Distinctly unhealthy

My mother and I keep having the same fight. She continues to bring the Independent into the house, I continue to try and not let it get to me. There I was flicking through it, pretending not to notice what they were ranting and raving about, when I came across something which moved to a rage only matched by Neal Lawson's Guardian columns.

The Conservatives seem to have a problem with Caroline Flint becoming Minister for Fitness Whilst it can be dismissed as gimmick government, something designed to distract attention from the altogether more important announcement that Pluto has been expelled from the solar system, I don't actually think there's an awful lot wrong with having a designated minister to tackle what is becoming a chronic problem. The Indy seem to think it is simply a matter of eating the right food and getting plenty of exercise but that demeans the effort thousands of people across the country put in each day attempting to do something about their eating disorders.

The Tories, bless their cotton socks, did do rather well in issuing their rebuttal. Ann Widdecombe, who only decided to do something about her largesse, inferred that 'while people will often object if you smoke near them, nobody says, "Don't get fat near me'. Whisper it quietly, but if she sits down on the Picadilly Line next to me this afternoon I'll be writing to TfL. Andrew Lansley described the Government's track record on obesity as 'just woeful'. Lansley spoke at my university just before the last General Election; let me tell you, just woeful doesn't even begin to cover it.

But the thing that annoyed me the most was the Indy's editorial. Sadly, it's not online because they've gone down that old socialist route of charging you for reading. Here is the excerpt that really bothered me:

The response of the Government to this riding tide of obesity most be holisitc. All departments should be acting with public health considerations in mind. The Department for Transport should be creating more cycle lanes. The Department for Education and Skills should be investing considerably more in school sports. It should not require a dedicated fitness minister for things like this to be happening. The creation of such a position is intended to demonstrate that the Government is taking the problem of obesity terribly seriously. In fact what it shows is that the question of the nation's health is being cynically ghettoised.

Sounds reasonable enough doesn't it? Until you discover that there are in fact more cycle lines in England than in 1997 and that school sport has undergone a massive revamp. Whilst playing fields haven't been returned to their former owners, which is a bit difficult when there's a giant Tesco's sitting on it, the government have invested £1bn into sport in schools since 1997 and incorporated professional sports clubs and Community Sports Trusts into system. Aside from all of that, the government established both the Football Foundation and Supporters' Direct way back in 1997 and required all the football academies they promoted to teach youth term scholars all the way through to their A-Levels.

Young people get their civic instruction not from their teachers but from celebrities. It would, of course, be nice if we could have more Jo Pavey's than Britney barbie dolls, but it's tough convincing a primary school student that they should playing Grand Theft Auto and go and jog round the block instead. It was equally interesting that in none of the sporting obitaruries of David Beckham published the other week was his instrumental role in winning the Olympics highlighted.

The moral of this long-winded story: keep going, Caroline.

Spielberg at his best?

I finally saw Munich this week. It's the latest film by Stephen Spielberg that all my friends told me I had to see - and it left me asking plenty of questions, even before the credits rolled.

From a movie perspective, it was enthralling. Brilliantly shot - without the fidgety cameraman who seem to work on most of the new films - and wonderfully acted. The plot, focussing on the secret Israeli hit squad assembled to assassinate the men behind the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics, isn't exactly accurate but it works. Eric Bana is both outstanding and believable as the team leader who suddenly develops a conscience and the film's subtle political message makes this compelling viewing, especially given recent events in the Middle East.

It might not be as powerful as Schlinder's List, but it was gripping and thought-provoking at the same time. Anyone got any suggestions as to what I should see next?

He must be doing something right

The horribly compelling Tory blogger Iain Dale brings us some disturbing news regarding former Labour Deputy Leader Roy Hattersley.

Apparently, if Reid becomes the next leader of Labour Party - which, despite some bluster from his supporters and a shift at the bookies, remains a long shot - dear old Roy will kill himself.

I still can't understand the vitriol aimed at the new Home Secretary. Not only is it a tough job at the best of times, we're now facing the kind of terrorist threat never before seen in this country. Whilst some may mistake him as a careerista blindly toeing the party line, to me Reid seems as though he's speaking his mind.

