Demonstrators protest outside Scottish Labour's Gala Dinner this evening. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Ed Miliband's speech to Scottish Labour's Gala Dinner: full text

"I will fight with you with every fibre of my being over these months to show how we can change Scotland," says the Labour leader. 

“We meet here after a tough week for our party in Scotland and after an extraordinary year when Scotland has gone through a profound debate about its future.

“We meet here proud that in September we won the battle to keep our country together.

“And we meet here above all determined to fight to show the Scottish people that Labour can be the change they want to see.

“We heard in the referendum about what the people of Scotland want. There is a deep desire for economic and political change.

“The referendum rejected separation. However much the SNP may try and rewrite the result, the Scottish people voted for us to stay together.

“It means democratic change with more powers for a stronger Scottish Parliament.

“That’s why we are entering the Smith Commission in good faith, working to the timetable that Gordon Brown set down during the referendum campaign.

“We will deliver a Parliament with more control over tax, jobs and welfare.

“We will deliver on a new Scotland Act in our first Queen’s Speech.

“And we will do what the SNP has not done and will never do: deliver an agenda that meets the needs of working people in Scotland.

“We’ll reintroduce a 50p tax rate for people earning over £150,000.

“We’ll tax bankers’ bonuses to pay for guaranteed jobs for our young people.

“We’ll end exploitative zero hours contracts.

“We’ll freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017 and tackle the rip off energy markets.

“And we’ll increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour.

“A pay rise for 100,000 Scots.

“We are just over six months from the general election.

“I look forward to working shoulder to shoulder with whoever the party in Scotland elects as leader to win that election.

“Over its history we have seen the Scottish Labour Party fight for the values our movement holds dear.

“We face a tough fight but no tougher than the fights we have faced in the past.

“The fight for workers’ rights 100 years ago which Scottish Labour led and won.

“The fight for an NHS which Scottish Labour led and won.

“The fight to get rid of the Tories in 1997 and establish a Scottish Parliament which Scottish Labour led and won.

“And the fight to keep our country together which Scottish Labour led and won.

“In the next six months I know the Scottish Labour Party will fight every hour and every day to deliver the changes the working people of Scotland need to improve their lives.

“And I will fight with you with every fibre of my being over these months to show how we can change Scotland.

“Together let's win this fight to change Scotland and change Britain.”
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.