麻豆社

In the final programme of the current series of Leader Conference, Andrew Rawnsley was joined by Mary Ann Sieghart, Jeremy Lewis of the Nottingham Post, Chris McLaughlin of 聽Tribune, Alice Thomson of The Times; and Nigel Nelson of the Sunday People.

We discussed:

Whatever It Costs?聽

Ernie Bevin, arguably Labour鈥檚 most distinguished and effective Foreign Secretary, memorably told his Cabinet colleagues in 1946 after a difficult encounter with his opposite number in Washington, that 鈥渨e've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.鈥� He was talking about the atomic bomb. All his successors have needed to grapple with Bevin鈥檚 pledge. Except that they haven鈥檛.

Certainly, circumstances have changed radically since the first flights of Britain鈥檚 former air-based nuclear weapons in the early years of the Cold War. Yet there has been no real debate about how Britain should respond to them. We need that debate. To that extent, we welcome Mr Corbyn鈥檚 review of Labour鈥檚 thinking about defence and security and deprecate the Government鈥檚 decision to conduct its Strategic Defence and Security Review last year behind closed doors and announce its decisions on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Trident is an issue for two main reasons. First, because of its cost 鈥� not far short of 拢200 billion when all the elements of it are included. But second because the assumptions which lie behind its modernisation and continuing presence in Britain鈥檚 defence policy need to be interrogated. Mr Corbyn is scarcely open-minded about this. His comments about not using nuclear weapons and long-standing support for unilateralism make that clear. But the need for a debate about Trident is essential. Its advocates have as much to explain as its detractors.

As British conventional forces and weapons are reduced, the emphasis which is placed on Trident increases. But it is not clear that Trident is the answer to new threats. Rather, they are asymmetrical. Britain does need to be on its guard to confront threats from nuclear-armed states hostile to its interests. But we question whether these are now significantly more potent than they were. Meanwhile, the threats from terrorism and cyber warfare have become realities. They have disrupted daily life and damaged British interests.

It makes sense to ask how well Trident fits with limited budgets, the need for flexible, easily deployed conventional weapons, the requirement for peace-keeping troops and NATO demands. To claim that even posing this question is a threat to Britain鈥檚 security does little service to the country鈥檚 armed forces. It is also poor politics. There may be a compelling case to be argued for Trident and the sacrifices required to pay for it. But simply insisting 鈥渨e鈥檝e got to have this thing鈥�, without a debate, does not make it. 听听

No Red Doors

The revelation that asylum seekers in Middlesbrough are being abused and stigmatised after the front doors of the accommodation in which they are living were painted red has justifiably prompted calls for a detailed audit by the Home Office. We trust it will be swift, rigorous and comprehensive. Whether the doors were painted in error or by design, the effect on those living in the properties has been clear, distressing and wrong.

But the issues raised by this incident go further. We suspect Middlesbrough is being asked to absorb too many migrants at one time in one place. We think the Government needs to enable migrants to move around the country to find work and appropriate places to live. This is not to advocate a free-for-all with no coordination. That would not be in anyone鈥檚 interests. But ensuring the manageable distribution of migrants around the country is most likely to be successful when councils, health services and schools do not feel overwhelmed. We doubt that this process can be organic, although it is understandable that some migrants will wish to live close to communities with which they have ties and which offer a genuine welcome.

More broadly, the prime minister was right to call earlier this week for asylum seekers and other migrants to integrate into British society and become properly assimilated. But while he appeared to will the ends he was more vague about the means. In our view, he was also too ready to talk about deportation of migrants who failed to learn English rather than to highlight the ways in which learning the language could provide opportunities for them to prosper here. Persuading recent arrivals of that is always likely to be more effective than threats.

Mr Cameron cited the specific challenge of empowering women in migrant and existing communities by enabling them to acquire English. This can be frustrated by spouses, partners and family members and it is right for the government to emphasise the importance of overcoming such opposition. We advocate the provision of free English lessons to all age groups as most likely to end the isolation some women experience. Unfortunately, the Government鈥檚 decision to cut the budget for such teaching suggests a lack of coordination at the heart of government about the strategy the prime minister advocates. He needs to sort that out as well as to reflect on the tone of some of his recent comments on migration.听听听听

In the pink聽听听

Confirmation that many shops charge female shoppers up to fifty per cent more than male customers for similar products will come as little surprise to women in Britain. But the time for a resigned shrug of the shoulders is past. We urge as many women as possible to buy the cheaper products offered to men where this is possible 鈥� disposable razors, for example. In competitive retail markets this should soon force companies to stop their sexist differential pricing.

Not all cases are susceptible to such tactics: women鈥檚 jeans, for example, inevitably reflect biological realities and companies may still be able to enforce a higher price. But we do not despair. If women 鈥� and their partners and spouses 鈥� threaten to use their purchasing power it is likely that will be enough to force the overcharging retailers to come to heel. This would be particularly effective in the case of children鈥檚 clothing, which is where the practice of differential pricing first takes root.

More generally, the time for explicit distinctions between the genders purely for money-making purposes 鈥� rather than to celebrate difference 鈥� has passed. Pink neither is nor has to be a girl鈥檚 colour any more than blue should be a boy鈥檚. But don鈥檛 just nod in agreement 鈥� get out there and make retailers stop ripping off their customers to enforce outmoded stereotypes! You鈥檒l soon be in the pink 鈥� for the right reasons.听听聽