Twice this week, on consecutive nights, I have been invited to speak at events addressing the challenges facing the left. (This is an unusual density of speaking engagements. I think they get me in because I’m free, not because I’m any help.)

One was the launch of this excellent volume produced by Policy Network. The other was a branch meeting of Labour members in North London. The former focused on large-scale problems for “progressive” movements across Europe – the conundrum of why it is that what looked in 2008 like an obvious failure of globalised, free-market capitalism hasn’t massively benefited social democratic politics. The latter was much more interested in the question of whether Ed Miliband is going to be Prime Minister in 2015.

Neither gathering was optimistic and although the gloom was expressed in different ways, the themes were remarkably similar. At the risk of doing violence to long and nuanced conversations, I’m going to try to distil the common concerns into a few paragraphs.

The new political paradox of thrift

There is, on the left, a strong feeling that the macroeconomic argument that dominated the period immediately after the 2010 election was intellectually won and politically lost by the Keynesians. It is a source of dismay, verging on panic, that the pro-austerity side seems to be getting away with the stagnation of the past few years and is now poised to reap the benefits of dismal, uneven growth. Yes, of course there will be questions about living standards and who shares the proceeds of a flimsy recovery. But the reality is that George Osborne slipped the noose when his deficit and debt reduction targets where shredded and the economy was shrinking.

Labour always struggled to explain the economic paradox of thrift. Now they have their own political paradox to deal with – they are sure that austerity was the wrong policy and yet are being forced to devise a strategy resting on the implicit assumption that it is also unavoidable.

Pointing at inequality doesn’t steer voters to the left

There is a tendency in the Labour party to see the yawning gap between rich and poor, or rather between the very rich and the rest, as intrinsically vicious. That is a reasonable enough position. There is ample evidence that more equal societies are happier and healthier. But the mere fact of British inequality appears not to be as great a factor making people vote Labour as many had hoped (And not just because Labour presided over the unequal Noughties.)

What animates a sense of righteous indignation is the injustice of perceived unequal or undue reward – the fact that bankers continue to get their bonuses while ordinary workers’ wages are frozen, for example. But that isn’t quite the same as despising a social order where some people are much richer than others. Resentment of unfair reward can just as easily be politically mobilised by the right - in favour of benefit cuts, say, if the story told is that claimants haven’t done enough to earn their welfare cheques.

There is poverty in Britain that should be a source of collective national shame, yet the left is struggling to turn that into a galvanising political energy.  It doesn’t help that politics itself – or more accurately, politicians – are mistrusted. A social democratic party has twin challenges. First, it wants to persuade people that the collective good is served by a drastic and urgent reordering of the way wealth and opportunity are distributed. Second, it wants to persuade people that government is the right tool for doing it. Neither of those things are as obvious to many voters as Labour activists want them to be.

The classic old left proposition is that there are a few greedy rich people with far too much money who should be made to cough up to the taxman so he can hand out more to the rest. There is not much evidence in Britain that this is a reliable avenue to victory, but for want of a better idea it seems to be enjoying a quiet renaissance in the Labour ranks. (For a long and detailed study on different ways of expressing the egalitarian impulse and what might work in the context of UK politics, I recommend a forthcoming paper by Nick Pearce in the IPPR’s Juncture journal.)

There was in 2010 a significant number of people in the Labour party who hoped that Ed Miliband was the man who could articulate the moral case for addressing inequality with enough passion and urgency that Britain’s dormant social democrat conscience would be reawakened. The feeling among his most ardent supporters was that he could distil the essence of The Spirit Level into a political love potion for the nation to imbibe. From my encounters with Labour members I can say the reality has dawned that this won’t happen and that leaves many feeling desperately uninspired.

Miliband needs a good post-conference

It is traditional at this time of year to write that party leaders face a critical moment at their annual conferences and that they must deliver the speech of their lives. Those things are broadly true of Miliband’s current situation. But there is a caveat. No-one doubts that the Labour leader can pull of a good speech when he needs to. He did it last year. The Labour party in recent years has been good at circling wagons at its conference and refusing to give the media the civil war stories that hacks are chasing. The discipline frays but remains fairly solid. So it is easy to imagine Miliband getting through his Brighton jamboree with his position unharmed and quite possibly enhanced. The big day for him is the one after the conference. The most consistent complaint I hear from Labour members and MPs is that, even when the leadership find a good position on something, there is no follow-up.

There never seems to be a plan for ramming home the new line or presenting it in a way that captures the public imagination. Miliband’s positions can be mapped out on paper and, more often than not, they are sensible and shrewd. They are meticulously designed to address the concerns of target voters without alienating the Labour core. The problem comes in taking those positions off the page and building them into a political project in three dimensions. The challenge isn’t delivering a good speech, it is turning it into more than just another speech.

Elysium is excellent. As with District Nine, director Neill Blomkamp takes social inequality and shows it to be ridiculous and indefensible, while still letting you enjoy watching sci-fi. In doing so he may make as much difference as anyone striving for social change. Suddenly directors are members of the front line, part of the people that change the world. Just one question then, isn’t it ironic that a film about segregation contains only one fully-rounded female character, and even that role was originally written as male?

