed to impede women’s access to abortion. Then proposal itself sounds innocuous, calling for “independent counselling” for women seeking abortion. But women already receive impartial, non-directional advice. What the amendments actually seek to do, based on an absurd perception of dangerous vested interests, is not only to remove the obligation of abortion providers to give advice to potential patients, but to ban them from doing so.

Field and Dorries have observed that many current providers of abortion advice, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are linked to abortion providers (the BPAS, a registered charity, is indeed “Britains largest single abortion provider”, according to the its own website[2]), and have come to the conclusion that, on account of this connection, the advice they give cannot possibly be impartial. Field and Dorries argue that organisations like the BPAS have too great a vested economic interest in the decisions of the women whom they advise –they see abortion providers as businesses seeking to increase revenue by performing as many abortions as possible, and view any connected advice services as the marketing arm of that business. Diane Abbott has rightly condemned their position as “fundamentally anti-right-to-choose rhetoric which depicts clinics that perform abortions as baby-killing production lines that are only in it for the money”[3].

There are, in fact, many ways in which abortion providers themselves are among the best-qualified organisations to provide advice to women considering ending their pregnancy. Experienced providers are well placed to talk women through all of the options available to them. They have the medical knowledge to be able to answer questions about what happens during the procedure, what the risks are, and what after-care should be like. Moreover, there are already checks in place to ensure that consultations are impartial and high-quality; the BPAS is registered with –and regularly inspected by – the Department of Health. But Field and Dorries would still outlaw their advice.

As the supporters of their amendments know, the organisations poised to take over this vital service are not impartial. Pregnancy advice services with no links to abortion providers usually remain independent from them precisely because they are opposed in principle to abortion. They give scientifically inaccurate information to women to dissuade them from having an abortion. They use harrowing case studies to dissuade women from having an abortion. They refuse to give out the names of abortion providers, so that even if they have failed to persuade a woman that abortion is wrong, she will not know where to go next. Many of these organisations already advertise themselves as independent, impartial, non-directional. They clearly are not.

If Field and Dorries’s efforts are fruitful, counselling advice for vulnerable women will not be high-quality, non-directional or even consistent. Women will fall prey to a post-code lottery, and have to hope that their GP can refer them to a local counselling service which is unconnected to an abortion provider but still able to adequately explain all of their options, inform them of the risks and realities of abortion procedures, and, if necessary, refer them to a clinic. Many investigations over the last decade have revealed that most “independent” abortion counselling clinics do not do this[4]. To deny pregnant women any or all of the information relating to their options is to impede their exercise of their right to access abortion, a right which has been enshrined in law for almost forty-five years.

More importantly, to do so is also to release great potential to delay access to a time-sensitive procedure and to cause unnecessary and unforgivable distress. The proposed changes are a threat to the physical and mental well-being of women seeking abortion. They may be motivated by an anti-choice agenda, but the issue they have raised is more than a pro- or anti-choice issue; it is a welfare issue. Abortion rights are, rightly or (as I believe) wrongly, an issue of conscience for our party. But protecting the welfare of vulnerable people is not. The changes proposed by Field and Dorries may pass into the Bill without debate. They may be debated at Report Stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 6-7th September. In either case, they should not be allowed to sneak into law without a fuss.

Please urge your local MP to oppose this attack on women’s rights and welfare.

(See the  Abortion Rights’ website at http://www.abortionrights.org.uk  for a template letter. The site will even find your MP’s contact details for you. )

It is foolish to attack politicians for going on holiday; they deserve a break for the work that they do (not that anyone in any other job does not deserve a break) and they probably do a better job for being well rested. What does seem rather worthy of criticism is the fact that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London were all on holiday at the same time. Theresa May and Nick Clegg returned rather swiftly and should be commended for cutting short their breaks as soon as it became clear that this was escalating out of control. Our Prime Minister, however, has not shone in this crisis. Firstly, the Parliament recall for purposes of having a day long debate stinks of reactionary populism and will serve little purpose – what we need immediately is robust policing to bring these riots to an end, and the longer term issues of socioeconomic deprivation and disaffection will require years of carefully planned policy and investment – a day spent condemning the riots in Parliament will not serve as a solution for the years of low opportunities and employment the areas have faced. Secondly, the return was too late – it was clear after the second night that leadership was needed, yet he did not choose to return until the devastating fires of Monday night made his return unavoidable. He took no questions after his short media address on Wednesday and spent Tuesday in Italy returning to a café for a photo opportunity with a waitress he previously hadn’t tipped. Thumb twiddling? You decide.

