It is imperative that we listen to, and include, the party as a whole in our leadership discussion and in taking action to ensure we do, Ed has underlined his commitment to a full, frank and open debate for the future of our party.

More details to follow.

Having seen the nominations for the frontrunner candidates being notched up (one now having more than 20 over the required 33). I’ve wondered what the point of MPs nominating candidates who have already secured a nomination is… Sure it’s a demonstration of their support for such candidates, and they are perfectly within their right to do so.  But let’s be clear, a nomination is very different to a vote.

Why not close nominations for candidates who surpass the required amount automatically?  Yes, as many have argued, MPs should be able to make their support for any candidate they like, clear. Of course that should be the case. But they could make it clear that they will be voting for their first choice, but nominating their second – for the sake of the debate.

For the forthcoming discussion to be as comprehensive (as we need it to be) we need a wide range of candidates to stand. We must show the party members, and the public , that we’re listening. To do that we should have candidates that represent the viewpoints, and raise the concerns, of our party at large – it is imperative that everyone feels listened to. A thorough debate can only be a good thing, and will mark a change from the top-down culture of the past few years in our party. I would urge supporters of any particular candidate to embrace the debate so many promote. It is nothing to fear.

“Iain Duncan Smith, in tmrw’s Speccie, on his predecessor at DWP: “What was her name? Ed Balls’s wife….”

I then asked if he was serious, he assures me: “Perfectly. I’m quoting an extract verbatim”.

Now, just to clarify, this is Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith. Yes, a member of the Government, or indeed “The Coalition” as they like to be called. Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the new politics.

Now, there are two ways of looking at this. Tories on Twitter have, I believe without a hint of irony, suggested IDS had actually forgotten Yvette Cooper’s name. His predecessor and his current shadow. If that is the case, I must call into question his capabilities in his current position. The more probable explanation is that the comment was an (excruciatingly feeble) attempt at humour and I will almost certainly be criticised for not taking it with the frivolity with which it was intended.  Well (and I’m working on the assumption it is the latter, to be fair to the evidently sexist, but not completely incapable Duncan Smith) not only is it not funny, it’s offensive and it’s irresponsible.

This man is in charge of a Government department for God’s sake. He is a prominent figure in a party who have desperately, but unsuccessfully, tried to convince the public that they’ve changed.  He is no maverick backbencher, no “eccentric” MEP. I realise it may be daunting to enter a position where your predecessor has done as good a job as Yvette, who was, yes, shock horror – female. You have my sincerest sympathies Iain.

But seriously, it is this squalid old public schoolboy attitude which is now endemic to this Government which turns women off politics. Attitudes and “jokes” like Duncan Smith’s are poisonous to our democratic system which must be representative, in order to faithfully, well, represent. When women, like Yvette or Harriet who rise to the top of politics get comments like these directed at them, are the female council candidates or potential PPCs up and down the country filled with confidence? Or do some, rightly or wrongly, revert back to the view held by so many that the political arena is only really welcoming to the middle class, middle-aged, white man. And do they fear that their attempted entrance into such an arena will be met with the ridicule and sarcasm which Duncan Smith’s comment exemplifies?

I undoubtedly will get “get a life/sense of humour” comments (delete as appropriate) after this post, which frankly, I think might be better directed at Mr Duncan Smith.

Ed Balls is the most effective Co-operative Party MP of recent years.

For most aspiring Parliamentarians, the decision to seek to become a Labour and Co-operative MP is a bold step in itself. To start with, you must be selected by two parties, not just one, and then there is a whole niche of specialist policy to get to grips with. Doing it well is not easy.

It means that those who choose this route are serious about advancing the Co-operative agenda. Once in power though, the pressure of the mainstream Labour Party and competing challenges means that too often, Co-operative Party ministers are deflected from their chosen path.

Not so Ed Balls. Ed’s record as a Minister promoting the co-operative agenda is unparalleled. Both as a Treasury Minister and as Secretary of State at DCSF, Ed sought to drive forward the co-operative vision of society with an energy and decisiveness that is all too rare.