When I left the cinema my first thought was not “why aren’t there more well-written women?” It was how much I wish that I had written it. Yes, it’s a similar topic to his first film, yes, it’s also made from a short and that shows, but the impact of the agenda is undeniable. If he never works again, Blomkamp can retire knowing that influenced how people think about the way we live. Andrew Ellard, writer and script-editor, has written Tweetnotes on Elysium, as he does on many films (@ellardent). I knew he was critical of this one, and was looking forward to arguing, but he makes good points on the lack of depth to the world, characters, and plot, and the bolt-on nature of the love-interest heroine, Frey, and he is right. The film could have greatly benefited from his insight at a rather earlier stage than this. I still wish that I had written it. Why did it take Ellard to tell me that the character of Frey was not fully-integrated or even fully-formed? I didn’t just fail to object, I didn’t notice, and I’m a girl. I watched a film in which the second female character is a two-dimensional plot device and I just didn’t notice. I’ve seen this done so many times that I have clearly developed some dedicated neural pathways for just waving it through.

Blomkamp set out to write a film with “at least one central female character”, not an overly revolutionary aspiration in a film about equality. Elysium has a central unromanticised female character, but one that was only switched to female when “it suddenly occurred to him the character could be a woman”. Like the heroines of Salt and Flightplan, this role is strong partly because it was written to be a character before it was rewritten to be female. I don’t know why he needed to spot a character that he could gender-switch, rather than writing a decent female one from the start, and I don’t know why he felt that other characters could not be switched. I am aware that Blomkamp has taken on a role where you can never be good enough: fight normative values, and your film will always still be too normative. Even if it doesn’t contain only wealthy, white men, even when it critiques that very gated community, a film cannot avoid reflecting the wealthy, white male perspective that usually funds, supplies and distributes it. This is a film that sets out to teach an anti-segregation message and still failed the Bechdel test, which checks that at least two women in a film talk to each other about anything other than a man. We’re used to seeing films with only token female characters, and tests like the Bechdel help alert us to what we’ve stopped noticing, if not when we stopped noticing them.

It’s been a long time since comedian Richard Pryor balked at the all-white casts of films like Logan’s Run, musing that the future setting implied that “White folks ain’t planning for us to be here”. He did it so acutely and so wittily that he got people to listen. He didn’t single-handedly create a perfect and equal world, but he did start a gradual change in perceptions that got people to realise what they were acclimatised to. A similar creeping shift is gathering around Game of Thrones’ exceptional lead Peter Dinklage. It is hard for an actor who is four foot five to be remembered for his brilliant way with dialogue, but then it is hard for an actor who has to compete for screen time with zombies and dragons to be remembered at all. Dinklage’s dwarfism has nothing to do with his perfect acting, but it does dictate that the role he plays must be appropriate to his size. In the glamorous world of the on-screen, unusual physiques are disproportionately under-represented, yet Dinklage does not play a token role focussed on his stature or enabling the remaining cast. He portrays a complex and multi-faceted part, flawed, three-dimensional, award-winning, and now carrying top billing. Versions of the limited-range excuse have been used by many writers seemingly incapable of including fully-formed female characters, because women can only play women, and apparently these writers can only envisage men. Perhaps it is time to change what we envisage. We don’t need more strong representative characters, we need more characters who happen to be representative and happen to be strong. Characters who are casually short-statured, or female, or black, or transgendered, and also interesting, because of their personalities, motivations and conflicts, or anything that actually matters.

Whether it is done as intentionally as in Elysium or not, films and TV series form part of a lens that shows us distorted refractions of our world, that shapes the way we think, that reinforces and ideally challenges our values. If I’m shown a world with one central woman in it, I should notice. I should be surprised. I should not be impressed, I should be disappointed. As Pryor said, perhaps it is time we got on with making our own movies. Then we’d be in them.

Once again the Telegraph is hard at work whipping up outrage at abortions that never were. After last year’s exposé, in which two doctors were caught agreeing to abort baby girls because of gender, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that prosecution is not in the public interest. Cue lots of photos of ultrasounds and pseudo-balanced discussions of “good” and “bad” terminations. So far, so utterly predictable. And now Tom Chivers is on hand to tell all of us pro-choice feminists that we should be "more appalled than anyone by the sex-selection abortion story". Well, guess what, Tom? This pro-choice feminist isn’t. If anything appals me, it’s attempts at emotional blackmail by journalists and politicians. You do not have to agree with the CPS’s decision to recognise that all these attempts to stoke up feminist outrage are in bad faith.

According to Tory MP Sarah Wollaston“selective abortion of girls harms women and reinforces misogynist attitudes”. Does it really? And what, precisely, does forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies do to our perceptions of womankind? Is this the only instance in which feminists are expected to play good abortion/bad abortion, or are there others? And as for misogyny – well, it strikes me as pretty shameful that the one time this word is on everyone’s lips we’re applying it to those not yet born.

Women and girls die as a result of misogyny every hour of every day, only we don’t call it that. A man bludgeons his female partner to death and it’s merely “a tragic family incident” or “a crime of passion”. We blame volatile relationships and jealousy. Women don’t dare mention the “m” word – after all, it might make more men hate us. As Suzanne Moore has observed, the only acceptable “m” word these days is “misandry”. Indeed, an accusation of misandry can be hurled at anything from Loose Women to campaigns against lad mags. As for misogyny, well, there’s no such thing, not unless we’re talking about the foetuses.

It is bizarre to speak of a world that hates girl foetuses (or at least foetuses which do not have an identifiable penis) but not a world that hates women. It is ironic, too, since far from protecting every foetus that is developing ovaries, a uterus and a vagina, what one is actually doing is questioning his or her bodily autonomy from the moment he or she draws a first breath. A selective cry of “misogyny” for anti-choice ends contributes to a culture which does not see people with female reproductive systems as full, equal human beings – precisely the kind of culture in which some might wish such people were not born at all.