Mehdi Hasan, editor of the New Statesman, tweeted something along the lines of ‘Blair said we needed to be tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime. Today we need to focus on the former’. I couldn’t agree more. The left must not allow itself to be painted as unwilling to tackle crime when it happens; its members do not help their cause when they provide justifications and excuses for these dreadful scenes. It is true that deprivation, a lack of opportunities and jobs and poor parenting no doubt played a role in allowing people to think that this sort of behaviour is at all acceptable. To deny this is folly. To allow it to be used as an excuse is dangerous. Those in the party should also be wary of blaming (the admittedly awful) Tory cuts to these areas. The effects of these are only just being felt; the younger rioters have spent the majority of their lives growing up under a Labour government and though the areas improved whilst we were in power, we could have and should have done better. Our party is as much to blame for the current lack of opportunity in the area as the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Let us focus immediately on the criminals themselves – then when this is over, use it as evidence for the need to tackle deprivation in inner cities.

Facebook, Twitter and the workplace are awash with demands for hanging, ‘shooting on sight’, vigilantism and other actions typical of a despot regime’s response to calm protests. Calm protests these are not, but in difficult times we must espouse the values we fight to defend: freedom, robust but not excessively violent defence of fair laws and responsibility.  A calm, proportionate and measured response is what we need. Use of water cannons, tear gas and arms runs the risk of harming innocent people (water cannons have both gauged out innocent people’s eyes and killed others in the past) and set a nasty precedent . Improper policing of the student protests in response to the tuition fee tripling and police brutality in the case of the death of Gary Tomlinson are a serious concern and the seeming lack of accountability in many cases like these must be sorted. Allowing the police licence to use unnecessary and excessively violent measures to deal with these horrid events would be a very unwise idea. Though it seems things may quieten down tonight as a result of hugely increased police numbers, a firm, simple and potentially less violent response would be a curfew, with those breaking it facing arrest. Evidently, if this were necessary, it should be employed for only as long as it was clearly needed.

Lastly, let us turn to those committing these despicable acts of violence themselves. Let me be perfectly clear: these riots are not a political movement; they are inexcusable and unjustifiable acts of wanton criminality. Justifications from those involved have so far included ‘getting the rich business owners’. Local, small business owners who have provided the community with jobs will find it difficult to recover from having their stock stolen – and many of those who have had their shops burned down will go bust. Whilst it’s unlikely your local Tesco being burnt out will bring down the supermarket giant, it’s also been providing jobs to an area where there are many complaints about the lack of jobs available. Cuts have been excessive and unfair in the areas these riots have taken place. The cost to the local authorities of repairing the damage done to public areas and buildings, combined with the cost of the compensation the police must provide to business and homeowners affected will only compound the problem.

Frustration is not felt towards those who have organised the mobilisation of communities and individuals through social networks to clean up the riots. That’s the good society we know, and the good society we should encourage.

Women’s Officer-elect: Grace Pollard
Co-chairs elect: Tom Adams and David Butler
Membership Officer and Treasurer-elect: Hannah Wilkinson
Social Secretary: Tom Rutland
Campaigns and External Links Officer: Kevin Feeney
Secretary: Sarah Coombes
Look Left Editor: Anthony Breach

They will join the already elected members from last term, new co-chairs Nicola Sugden and Colin S. Jackson, Treasurer Chris Gray and Women’s Officer Claire Smith.

As is tradition, The Red Flag was sung at the end of the meeting before (as is also tradition) adjourning to the bar.

OULC also thanks Hilary co-chairs Jack Evans and Kat Shields for chairing the meeting, and Michaelmas co-chairs Stephen Bush and Kieran Cunningham for acting as Returning Officers.

It’s been a great Trinity term here at OULC and we hope to see everyone in Michaelmas.

Dear Labour Students,

Yesterday evening, we took the decision by 19 votes to 6 to disaffiliate from Labour Students. This was not a course of action we were happy to take, or one we took lightly. Our affiliation with the student movement within our Party is something we regard as an important part of our identity within the Labour movement. We are sad to be leaving an institution that has secured the election of countless Labour candidates while leading the way on tuition fees. But we could no longer remain within an institution whose democratic failings we feel increasingly threaten to undermine its positive work.