As Economic Secretary and the first Labour and Co-operative ‘minister for mutuals,’ Ed ensured Government support for the modernisation of co-operative law through a range of statutory instruments that built on recent Private Members Bills.

Long before it became fashionable, Ed then pulled off an exceptional piece of cross party co-operation by ensuring Treasury support for a Conservative backbench Private Members Bill that led to the creation of the first ever ‘super-mutual’ bringing Britannia Building Society and the Co-op Bank together in the interests of customers, rather than the banking elite.

Even before his election to Parliament, Ed was a strong friend and supporter of the Co-operative Party. As Economic adviser at the Treasury, he helped to facilitate Government support for key co-operative legislation, including the passage of three Private Members Bills.

Many thought that his move to Education would limit his ability to promote further co-operation. Yet, within months as Secretary of State at the DCSF, he took the radical step of supporting the establishment of co-operative trust schools – often in the face of the strong opposition from civil servants.

Ed is a determined and principled politician. He is also a loyal and honest friend of the co-operative movement. Co-operative members should seize this opportunity to support Ed as he contests the leadership of the Labour Party.

Co-operative Members for Ed Balls

Peter Hunt – General Secretary of the Co-operative Party 1998-2008
Len Wardle – Chairman, the Co-operative Group
Sarah McCarthy Fry – Labour/Co-operative MP for Portsmouth North 2005-2010
Chris Leslie – Labour/Co-operative MP

“If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you… I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right…”

1983. Neil Kinnock warned us not to be young under a Conservative government. When George Osborne and David Laws today announced their “efficiency savings” they, two Oxbridge educated multimillionaires, stood in front of a generation of young people and made thousands of  lives that bit tougher and proved Kinnock, 27 years on, right. The extraordinary benefit a university education bestows on a young person was denied to 10,000 of them, again under the “efficiency savings” umbrella, a cold term which hides the human cost of such measures.

I thought we, as a country, had learned the economic and social cost of unemployment is not a price worth paying. Evidently the Government does not agree. As Polly Toynbee writes today:

“getting off the dole has become so much harder with the shutting down of the Future Jobs Fund – saving £300m and losing up to 60,000 jobs for young people that pay a proper wage for a worthwhile six months with training. It was the best job scheme yet devised.”

It was. State-guaranteed work to anyone aged between 18 and 24, the result of the cut? 44,000 more young people on the dole. To cut such a guarantee demonstrates horribly but perfectly, this government’s commitment to the young in our society. Those who need a helping hand into employment have been given a signal that they needn’t bother, that their efforts are worth, well, cutting. So too apparently are the efforts the previous Labour government made to help children who fell behind

“the best schemes to rescue those falling behind have been axed: no more one-to-one tuition for reading failure; no Every Child a Reader, or Every Child Counts, which took six-year-olds falling behind out of class for intensive help. KPMG proved the effects lasted right through the children’s education. Expect literacy and numeracy rates to fall at 11.”

The Child Trust Fund goes too. £250 as a boost in capital may not seem much to the likes of George Osborne, but to many it is an invaluable boost, either to help them on their way to university, top up funds whilst they train or embark on an apprenticeship which will set them up with a career for life. These are cuts which are focussed on reducing the deficit now, yes, but are shockingly blind to the social, long-term cost of leaving young people on the dole, without government support. We are already reliving the mistakes of the 80s and it’s been less than a fortnight. This does not bode well.

It was not the young people of this country who caused the worldwide recession we have just emerged from. Of course, cuts must fall somewhere, in time. I am merely suggesting they should not fall on the life chances of the next generation, or indeed the one after that. It frightens me that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats believe that they should.

Labour needs a leader who, quite simply, gets it.

We lost the support of people who have always (rightly) viewed the Labour Party as “on their side” yet at this election, they were unconvinced. Ed Balls’ willingness to confront the disaffection and disappointment our former supporters felt, to deal with the issues we dodged, and to do so with pride in the party we love, is why I’m backing him for leader.