Pro-choice means just that. The only person who can decide whether or not a pregnancy should continue is the person who is pregnant. We can of course say that gender prejudice is a terrible reason to end a pregnancy that would otherwise have been wanted. But isn’t the same thing true of ending one due to poverty? Yet the Telegraph is not up in arms about wealth-specific abortions, demanding that their legal status be changed. After all, it’s pretty obvious that the problem there is not abortion per se but inequality – and best not mention that. With gender selection, however, it’s different. You also get the chance to play gender politics, the opportunity to make a pseudo-feminist arguments in which good or bad reasons turn into good or bad abortions. This is not right. It should not be that the only good feminism is the one which lets in anti-choice politics by the back door.

The presence or lack of the stubby outline of a penis tells you very little about 20-week old foetus and what kind of person he or she will become. It does, however, tell you an enormous amount about how the world will respond to him or her. This is the real problem. It’s a problem that the right-wing press and conservative politicians show little interest in addressing. For misogyny in action, we should look to those who turn away from abuse, exploitation and pain to focus only on wombs within wombs.

What did Dr Prabha Sivaraman do wrong? She said this: “I don’t ask questions. You want a termination, you want a termination.” The woman she said this to wasn’t even pregnant: she was a Telegraph journalist claiming to want an abortion because of the sex of the foetus. The result of this sting has been another strand of the Telegraph’s long-running attack on abortion provision.

Previous installments in this war include the Telegraph claiming (wrongly) that “one in five abortion clinics breaks law”, and it promoting Maria Miller’s muddled and false claims that the abortion limit should be reduced “to reflect the way medical science has moved on”. (Easy one, this: given that the medical science hasn’t actually moved on, abortion law can reflect it by staying put.) What’s different this time, though, is that the sex-selection angle has allowed the Telegraph to recruit the support of people who would normally stand very far away from such campaigns.

On Wednesday, the Crown Prosecution Service Service announced that while there was enough evidence to justify bringing proceedings against Dr Sivaraman and Dr Palaniappan Rajmohan (caught in a second Telegraph set-up), there was insufficient public interest in doing so. The Telegraph did not like this. On Friday, its front page announced: “Abortion laws left ‘meaningless’ as doctors put ‘above the law’” .

Health secretary Jeremy Hunt (who supports halving the abortion limit to 12 weeks) demanded answers, so did the shadow attorney general. And even people who don’t consider themselves anti-abortion grew concerned and head-shaky, like Tom Chivers of the Telegraph who said: “Pro-choice feminists should be more concerned than anyone by the sex-selection abortion story” .

Let me introduce myself. I am a pro-choice feminist, and I’m intensely concerned. Not because I think the CPS has allowed femicide to go unpunished – remember, no abortions arose from these consultations, and there is no evidence of widespread sex-selective abortion in the UK – but because this is a cynical and determined effort to take choice away from pregnant women.

If you think the Telegraph would be satisfied with the prosecution of two doctors, then you’re not paying attention. (The fact that the paper is pursuing this vendetta against choice while also running a campaign for better sex education is just the caramelised irony skin on the crème brûlée of compulsory pregnancy.)

Despite what the Telegraph’s outrage suggests, the law offers several likely reasons for the CPS’s decision – including, as legal blogger Greg Callus notes, the fact that sex-selective abortion may well be wrong but it’s not actually illegal in England and Wales. Under the 1967 Abortion Act, an abortion is legal when “two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith… that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family…”

Abortion for sex selection wouldn’t necessarily pass that test, but any prosecution would essentially be a trial of the doctors’ “good faith”: did they genuinely believe that the woman requesting the termination would be harmed more by giving birth to an unwanted baby girl than by ending the pregnancy? And when Dr Sivaraman says “you want a termination, you want a termination,” it seems to me that she is, precisely, taking the testimony of her patient in good faith.

At this point, it’s worth remembering that the punishments inflicted on women for bearing unwanted girls, and on girls for being unwanted, are both real and severe: a culture that hates you before you’re born does not soften towards you just because you’ve passed the cervix. Violence, neglect, abuse, rape and murder are all commonplace for the female populations of femicidal societies. The phenomenon of missing women is a scar on a scar, a horrifically damaging imbalance that speaks of profound and wounding misogyny.

Femicide is a product of cultures that treat women as property and deny them their full human rights. And critically, one of those human rights is the right of women to control their own fertility. The fact that a woman’s reason for wanting or not wanting a baby might be founded on sexism is not a matter for the consulting room. Doctors are guardians of our wellbeing, not policemen of our morals, and if we accede to the Telegraph’s campaign, we accede to the principle that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body.

Sex selective abortion is abhorrent. It must be prevented, and there are several ways this might be done. For example, withdrawing sex-screening from NHS hospitals wouldn’t stop prospective parents from finding out if they’re having a boy or a girl, but it might be a powerful way to signal that it doesn’t matter what sex their baby is. Or perhaps doctors like Sivaraman should ask some questions – such as, “Do you feel pressured into having an abortion?” Above all, though, we must treat adult women as rational and entitled to the fruits of their own choices. Because it is impossible to create a sexism-free society by forcing women to give birth to babies they do not want.

Events over the past month have dramatically illustrated the true nature of military power in the world today: not, for the most part, a means of self-defence, but a tool of internal repression and external power projection.

In Egypt, having toppled the elected president in July, the new military government moved to eradicate the political opposition, arresting its leaders and murdering hundreds of activists during a few days in August. In Syria, the armed forces of a regime with deep roots in the military appear to have used chemical weapons on civilians in rebel-held areas, again killing hundreds. In Western capitals, cruise missile strikes are threatened against Syria for reasons that clearly have nothing to do with self-defence, nothing to do with humanitarian principle (witness the continued, substantive support for the junta in Cairo), and everything to do with a geopolitical game being played with the lives of the Syrian people.