For the last two years as a club we have held an annual debate on whether to re-affiliate to Labour Students following concerns over its democratic proceedings. This year’s elections though, which saw every single position on the Labour Students Exec elected unopposed, showed that the problems that had initially concerned us had become worse not better. One of Labour Students’ worst kept secrets is the prominent role of the outgoing Exec in choosing and encouraging a chosen group of candidates to run for positions, with little to no attention focused on encouraging others to enter the race. This practice is clearly in itself wrong, but also serves to stifle debate and discussion about how Labour Students can be reformed to serve the clubs who need it most.

The undemocratic culture of Labour Students is typified by its constitution, which is not available online or even at the request of members. How can individual clubs be expected to argue for change if they can’t even consult the constitution? We have also been sad to see this same lack of transparency reflected by the organisation itself, which is all too often disconnected and remote from the student clubs it was elected to serve, with little to no regular contact with clubs. During the affiliation meeting itself, even those members of Labour Students who came to speak on its behalf acknowledged that the organisation has ‘lots to improve’, while one recent delegate to Labour Students Conference said that these democratic failings made them ‘sick’. While these shortcomings are problematic as a matter of principle, they are also beginning to affect the services Labour Students provides.

At the last election, we received election material that may have been fine at targeting most voters, but was completely unsuited to targeting students, forcing us the scrap the material and produce our own instead. In Labour Students’ campaign literature, there is no discrete student offer. We have found the local party’s election material more suited to targeting students than our own national body’s. The decisions Labour Students have chosen to take have also seemed disconnected with their membership. While Labour Students’ decision to endorse David Miliband last year was not out of keeping with our club’s own stance (he shared our endorsement jointly with Andy Burnham), the failure to even make members aware in advance that such a decision was being made, let alone inform them how they could make their own views heard, rightly angered many.

Given these problems, it was clear to us that Labour Students is in need of reform. However, it was also clear to us that the institution’s own structures make internal reform near-impossible. When we put some of these concerns directly to members of the national executive two weeks ago, as a club we felt a clear lack of engagement with the issues we were raising. As a club we are consistently outward-looking in our nature, be it in our strong links to the Oxford East CLP and local charities or our record of campaigning in elections across the country. On this occasion though, we felt with regret that the best way to foster a meaningful debate about the way forward for Labour Students was through deciding not to affiliate for the next year. We remain committed to fighting for the values that brought us into Labour Students in Oxford and elsewhere, but these wouldn’t be in keeping with our continued presence in an organisation whose democratic deficit increasingly stifles efforts at meaningful reform and improvement. With this in mind we hope through disaffiliation to start an honest and open discussion about the way forward for Labour Students, and return to a revitalised and refreshed Labour Students. We hope that this decision can be the start of a constructive, open discussion about how Labour Students can stand up for progressive students across the country that we didn’t feel we could have while remaining members.

In comradeship,

Oxford University Labour Club

Welcome back to Oxford!

This is a very exciting time to Join Oxford University Labour Club (OULC). As the only progressive party left in British politics, the re-election of local MP Andrew Smith and a majority Labour council in Oxford- as well as a new leader in former Co-Chair Ed Miliband. Oxford University Labour Club was founded in 1919 to provide a voice for Labour Party values and for socialism at Oxford University. It is the largest University Labour club in the country and its alumni include Ed Miliband, Tony Benn, Michael Foot, Roy Jenkins, Peter Mandelson and our own Oxford East MP Andrew Smith.

With the Liberal Democrats abdicating the progressive ground, the Labour Party remains the only centre-left party in mainstream politics. Over 30,000 people have joined the Labour Party since the election, around one third of those had voted Lib Dem. Whether one of those newcomers, a party veteran or someone who hasn’t considered getting involved in politics before, we hope you can get involved and help to make this country Labour again!

OULC is a vibrant and busy club, and hopefully everyone of a progressive mindset can find something that will interest them. The main events that will be held will be campaigning sessions, speaker events, policy forums and social events. Enclosed is a termcard with most of these events in but to receive more information and reminders about all our events please join the Facebook group (OULC) and follow us on twitter at @OxUniLabour

We hope to see you at as many events as possible

Lincoln Hill
Chair, Trinity 2011
Download a membership form here!

David Miliband has answered questions from OULC members as the club begins the process of endorsing a new Leader. To be a part of the leadership debate, after which which OULC will endorse one of the leadership candidates, come to Balliol College on Thursday 10th June from 7.30pm.

David Miliband speaks to OULC Members.

Yes We Did.

OULC has lived up to its reputation as one of the best student campaigning organisations in the country with the re-election of Andrew Smith as MP for Oxford East- with a historic 4.1% swing to Labour.