We need to reconnect with those who raised issues of “fairness” on the doorstep up and down the country. I heard so many people – young and old, families and pensioners – all complaining that Government seemed to be on the side of everyone but them. Immigration was entangled in this debate, rightly or wrongly. Ed Miliband suggested immigration was a class issue – it is – and to have dodged the debate for too long was to ostensibly ignore the worries of those we represent. We failed to communicate, to myth-bust, to challenge the poisonous fear spread by the likes of the Daily Mail. I believe housing must be our priority, it so often obscures the immigration debate (people are left on waiting lists not because of the uncontrollable levels of immigration, but in so many cases because, simply, there aren’t enough houses). Ed wrote about the “Fairness” issue in the Guardian and I breathed a sigh of relief. He gets it.

I also find Ed’s instinct for “progressive universalism” as a model for our Welfare State exciting. Creating a welfare state which thrives, which actively contributes to a fairer society for all, one which is more than a stagnant safety net. SureStart is one of the Labour government’s proudest achievements, a new pillar of the Welfare state, the success of which is partly down to its universal nature. When a majority of people, as is the case with the NHS, rely on a service and not just the most vulnerable, we all have a vested interest in seeing it flourish. Instead of marginalising those who depend on them, we create stronger public services and as a result a more cohesive, integrated society. Ed has hinted at policy rethinks on tuition fees and EMA, which I welcome.

I am well aware that Ed Balls is not the most popular candidate for Labour leader. Vilification by the right wing press has led to an image of Balls which many who know him personally, many of whom I’ve spoken to, do not recognise. This will be an opportunity for the public to see the real Ed. Quite simply, it will be a cold day in hell when the Labour party choose our leader based on their popularity in sections of the media we rightly loathe. I think Ed has the hunger, the drive and the fire in the belly to lead our party back into Downing Street. It is perhaps just that which the right-wing media fear.

I would like to make quite clear that I have absolutely nothing against the other candidates, in fact, I think we in the Labour movement should celebrate the fact that we have more than one candidate who would be more than up to the job. David Miliband has a formidable “CV” and has made points regarding our loss at the election which we ignore at our peril. His defence of idealism impressed. I watched Ed Miliband announce his candidacy on Saturday and his willingness to reach out to those on the Left, who may not be affiliated directly with the party, should be food for thought, a basis to build our movement.

But, there, I thought I should show my hand. I wish all candidates the best of luck and look forward to an exciting, refreshing and honest debate which will lay the foundations for our fightback.

Apologies for the prolonged break. Feels a little like I’m late to the party, so I’ll just sneak in hoping no one clocks me and retreat back into the corner. All very nonchalant. Right, where were we?

Ah yes, Opposition.  At the Next Left conference on Saturday, Sunder Katwala (General Secretary of the Fabian society) described the stages of post-defeat grief some Labourites (or I think “Progressives” was the term du jour) might currently be experiencing. Personally, I’ve been through the denial “we’ll be back in  month” phase, the (rather unsociable) weeping (and I’m talking ugly crying) every time BBC News 24 replayed Gordon’s resignation speech and have now reached acceptance tinged with melancholy. A slow shaking of the head each time I walk past Downing Street is, I feel, probably healthier than my previous desire to sit outside the gates with a “Bring Back Gordon” placard.

As I said at Next Left on Saturday, Opposition is a bloody awful place to be. Each day the Labour Party is out of government is another day the people we should always represent are vulnerable. The thousands of activists who pounded the streets daily throughout the campaign did so for a Labour majority, for a fairer future. “Fighters” is a perfect description for each & every one of them as it captures the resilience, pride and loyalty to our cause we all felt and, crucially, acted upon. But, it was not enough.

So naturally we look to where it went wrong. And one thing worries me, the calls for  a snap leadership election. I think those calling for a quick transition are, perhaps inadvertently, suggesting Gordon was the reason we lost, that the electorate’s issues with the Labour Government didn’t go deeper. He wasn’t and they do. It was not an awkward smile, or stiffness on camera which made the semi-skilled workers of this country desert our party, as potential leadership candidates are now writing daily, it was that they felt ignored. That we were no longer on their side. That hard reality is crucifying to those of us who joined this party to protect the exact voters who abandoned us (or, perhaps, who felt we abandoned them). It is a hard reality, but it is one we must accept in order to begin the vital process of renewal.