Britain’s place at the heart of global militarism is well established. It is a member of the elite club of nuclear states, spends more on “defence” by proportion of GDP than most developed nations, regularly involves itself in armed conflicts abroad, and holds perhaps 15 per cent of the global market in arms dealing, second only to the United States and ahead of Russia and France. In terms of exports, recent revelations that the UK allowed the sale of chemical precursors to Syria highlight the degree of commercial cynicism at work. But often, as one would expect from an industry largely dependent on the nanny state, political concerns shape the destination of exports. Britain mostly sells weapons to allies such as Saudi Arabia (with whom Margaret Thatcher signed Britain’s largest arms deal) not to strategic opponents like Iran.

Next week, with atrocious timing given recent events in Egypt and Syria, London hosts the world’s largest arms fair, the "Defence Security Equipment International" (DSEi) exhibition, organised with the help of the British government and part-subsidised by the UK taxpayer. One of the participating firms hoping to network and make deals at the event is the Russian State Technologies Corporation  (Rostec), whose arms export wing supplies weapons to the Assad regime. It is not yet known which states the British government has invited to attend this year, but past guests provide an indication. Colonel Gaddafi’s notoriously brutal son Khamis appears to have received a personal invite in 2009, while 2011’s guests included delegations from Bahrain and Egypt. A few months before the 2011 event, Bahrain had violently crushed a broad-based pro-democracy movement with the help of a Saudi-led intervention force, while later that autumn the Egyptian military massacred two dozen civilian protestors in Cairo . Many states have pavilions at DSEi to showcase their wares, including Israel, which boasts that its kit has been battle-tested. Clearly the enemies of democracy and self-determination will once again be out in force at this year’s event.

The mindset of militarism has been reflected in the debate over Syria this past fortnight, with even the most liberal of those advocating direct intervention repeatedly insisting that the choice is between waging war and “doing nothing”. In the Syrian case, it is hard to see how serious attempts at diplomacy and serious provision of humanitarian aid (unlike the wholly inadequate efforts made on both fronts so far) can credibly be classed as inaction. Elsewhere, people wanting to do something to counteract the forces of state violence and repression, in the Middle East and elsewhere, could do worse than get involved in the range of creative anti-DSEi protests planned by campaigners for next week, including a mass action on Sunday by Occupy London, a ‘meet-and-greet’ for arms dealers and protests against government support for the arms industry outside Parliament. These too are “humanitarian interventions”, conducted at the level of civil society, aimed at ending British complicity with violent anti-democratic forces around the world.

David Wearing is researching a PhD on British relations with the Gulf states at the School of Oriental and African Studies. Find him on Twitter as @davidwearing

1. War comes to Syria's quiet Christian hinterland (Independent on Sunday)

A rebel attack on Maloula is a warning for a minority accused of supporting government, says Patrick Cockburn.

2. On the trail of the ideal school, no 'love sticks' required (Independent on Sunday)

Michael Gove tells teachers as they prepare to strike over pay and conditions that their profession has never been more rewarding, reports Jane Merrick.

3. Ed Miliband can't retreat from his battle with the union bosses (Observer)

Victory for the Labour leader would be good for him, bad for the Tories and best for the way we do politics, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

4. It's still a family affair if you want to succeed in Britain (Observer)

You don't have to marry a prince to get to the top when even egalitarian Labour favours political dynasties, writes Catherine Bennett.

5. The golden age of inquisition dies with Frost (Sunday Times) (£)

David Frost's death is a reminder that the golden age of openness has passed, says Adam Boulton.

6. Now the recovery’s starting, are we all in that together, too? (Sunday Times) (£)

Ministers are being very, very careful not to utter the phrase “green shoots”, observes Camilla Cavendish.

7. We can’t pretend the world didn’t change after September 11 (Sunday Telegraph)

8. Miliband must improve fast ahead of his crucial TUC speech (Mail on Sunday)

His efforts will be in vain if he does not recharge our economic and foreign policies, says David Blunkett.

9. Etiquette can't manage our mobile addiction (Sunday Telegraph)

Debrett's guide to using our phones politely is all very well, but we need to go cold turkey, argues Jenny McCartney.

10. KitKat for Google? Give us a break… (Observer)

Only Google executives know why they've named their new operating system after a snack owned by the appalling Nestlé, says David Mitchell.

Lib Dem MP Sarah Teather has announced, via an interview with Toby Helm of the Observer, that she will not be seeking re-election to Parliament in 2015.

She cited disappointment with her party's stance on immigration and social issues since joining the Coalition among the reasons for her decision, as well as the impact on her own life and wellbeing. In a statement on her website, she said that her differences with the party "have been getting larger rather than smaller".

She told the paper:

I don't want to say it is impossible for other people to do it, but for me, with my resources, with who I am, with my constituency, I personally can't see how I can make this sustainable for the next 10 years and behave like a normal human being that I like.

Teather was elected as the MP at the Brent East by-election in 2003, overturning a 13,000 strong Labour majority to take the seat for the Lib Dems in what was considered to be a backlash against the Labour government's support for the Iraq war.

She was appointed Children's Minister on the formation of the Coalition, but was sacked during a reshuffle in September 2012. She subsequently spoke out against the government's benefit cap.