And, using the criteria I've had to hone after reading some of Hattersley's newspaper columns, criticism from Roy makes me think he's got to be doing a pretty good job.

I'm worried ... are you?

It goes without saying that November's Midterm elections in America are massive. The Democrats have a huge opportunity to take back at least one of, and maybe both, the House and the Senate. An unpopular President, plagued by an even more unpopular war, and his arrogant party, tainted by a corruption scandal, are finally beginning to lose the goodwill of the American people.

And yet, the Democrats, just as they have since Al Gore's concession speech outside the Supreme Court in December 2000, seem to be throwing it all away. How so? Well, take last week as an example. Unlike many anti-war activists and commentators (who could hardly contain their excitement), I was disappointed by Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary. Now, Lamont may well turn out to be an excellent candidate, but it was the defeat of Joe Lieberman that displeased me.

The veteran Senator might well have angered the netroots with his support for the War on Terror, but he was one of the few Democrats who realised that the West was being targeted by Islamists, stood up for the ideals advocated by the likes of JFK and Truman in years gone by, served his state loyally on the Hill for years and was one of the major roadblocks to Karl Rove's plan of painting the Democrats as soft on national security, which will be one of the big issues come November.

Many Democrats might be tempted to push for an anti-war platform to try and persuade the voters to ditch the GOP, but this would be folly. Firstly, it would look like opportunism. There was little opposition to the war within the Democratic Congressional Caucus despite protests by the American public. The best the anti-war activists could muster was Michael Moore and, with the greatest of respect, mate, your film didn't go down terribly well in the swing states (or with some of the critics).

Secondly, it would endanger the candidacies of those who took the toughest of decisions on Iraq, like Hilary Clinton, who, however polarising, will start the Presidential primaries as the Democratic front-runner.

And then there's the clincher. Rove will be able to rescue a drowning Republican party by painting the Democrats as liberal and soft on terrorism at a time when a tough stance on national security could not be more crucial. Somehow, they managed to turn John Kerry - a distinguished Vietnam veteran - into a man with a questionable service record. And they are planning to do it again.

Steering clear of what looks like the most obvious course, at the moment, would allow a clearer message to emerge. Perhaps a revived version of one of the most impressive parts of the last Presidential campaign (at least to this inexperienced, Brit) - the idea of the 'Two Americas' advanced by John Edwards. Or the hope and vitality offered by the impressive Barack Obama. Anything bar a sharp left turn (or a Howard Dean scream) would be lovely.

Where's Josh Lyman when you need him?

'It was easy'

A friend of mine has had some trouble getting out of the country over the last day or so. Stranded at Heathrow on her way back to the States, she had to arrange to leave most of her stuff with friends and carried only the essentials back across the Atlantic with her. After hours of queues, waiting and a delayed flight home, I got a call on my mobile this evening.

In a welcome change from some of the people I'd heard bemoaning the delays and the hassle, she thanked me for showing her a bit of London and then said that I must feel safe. Why? She'd been impressed with the work of government had dreamt up this plot to distract people from events in the Middle East.

Putting people off

Despite the despair of my ultra-New Labour friends, I was determined to give Compass a chance when they began a high-profile campaign to instigate some serious debate within the Labour Party. Yet, Neal Lawson's error-strewn account of the cost of higher education in the Guardian, really has made my blood boil.

Ignoring the fact that his proposed 'graduate tax' is riddled with flaws, Lawson - who used to work for Labour until the waters got a little too choppy - writes:

"With fees totalling £9,000, and average living costs of £12,000, you know you can't afford to walk away owing more than £20,000. University is out of reach - not of your ability, but of your pocket"

He conveniently forgets to mention that university students now no longer have to pay their tuition fees whilst they are at university and will only have to pay them back should they start earning above £15,o00 a year.

Also missing from his cogent analysis is the fact that the fees themselves are means-tested on the income of your parents and if you are from a lower-income family you don't have to pay anything. That's right: nothing at all. If you're still struggling with your finances, there are several busaries from universities, colleges, your Local Education Authority and even the government to help you out.

Equally important but nonetheless absent is the observation that student grants have been brought back and increased to £1,000 a year for every student - and, you don't have to pay that back, either.