The debate we now need to have must be frank, open and far reaching. For god’s sake, let’s use the faint silver lining – time and freedom- to the dark cloud of Opposition, to build a strong, united party which is once again seen as representative, on the side of, and responsive to the people. This renewal can only truly begin, and the foundation of it can only be truly strong, if all parts of our movement feel genuinely listened to, consulted on the path we take from here.

A snap election or one which skims over vital issues, whoever wins, would seem a kick in the teeth to those who have recently joined to contribute to the debate and indeed to those who have stayed loyal and fought for every seat we retained on May 6^th. We began to build a genuine movement during this election campaign. As one woman who came from Dover to Bristol to help with Kerry McCarthy’s re-election campaign summed up “when the bugle calls, I just can’t stay at home”

Now, in Opposition, the bugle should continue to call. We cannot afford to ignore the lessons of the past election, and rush a discussion on the reform our party craves. Our party is best when, as Gordon famously suggested, we are boldest, best when we are united and best when we are Labour. In order to get back into government, which must always remain our focus, we need to examine, converse and construct our representative movement which is the greatest vehicle for change in this country… it is that renewal which is truly in the “national interest”.

After a start to the week which I can only describe as, well… manic, I’m now down in Bristol, out on the Labour doorstep daily… a post on that tomorrow.

But, for now, and for the record, I’ll start with the obvious.

Launching our manifesto on Monday was an absolute privilege. I would have never believed, even a few months ago, that I’d be standing in front of the cabinet, the Prime Minister, more journalists than I could name and a couple of hundred Labour activists, launching the first manifesto films. As Labour embraces social media, we spread our message to more and more people who we can’t always reach on the doorstep. It’s innovative and it’s exciting. With a manifesto to be proud of, we should share it, in every way possible, thousands have already done so.

I see the Labour party as a family and I love it as such. I passionately believe that  Labour, and Labour only, govern for those who want to get by, and get on, in life, sometimes against the odds. So when, in 2008, it looked as though we were heading for wipeout, I panicked. Losing the safe seat of Glasgow East was a real blow for everyone, we were downbeat, dejected and disheartened. The doorstep was, to be frank, a pretty depressing place to be. I looked to the easiest solution –  not to changing policy, nor narrative, not even to sticking out the storm, but to changing personality.

I’ve learnt a lot in the past few years, including how the Labour party works: we do things differently. At our heart are core principles which, no matter how turbulent things get, we do not swerve away from. Core principles of fairness and service. When other parties stab leaders in the back when the going gets tough, we don’t. When other parties assign failure to individuals, we stand united. The easiest option may be most attractive at the time, but that certainly doesn’t make it the right one.

When I called, then, for us to fight I meant it. I still do. There is a huge amount at stake. What I didn’t realise was that we already had the greatest fighter there, at the top. Gordon kept calm and carried on. In the face of a hostile media, awful polls and a financial crisis, he did not wince. Faced with high profile resignations and coups, he did not falter, he fought. He led us though the deepest recession since the 30s, into recovery. Lower unemployment in every part of the country than under the Tory recession of the 80s. Decisive action which led the world’s response to the crisis with fairness at the heart of his agenda, refusing to let those who could least afford the worst effects of recession to be left on their own. I don’t have to make the case for Gordon Brown on here, he’s done that himself. All I’d say is that this is a man of substance that we not only want, but need, leading us into the challenging, but potentially exciting, future which awaits us.

I happily admit that I got it about as wrong as could be on Gordon and I don’t apologise for changing my mind.

So week one: Madness. No time to blog, but will try and do an election diary on here for the duration of the campaign. Have been working in Westminster and doing all I can to help kick off the first week of a campaign which will shape our future.

