2013-05-21T08:18:26-04:00 Mark Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=mark-ferguson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Mark Ferguson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2480143 2013-01-15T12:25:20-05:00 2013-03-17T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ferguson/
But what does it mean?

As David Cameron might say, it's Ronseal - it does exactly what it says on the tin.

One Nation is about moving beyond artificial divisions in society to build a better Britain where everyone plays their part and everyone receives a fair share. But the problem with that is it sounds lovely, but is also a little bit meaningless. Most politicians want to move beyond divisions. Most want to live in a Britain where everyone wants to play their part. A better definition (and more definition) is needed.

All sorts of interpretations have been put on One Nation Labour since its renewed prominence in 2012. Some suggested that it was merely conservatism in disguise, whilst others thought it was a rebranded 1950s social democracy and others thought it was communitarianism. Personally I thought it was Blue Labour with the edges taken off. But outside of Westminster-wonk circles, these definitions are completely unhelpful, and a political platform that can only be explained by well-meaning pointy-heads is a platform that deserves to die a swift and unlamented death.

One Nation Labour is better than that.

It has the ability to build on the modern, passionate, progressive nationalism of the Olympic Games. It could be a way of articulating Labour values in a way that appeals to the south as well as the north. It could - if done right - secure a position for Labour as the de-facto party of British government. (After all, it's 21 years since the Tory Party last won a working majority in the commons - and there's little sign of them making the breakthroughs they need in the north, and they've all but given up in Scotland).

So fleshing out what One Nation Labour is about is important. That's why LabourList has today published an ebook One Nation Labour - debating the future, edited by Labour's policy chief Jon Cruddas. Of course a political pamphlet is not the way to take a political idea out to the public - but what this body of work does is point to some of the issues and ideas that matter to Jon (and the One Nation Labour project). Housing, welfare and conservation all play a prominent role. It seems clear that these are areas on which the party will be giving more time between now and 2015.

Working with Jon on the production of this pamphlet has been a real pleasure, especially in terms of his willingness to engage with Labour Party members and supporters on equal terms. Only by doing that - and including them (and the public at large) in the conversation that the party needs to have about the way ahead - can Labour be sure of making One Nation into a way of governing, rather than just a political slogan.

It is my hope that this pamphlet is a step on the way to doing that, and that in some small way this may come to be looked back on as a step on the road to a manifesto for a transformative Labour government. But we're not there yet - bigger ideas are needed to win in 2015, and this pamphlet is but one facet of that. The debate about Labour's future (and future agenda) must continue. At LabourList we'll be ensuring that it does.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.900675 2011-07-17T13:00:00-04:00 2011-09-16T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ferguson/
The contempt that many Tory MPs feel for Brown was clearly on display this week as the former PM gave a rare speech to the house on phone hacking. His speech, it must be noted, was not amongst the most conciliatory of those given that day. Yet nor did it deserve the reaction from the Tory benches. He had only been standing for a moment when the first cry of "sit down" came from the government benches. His very presence there made them seethe and splutter with indignation. How dare a former leader of this country speak in the chamber? Who did he think he was? Dislike the man - loathe him if you must - but this was a former PM addressing the commons on a matter of national import. Was that really such a disgrace? For a few of the newest batch of Tory MPs, it evidently was.

A member of the lobby who I spoke to afterwards noted that the majority of those abusing Brown (and that's what it was), had only been elected in 2010. Perhaps that explains their discourteous reactions. To them, Brown was just a face on a leaflet, or a punchline to a joke. They think he is bonkers - someone to be parodied at best, bullied at worst. In their minds he is almost dehumanised, and their treatment of his seems to stem from that.

It's always annoying when people pose a question in a headline and then don't even try to answer it, but I'm afraid that's exactly what I'm going to do here. There are many negative feelings one might reasonably have towards Gordon Brown - pity, disappointment or even anger - but hatred? Pure, visceral, unadulterated hatred? I'm not sure where that comes from - but wherever it is, it's a dark and unpleasant place indeed...]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.891138 2011-07-06T14:30:46-04:00 2011-09-05T05:12:01-04:00

Mark Ferguson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ferguson/
It's sad that it has taken the appalling news that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked (and messages were deleted) for this story to achieve national prominence. Perhaps it says a great deal about the esteem in which our politicians and celebrities are held that there was little public condemnation when we knew that they had been targeted. But it's also strange to see the news that parents of the Soham victims were hacked leading the rolling news coverage.

After all, Labour MP Tom Watson -- who has courageously fought against News International over phone hacking since this was a niche issue -- raised the Soham case in a speech last month. I reported that speech at the time, but sadly, it took a critical mass of depressing news for the country at large to take note.

Perhaps the most depressing thing about the whole saga is the near certainty that we haven't yet seen how deep the rabbit hole goes. As Shamik Das astutely noted earlier this week, the tabloid press as a whole have been reluctant to cover phone hacking. It is hard not to believe that more, equally disturbing, press scandals may come to light in the coming months and years. As Gabby Hinsliff points out, getting a scoop is expensive, and as online media evolves and expands (including today's Huffington Post UK launch), the "dead tree" press will come under increasing pressure to secure newspaper sales. And, sadly, that is likely to mean more dubious reporting.

There's something almost romantic about the notion of the lone blogger with their laptop, uncovering corruption and scandals. Yet we should also be concerned about the decline of the free press, both financially and morally. Because although newspapers can be capable of extreme and sometimes evil misdeeds, they're also the only organisations with the scope and resources to uncover such misdeeds.

It's likely that phone hacking is the first major death rattle of the print press (or at the very least, the tabloid press). The media will continue to go through periodic spasms as news increasingly moves (and is broken) online. We've only just begun to discover how deep the rabbit hole goes, and it already smells like a sewer.]]>