The substantive politics behind the policy have also been ignored. Widening participation means ensuring that those who have been shut out of higher education for decades, such as the poor, students from ethnic minorities, mature students, student parents and those with disabilities can fulfil their potential. Surely that's something Neal can bring himself to support.

Why internationalism matters

If you mention fascism to people of my age, many will think about to Churchill and World War Two. Whilst that's a natural reaction and we should never forget the sacrifices made by all those who fought in that struggle, I'm proud that my party has always taken a strong anti-fascist stance. Had it not been for the likes of Herbert Morrison and won the peace.

Trace the line back just a little further and you reach the horrid Oswald Mosley morphing into a Fascist having tried almost all the parties for size. The subsequent battles against his British Union of Fascists, particularly at Cable Street, and the principled opposition of many leftists, both Labour supporters and Communists, meant that at a time when this most abhorrent of ideologies had permeated Spanish, Italian and German society it failed to gain a foothold on those shores. For that, we are all grateful.

Fascism might have been beaten in World War Two, but its totalitarian instincts remained in Eastern Europe after it. Communism, when stripped down to its Marxist principles, might have had plenty to recommend it but if speak to the people of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic - all brutally oppressed under Stalin - they could tell of the hardship they faced. One of the most satisfying things about Labour's move from Militancy to left-wing respectability under Neil Kinnock was the removal of that particular blot on our copybook.

The horrors of Communism and its aftermath raged bitterly in Eastern and Central Europe, however. The crises in the former Yugoslavia were ignored by the Conservatives as Douglas Hurd sat on his comfortable office sofa and John Major contented himself watching cricket. It was with great pride that I watched Tony Blair take a brave stand to protect the people of Kosovo, with their livelihoods and families under real threat from the odious Slobodan Milosevic, when the British people were still to be persuaded of the virtues of humanitarian intervention.

It is said that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed the world. They may well have done. But in my humble opinion, they were a graphic demonstration of the way in which terrorism, just like disease and poverty, doesn't respect sovereignty. The crazed suicide bomber or kamikaze pilot doesn't care on whose land they blow themselves up just like they don't scour the passenger manifests of the flights they board to check who they might be flying to their death. The onset of globalisation has brought destructive weapons closer to dangerous people and, even without our former standing as a Great Power, Britain should react to that.

Whilst the Stoppers and the more vocal opponents of the Coalition's mission in Afghanistan and Iraq concentrate on the moral bankruptcy of Blair's decisions, I ask you just to do a single thing. Think of the people in Kabul and Baghdad struggling to live a life under dictatorships with little chance of a proper education, the freedom to express themselves or associate with their friends. Think of the people living those lives and tell them that the war was illegal.

Because, having heard Geoffrey Goodman and John Shepherd as well as members of the audience talk about the Spanish Civil War with the Labour History Group the other night, the one thing I came away thinking was that the modern left should eschew the idea that we should simply protect the national interest. Internationalism and solidarity should mean we do everything we can to ensure that we support freedom from tyranny for all.

Mission statement

This blog has been set up as an attempt to get people talking, because as a Labour-supporting student I feel there is little consultation within my own CLP.

You have no obligation to join the Labour Party, Labour Students or any other Labour-sponsored organisation, although I reserve the right to actively encourage you.

At a crucial time in British politics, the Party needs to reach out to every organisation that shares our values.

My own interpretation of Labour's values at this point includes:
*Economic contempence (and we're on the way - thanks, Gordon!)
*Education as the silver bullet (with apologies to A. Sorkin).
*A commitment freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom from tyranny for all (and yes, that includes the Iraqis)
*A passionate belief in a free health service that provides excellent care and quality for all of its patients
*Engaging with all sections of society
*Sexual equality
* And, of course, the naive conviction that together we can build a brighter world for our successors than by working individually.

I'd like to build a network of activists and supporters to help Labour re-engage with twenty-first century society because this joker thinks he can beat us.

I'd like to encourage an open debate about the issues free from the personal abuse, splits and recriminations that condemned the Party I've grown to love to eighteen years in opposition.

I'd you like to get involved. Get in touch and we'll get started.