The timing of Teather's announcement - in the run-up to the Lib Dems' conference in Glasgow - and her decision to make it in an interview with a national broadsheet looks calculated to cause the maximum possible discomfort for Nick Clegg. She attracted a lot of criticism for voting against the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act earlier this year, and somecommentators have suggested that this has attributed to her decision not to seek re-election.

A spokesperson for the Lib Dems told the Observer:

Of course we are disappointed by Sarah's decision.

The Liberal Democrats have a proud record in government, including cutting taxes for working people by £700 and lifting the poorest paid out of tax altogether; helping businesses create a million jobs; investing billions more in schools to help the poorest children and introducing radical plans for shared parental leave.

Sarah was a part of this when she served as a minister in the coalition, as well as playing a key role in ending Labour's disgraceful policy of locking up children for immigration purposes.

Bill Walker has resigned from the Scottish Parliament after pressure over his domestic abuse convictions.

The independent Dunfermline MSP was found guilty of 23 charges over three decades at a court in Edinburgh last month. When the allegations were made public, he was ejected from the SNP. He is due to be sentenced in September. More than half of Scotland's MSPs supported a motion calling for him to go.

In a statement, Walker said:

It has been increasingly difficult for my wife and my staff to deal with the media interest in my case. That same media onslaught has also made it impossible to properly represent my constituents and their interests.

My trial process on domestic abuse charges still continues at Edinburgh Sheriff Court with the sentence not due to be announced until September 20 after the receipt of the reports ordered by the court. However, circumstances have made it very difficult to continue as MSP, hence my decision to withdraw now.

With major elections imminent in Germany and Norway, it is clear that centre-right politics in much of Europe is shifting dramatically – and the left has a long way to go in understanding what this means. This so-called ‘progressive conservatism’ eschews 1980s-style neo-liberal economics, but betrays renewed hostility towards centralised state bureaucracy. More significantly, ‘compassionate conservatism’ openly embraces the social freedoms of the post-‘68 generation, enabling Conservative parties to compete for votes in the centre. It is putting centre-right parties, notably Angela Merkel’s CDU in Germany and the Norwegian Conservative’s Erna Solberg, on the cusp of election victory.

The dramatic shift of political strategy is still poorly understood on the left. Merkel’s opponent, the SPD leader Peer Steinbruck, has been reduced to arguing that the CDU’s policies have been stolen – hardly a convincing prospectus for office. The more conventional tactic is to insist that centre-right is a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ – adopting an apparently moderate rhetoric which conceals neo-liberal policies intent on shrinking the size of the state, defending traditional conservative interests among the wealthy, financiers, and the establishment. This may have more than a grain of truth: Conservatives (notably Angela Merkel) have espoused a form of post-crisis austerity which has revived the dubious science of ‘monetarist economics’. Making swift and large-scale public expenditure cuts in the name of budgetary consolidation is a risky step in the face of an on-going contraction in global demand, whatever the tentative signs of eurozone recovery.

Nonetheless, social democrats need to be wary of glibly dismissing the new model of centre-right politics as 1980s-style Thatcherite individualism. After the Conservative Party’s historic victory in 1979, the British left failed to appreciate its radical potential: the capacity of Thatcherism to project itself as being on the side of major changes that were sweeping through the world economy, and the popular recognition of a new settlement between labour and capital to halt Britain’s relative economic decline.

So today, centre-right parties are rediscovering their winning ways by aggressively tacking towards the centre-ground. The German CDU's Angela Merkel has long been willing to lean towards the left, having governed throughout her first term in coalition with the SPD. The financial crisis has reinforced the determination of Germany’s politicians to demarcate the German model from the worst excesses of Anglo-American capitalism and neo-liberal globalisation. The German Chancellor appears determined to outflank her social democratic opponents from the left. The CDU programme includes a federal minimum wage, government action to curb rising rents in the housing sector, and legislation for gay marriage. Merkel’s policy to bailout Greece and frequent calls for European solidarity have been supported by the SPD, which can hardly better her pro-European stance.

Similarly, the Norwegian centre-right (where elections take place next Monday) declare their open support for trade unions, and their intention not to interfere with existing labour market regulations covering sick-leave and laws governing temporary workers. Sten Inge Jorgensen, a journalist at Morgenbladt attests: ‘The success of the Conservative party is the fruits of a long and carefully planned strategy to become a people’s party’. Against the discernible shift to the centre and new rhetorical appeal, the Norwegian social democrat’s pledge of ‘safe governance’ hardly inspires confidence.

Throughout Europe, progressive conservatism has varied forms according to divergent political traditions, electoral imperatives, and social conditions. The unifying ideological rationale, nonetheless, is the willingness to modify the commitment to liberal individualism which became the dominant strand of Conservative thought in the 1980s; and to combine it with renewed scepticism about the role of the centralised state, and the efficiency and efficacy of the public sector. This ‘progressive’ Conservative agenda has four pillars:

First, establish dominance on the economy: Conservatives have fought hard to seize the mantle of economic competence, portraying social democrats as 'deficit deniers' incapable of remedying the fall-out of the financial crash. Centre-left parties have appeared complacent about the scale of public debt, apparently unwilling to make ‘tough choices’ about the balance of tax rises and spending cuts required to steer a sustainable fiscal path. The centre-right has succeeded in redefining the narrative of the crisis as one of ‘public indebtedness’, rather than ‘market fallibility’. No party in the industrialised world will remain a serious contender for office unless it is a trusted economic manager.