This is one of the best results for Labour in the country- so huge thank you to everyone for all your hard word. It paid off.

The Results:

Ed Argar (Con) 9,727

Roger Crawford (EPA) 73

Sushila Dhall (Green) 1,238

Julia Gasper (UKIP) 1,202

Steve Goddard (Lib Dem) 17,357

David O’Sullivan (Socialist) 116

Andrew Smith (Lab) 21,938

Turnout: 64 per cent

ANDREW SMITH DULEY RE-ELECTED MP FOR OXFORD EAST.

BREAKING:>>>>>>>Oxford win back overall control of Oxford City Council.

A brilliant night for the Labour party in Oxford.

Ed Miliband spoke about Climate Change and the upcoming Election to Treasurer, Kat Shields, and Social Secretary, Jack Evans- following a meeting and campaigning session in Oxford East Clp.

Click here to hear: Ed Miliband in conversation with OULC

There is important work to carry forward in our mission of social justice at home and abroad. Labour has invested in health, education and in rebuilding the fabric of our society. Labour pioneered the way on civil partnerships, the social chapter, the minimum wage and the first ever Climate Change Act, as well as massively increasing overseas aid and debt relief. We reversed the Tory legacy of benefit and opportunity for a privileged few which saw them hold down child benefit and cut overseas aid. We have made important steps in combating poverty and bringing forward progressive social change.

I am proud to represent Oxford East, where we have two excellent universities and all the benefits these bring. I value the contribution which students make in our community.

I have campaigned on the things which matter to students in Oxford, both on issues of national policy and on local improvements. I worked with students to improve security on the streets, and led calls in Parliament for proper licensing of landlords to improve accommodation standards. I have stood up for overseas students, making extensive representations to help improve the visa regime for foreign students and researchers.

Thanks to Labour policies for opportunity and investment in higher education, there 300,000 more students benefiting from university education than in 1997. I believe that everyone who has the ability should have the opportunity to go to university. I am concerned that students don’t have to get deeper into debt, which is why I signed the NUS pledge to vote against any increase in student fees in the next Parliament.

Labour has taken active steps in helping young people since our election to government. As well as the big expansion of university places and post-graduate students, we brought in education maintenance allowances, trebled the number of apprenticeships, and have given job and training guarantees to young people threatened with unemployment by the global recession. Labour also set up the Office for Graduate Opportunities (OGO) to help young people forward into careers.

I am heartened by the commitment and concern I find amongst students for the future of our planet. I am committed to effective measures to combat climate change and to investing in a sustainable future. I am personally pledged to 10:10. I have pressed for huge investment in renewables, energy conservation and sustainable transport and am proud that Labour has brought in the first ever Climate Change Act. Oxford’s Labour City Council has an excellent record on sustainable practice, and has pledged to reduce its carbon footprint by 10% of its 2006 level.

I believe meeting our international responsibilities is crucial too, like achieving the UN target on the share of GDP for overseas development assistance. I have spoken out on the need to make world financial institutions play their part in combating poverty and making sure the world’s poor do not pay the price of climate change.

I want to see Labour’s drive for fairness extended at home – building on the important steps we have taken on NHS investment, nursery education, Sure Start children’s centres, improving maternity and paternity support, increasing child benefit and bringing in tax credits as well as the Educational Maintenance Allowance and the Child Trust Fund

I have been active in support of Labour measures for social progress, abolishing the homophobic section 28, open and fair recruitment to the armed forces, and bringing in civil partnerships.

I have also voted against the government where I have felt it was the right thing to do, for example in support of the Gurkhas, and to vote against a Heathrow third Runway and Trident.

I am proud of the government’s record on alleviating poverty at home, and of the achievements made while I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. During this time, the overall number of people living in poverty fell, as well as the number of children and pensioners in poverty, and the numbers of unemployed. Tackling poverty in our country is crucial to our success as a society.

It’s important to remember the Winter Fuel Allowance, the free bus travel scheme, the Pension Credit, and the Child Trust Funds simply didn’t exist under the Conservatives, who have even refused to protect Sure Start centres from cuts. The Liberal Democrats would cut child tax credits, and have now pledged to put the Conservatives in power if there is a hung Parliament.

Labour is the only party which will really tackle poverty and extend opportunity. I am proud to represent Oxford East – and unlike my Conservative and Liberal Democrat opponents, I live in the constituency. I want to continue working for and with students in Oxford East and I hope you will support me in this vital General Election campaign for the future of our country, our community and our values of social justice.

Andrew Smith MP