On May 6th, Gordon stood on the steps of Downing Street with his cabinet behind him and delivered a speech, straight from the heart, asking for a mandate from the country. No hung parliaments, no reduced Tory majorities. Labour is fighting for victory, undoubtedly as the underdog, but with our principles and one central message at the heart of our campaign.

Gordon stated:

“From now until polling day I will travel the length and breadth of Britain with one clear message: Britain is now on the way to economic recovery.

Now is not the time to put it at risk.”

Yes. Young and old men and women all have one central concern. The economy. Unfunded, headline grabbing policies and glitzy launches will not cut the mustard this time. If we can get our message out, even with as hostile a media as we face, we can win this. Because we must.

More as the fight continues, if you’d like to join us go here.

Due to university course commitments I’ve had to be in Paris since October. I do realise “I’ve had to be in Paris” sounds ridiculous. Of course, I’ve loved it. But if truth be told, I probably wouldn’t have chosen to go. Timing wasn’t great for various reasons including the impending election. Regardless, I didn’t have a choice. And because I couldn’t get out on the doorstep, as I would have liked to, every weekend, I thought I’d do what I could online to help.

I digress really (to prove a point to some Tories who have berated me for daring to support the Labour Party from France), as this train winds it’s way through the beautiful countryside of Northern France and I’d be more specific but geography is not my strong point, I thought I’d reflect on what 6 months as an “outsider” has taught me. In short, I’ve become fiercely patriotic.

The Left too often panics about patriotism, not without good reason. It often manifests itself in a very ugly way and is, of course, used perversely to excuse or justify hatred of those we do not know and therefore fear. But being away from Britain, living in a wonderful but intensely troubled city, made me realise exactly how Great our country is. And makes the Right’s “Broken Britain” attack even more sickening.

In Paris, one huge fracture runs throughout the city. It divides the haves and the have-nots. It is a split we are all, all too familiar with. But when I compare it to London, where I’ve lived for 21 years, it is a divide which is more troubling, crippling and deep than any I’ve encountered. For the have-nots in Paris, have nothing.

I do not underestimate the problems with inequality that we have in Britain. I’ve said before and I’ll say again, the failure to tackle the yawning gap between rich and poor should be the biggest regret of the New Labour project. But (and yes there is a but) when I walk the streets of London I see relatively poverty in places, which makes me want to act. To get a Labour government elected to improve the lives of those not born to relative privilege, a government to continue the improvement of council flats, to build more and to carry on the regeneration of major cities that we have done in the past 13 years.

When I walked the streets of Paris, I felt despair.

The one thing that the have-nots (or have-nothings) lack there is a safety net. A cast iron guarantee that if they are sick, treatment awaits. Free of charge. That unemployment does not mean falling off the face of the earth. That if one encounters difficulty, the state will step in, work with you to get you back on track. A reassurance that you are worth help, often encouraging merely because it is known to be there.

I am fiercely proud of Britain. That even in the darkest days of Thatcher’s government, she dared not remove our fundamental right to a free healthcare at the point of need (however much it went against her ideology). That, since 1945, the State has committed itself to intervention when its people fall on tough times. Part of the reason I find it so important to remind people of Bevan’s work is because that government built the foundations of fairness in this country that we enjoy today. Foundations no government since has dared rip up.

As I watched from abroad the blinding hypocrisy of the Tories’, who are bankrolled by a tax evader, attacks on Broken Britain’s “benefit scroungers”, I was startled. Compare the figures between tax evasion and benefit fraud and ask who the real scourge on our society is. Such negativity looms over every speech Cameron makes. The Conservative Party hope to just catch an upturn in negativity about this country in order to make it into No 10. In 1997, Labour’s message was so strong because it was positive, setting out how Britain could be different. If the Right is the party of patriots, they’ve a funny way of showing it.

So after 6 months away, I am delighted to be back to join the offline fight for this country’s future. Stronger in the knowledge that if to be patriotic means to be proud, in particular, of the moral superiority that our Welfare State affords us, then a fierce patriot I am.