Second, redefine the centre-ground: ‘progressive’ Conservatives combine scepticism about the public sector with a renewed commitment to the values of community and the public good. In Norway and Germany, the centre-right is seizing the mantle of progressive reform. They espouse a commitment to include the poorest and most vulnerable, creating a new role for charities and the third sector. At the same time, centre-right politicians tread carefully in reforming entitlements such as healthcare, pensions and social insurance, appealing directly to voters unwilling to rely on privatised provision.

Third, renew ‘traditional values’ in a modern society: another characteristic of the Conservative appeal is a desire to stand up for the virtues of belonging, morality, and family without alienating younger, prosperous and educated voters. This means reinforcing traditional ways of life, protecting communities from the impersonal forces of modernity and social change. The centre-right has learnt to do so in a way that assiduously avoids cultural conflict relating to the role of women (as Merkel offers a 100 Euro allowance for stay-at-home mothers), recognising individual rights to non-discrimination and equal treatment among minorities. The traditional affiliation with social democratic parties is being broken.

Finally, strike a pragmatic posture internationally: Conservative parties have largely discarded their nationalist and protectionist instincts in favour of selective international co-operation in the European Union and within global institutions. As a result, centre-right Conservative parties in Europe are more electable than in the past, reaching out to lower and middle-income groups while governing through competence and fitness to rule, rather than ideological dogma. This represents a recovery of the core Conservative tradition which influenced centre-right parties in Europe during the 1950s and 1960s, embodied in the Christian Democracy of Adenauer, and the ‘One Nation’ Conservatism of MacMillan and Butler.

Of course, it would be wholly wrong to conclude that the ‘progressive’ Conservative agenda has few contradictions. Immigration, for example, remains a major fault-line within the centre-right, which is increasingly forced to choose between ‘traditional working-class’ voters who are defecting to far right parties, and liberal metropolitan voters who have largely embraced cosmopolitanism and globalisation. This is the choice that awaits David Cameron: his flirtation with Lynton Crosby’s ‘wedge’ politics may appeal to wavering UKIP supporters, but risks reviving memories of the Conservatives as ‘the nasty party’. There can be little doubt, however, that the new politics of ‘progressive’ Conservatism represents a potent challenge to centre-left politics.

Patrick Diamond is Vice-Chair of Policy Network and co-editor of “Progressive Politics after the Crash: Governing from the Left”

There is a seminal scene in the 1993 movie Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, where the title character sits stone-faced in a cinema while his date and the audience laugh enthusiastically at a yellowfaced Mickey Rooney who plays a Japanese landlord in Breakfast at Tiffany's. After realising the severity of this transgression, Lee's date suggests they hightail it out of there. 2013 was the 40th anniversary of Bruce Lee's death, the film was released 20 years ago, and not two weeks ago I experienced a mirror of the exact situation in an Edinburgh Fringe play by Yale graduates.

The play, Beijing Cake, opens with two Caucasian and two African-American actors dressed in traditional Chinese garb, doing what can best be described as a 'chinky-chonky' dance. The black actors spoke in broken English as well as a made up 'Chinese' language. Then there was the ghost of tyrant Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of 50 million Chinese, portrayed as a friendly paternal figure. When the black actor (Gabriel Christian) threw money towards white American (Sarah Rosen) to buy her baby, myself and two other British East Asian actresses Julie Cheung-Inhin and Siu-see Hung, left the theatre.

“Would it be acceptable to call it 'Lagos Cake' and have people black up and talk made up 'African'?” asks London-based actor Daniel York. “I don't think so.” York spearheaded the protest against the Royal Shakespeare Company's predominantly white casting of Chinese play The Orphan of Zhao in late 2012. As a result, Equity, Arts Council and SOLT/TMA are now working to increase opportunities for East Asian artists. It's long overdue considering the acceptability of blackface ended in America in the 1960s with the civil rights movement, with a last major appearance in primetime TV in the UK in 1981.

Perhaps worse than the play itself and its failure at being an absurd satire – which requires relevancy – are the reactions to our reaction. The producer of the play dismissed our concerns, stating that white actors should be able to play any colour role as the industry would otherwise be very limiting. Playwright Rachel Kauder Nalebuff explained that she did not want to pinpoint China particularly, hence the made up language. She wanted audiences to ruminate on stereotypes in general. Um. The play is called Beijing Cake, the actors wear Chinese costumes and Mao Zedong is on the poster. The play also skewers Americans, but given Kauder Nalebuff's background, this is not so off-piste.

Complaints were filed with the Fringe Society and the venue The SpaceUK. In response, the show added a disclaimer and a post-show Q & A to explain the context of the piece. Fringe Society venue and companies officer Kevin Kimber responded with a padded and not unexpected statement: the Fringe Society does not have jurisdiction over the content of shows and is unable to modify or otherwise influence the work of companies participating in the Fringe.

I spoke to Charles Pamment at The SpaceUK to alert him of our offense and that media had been contacted (full-disclosure, my own play, a contemporary Chinese fairy tale, was also hosted at The SpaceUK). He summarily tried to ignore, patronise, silence, and when I wrote this blog post about the situation  that caused a Twitter storm amongst British East Asian artists, urged me to edit my “Twitter page accordingly.” I checked my Twitter for defamatory statements. None. My editor and I re-read the blog post for instances of unfair or irresponsible reporting. Covered. Then came the following text message: I just have no idea why you want to cause so much upset Anna. We are simply trying to look after shows. This is when the irony of the situation hit me. My name is not Anna. But there is a London blogger and activist who had written a piece based on our experience.

Her name is Anna Chen.

I guess we do all look the same after all.

The exploitation of any culture by those outside it is not new. I get it. Look no further than cultural imperialism to see the roots of appropriation's current fixture in modern commerce. The nuances are found in the approach. Is a culture glorified or villified? Has it been thoroughly researched or glossed over? Is the representation or commentary skillfully done or just plain derogatory? One moment it's the RSC, next time it's a Fringe production, then a seemingly benign joke from a friend. No matter the degree, racism hurts, regresses and divides, but it needn't conquer. It mustn't continue to be glorified in culture and the arts. Another culture shouldn't be exploited and co-opted by those outside the culture they seek to represent. This is just my opinion, but I think Bruce Lee would agree.

I had always identified as bisexual. Well, actually, that's not strictly true. I started calling myself bisexual when I was 11, learning the word from a girl who courageously came out during our first year of secondary school. Throughout my adolescence, the “I’m bi” statement served me well, feeling edgy and rebellious when I said it, encapsulating my budding sexual identity succinctly. But by 18, as I grew sick of feeling like I had to constantly balance my desires between male and female attraction, the words began to sound like a broken record. For the next two years, questions about my sexuality left me vacant; ‘straight’ was simply a lie, and ‘lesbian’ an identity I couldn't claim because I was attracted to male identified people. ‘Bisexual’ had started coming of my mouth like a dress that no longer fit me properly, feeling uncomfortable and clumsy when I put it on.

These were, at the time, the only three terms that existed to described sexual identity. Though I would have called myself an open-minded feminist, in retrospect my ignorance seems blinding; as far as I was aware asexuality didn’t even exist, and the concept of  a trans* identity left me feeling confused. As for ‘queer’ -  that was something I had only encountered within the context of queer theory, while geekily reading James Baldwin and critical essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. As far as eighteen year old me was concerned, ‘queer’ belonged in books, as an exclusively academic term for pop culture that challenged gender roles or had LGB characters. 

At 20 I went backpacking in California, the birth place of the term “queer”, and eventually spent a year studying abroad at the University of California San Diego. True to my contrary teenage mind-set, I decided that my friends on campus would be the "alternate" kids. I quickly joined the LGBTQIA society, with little knowledge of what this gargantuan acronym meant.

Among student organisations, I discovered a cocktail non-normative sexual and gender identities, other students were lesbian, gay, and bisexual - but also trans*, queer, pansexual, intersex, asexual, or allies. In meetings, whilst learning what these terms meant, I became aware of the levels of privilege within the LGBTQIA community. The ways in which the more mainstream identities I had exclusively heard of benefited from societal acceptance. How trans* rights were often silenced in favour of more populist civil rights issues, such as same sex marriage. I also developed an understanding of intersectionality, in terms of the individual experience of  sexuality, impacted by gender, race, class, ability, and other nuances.

My initial attraction to ‘queer’ was that it allowed me to make a tangible connection between my feminist identity and non-straight sexuality. Basically, I was able to bridge the gap between my non-normative identity and position on gender politics. Looking back, perhaps it was this piece of the puzzle that I had been missing in my late teens, as I began to make the transition from “girl” to “woman”.

In the states, the racial politics side of queer identification was liberating to watch and experience; on-campus groups such as QPOC (Queer People of Color) addressed immigration, colonisation, and white privilege from a non-straight perspective. Being of Lebanese origin, but born in the UK, I had only fleetingly considered the impact my sexuality had taken on the assimilation to more western ways of thinking. I began seeing my biculturalism from a completely different perspective, and became refreshingly aware of my passing white privilege.

In terms of class, it became clear to me how much less mainstream sexuality is often viewed as an activity, almost a hobby, enjoyed by society’s more privileged members.  And that, as someone from an upper middle class, background, I have been privileged to  grow up in an area where it was not  implicitly dangerous to be seen kissing another girl, or wearing gender nonconforming clothing.

Ablism was also something I began to recognise; how societal conditioning, based in preconceived ideas of masculinity and power, leads to the othering of those who identify as less/differently able-bodied, or disabled. How there is an overlap between how these communities are treated; both are othered for the sake of affirming a sense of self derived from the myth of normativity. Both were, and sometimes still are, dubbed and treated as ‘freaks’ or ‘degenerates’. After making this connection I was struck by how, in terms of feminist politics, a women’s ability to have children is placed on a pedestal, mutually effecting trans* and FAAB (female assigned at birth) women who are unable to conceive.

Moving back to London two years ago, and calling myself queer, I was shocked at some of the reactions I got within what I had always thought was a liberal city. To this day, I have been given a range of responses; from that ‘queer’ simply doesn't exist, to that it is offensive, to that I am just a "bi curious straight girl", by less open minded members of the LGB community.  Surprisingly, it is often the same every time.

“What do you mean queer?", is how I usually get asked, while the inquirer of my sexual preferences narrows their eyes slightly, over pronouncing it… queer. As though they suspect me of turning my sexuality/gender identity into some sort of hipster accessory. That's not what ‘queer’ is to me though; it's a necessary framework that I choose to live my life by. Though in the last two years I have noticed a change, with more and more Londoners calling themselves queer, and queer night life becoming increasingly popular, the reactions I receive show the gap between non straight politics in the UK and in the US. Sadly, it seems we have a lot of catching up to do.

In a textbook sense, ‘queer’ has been defined as a noun, a verb (queering) and an adjective that encompasses all non-straight, non normative, sexual and gender identities. ‘Queer’ is not something that ever stays still; it is transient and, in that sense, in a constant state of becoming. It is no more less essential than a lesbian, bisexual, or trans* identity – however ‘queer’ does exist by itself, as well as being an umbrella term for all identities that aren’t “straight”.

I identify as queer out of solidarity with the trans* community, and also to approach my gender identity from a differing position. By calling myself queer I can express my attraction to people of all genders, politicise my sexuality, and be wilfully non-normative. When I discovered queer it was not the answer. The answer was something I had been experiencing for as long as I can remember. For me, queer is the question.

1. The US has little credibility left: Syria won't change that (Guardian)

Obama's argument for intervention is a hollow one: America's use of chemical weapons in Falluja makes that clear, writes Gary Younge.

2. Revamping Labour's union ties could help Ed Miliband (Independent)

Some activists see Blairite diehards trying to ‘break the link’ – but this is at best paranoid, says Rob Marchant. 

3. Milisecond (n): the time it takes Ed to do the unions’ bidding (Daily Telegraph)

The Falkirk debacle shows Labour is still in hock to Unite – and that’s bad for all of us, writes Boris Johnson.

4. Abbott and the BoreCons show how to win (Times)

The new Australian PM is no fire-breathing ideologue, writes Tim Montgomerie. Like Angela Merkel, he is not afraid to be dull.

5. People despise politicians – but whose fault is that? (Guardian)

I've played my own part in giving MPs a bad name, but ultimately it's Rupert Murdoch's media machine that corrodes public trust, says Chris Huhne.

6. Only a new wave of socialism can end the great squeeze on us all (Independent)

We must break with the free market consensus established by Thatcher, says Owen Jones.

7. A trap of the president’s making (Financial Times)

Obama’s characteristic caution has put him in a perilous position, says Edward Luce.

8. What will drive growth? This recovery could turn out to be a flash in the pan (Independent)

It is now 66 months since the start of the recession and GDP is still 2.9 per cent down, writes David Blanchflower. 

9. The Labour party must get ready for the next generation (Guardian)

To be relevant in the digital age, the Labour party must be more pluralist and retain its trade union links, says Tom Watson.

10. China will stay the course on growth (Financial Times)

Asian countries have enhanced their capabilities to fend off risks, writes Li Keqiang.

Labour spent much of the summer telling voters how badly off they were under the coalition. Real wages had fallen in 37 of David Cameron's 38 months in power (the exception being April 2013 when deferred bank bonuses were paid out to benefit from the cut in the top rate of tax), making Cameron the worst prime minister for living standards in history. Youth unemployment and long term unemployment remained at near-record levels, with millions of others trapped in part-time or temporary work, or on zero-hour contracts.

But if Labour is to win the election, it won't be enough to convince voters that they're poorer under the Tories. It will also need to convince them that they'd be better off under Labour. In the 2012 US election, Mitt Romney similarly resurrected Ronald Reagan's famous line - "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" - but the electorate stuck with Obama because the numbers were moving in the right direction and they doubted Romney could do any better. The Tories hope and expect UK voters will take the same view of Labour in 2015.

It's for this reason that party activists and MPs have been so desperate for Ed Miliband to fill the policy vacuum. In his speech tomorrow at the TUC conference, Miliband will start to do so, offering voters concrete examples of how they would benefit from a Labour government.

After highlighting research over the summer showing that around a million workers are employed on zero-hour contracts, which offer no guaranteed work and require workers to be permanently on-call, Miliband will outline clear measures to prevent the exploitative use of the contracts, effectively outlawing them in their present form. He will ban employers from forcing workers to be available even when there is no guarantee of work, pledge to outlaw employers from requiring workers to work exclusively for one business, and promise to give anyone working for a single employer for more than 12 weeks on a zero-hours contract the automatic right to a full-time contract based on the average time worked over that period.

Miliband will say: “We need flexibility. But we must stop flexibility being used as the excuse for exploitation. Exploitation which leaves workers carrying all of the burdens of unpredictable hours, irregular pay, no security for the future.

Of course, there are some kinds of these contracts which are useful. For doctors, or supply teachers at schools, or sometimes, young people working in bars. But you and I know that zero hours contracts have been terribly misused. This kind of exploitation has to stop. We will support those businesses and workers that want to get on in life. But we will ban practices which lead to people being ground down.”

With his proposals, Miliband has smartly pre-empted the conclusions of the review currently being led by Vince Cable into zero-hours and has addressed an issue of increasing concern to voters, particularly the young. A YouGov poll in August found that 56% of people (including 71% of Labour voters) "support a ban on zero-hour contracts", with just 25% opposed. 

The test of Miliband's conference speech, the theme of which will be the cost of living crisis, will be whether he can offer convincing solutions to the other problems the party has highlighted: the wage squeeze, the housing crisis and soaring energy costs. Between now and 2015, this is likely to mean pledges to build a million affordable homes, to create living wage zones (and make its use mandatory in the public sector), to abolish the bedroom tax and to introduce free universal childcare for pre-school children. How much of this makes it into Miliband's speech remains uncertain, but with today's announcements, the Labour leader's gear-change has begun. 

The challenge currently facing prisons with regards sexual health and public opinion is not dissimilar to that faced by Edinburgh in the 1980s in the face of the HIV crisis. That was the chilling warning heard by the Howard League Commission on sex in prisons. The Commission’s first briefing, on consensual sex in male prisons, is published today. In the 1980s, Edinburgh saw a police crackdown on heroin use that was successful in cutting the number of available syringes and equipment at the very same time as HIV was introduced into the local drug scene. The result was that drug users shared needles and HIV spread, so that the city was briefly the aids capital of europe. The crisis was eventually eased by a public health approach that included needle exchanges and the distribution of methadone. The balance between crackdowns that play to punitive public sentiment and a public health approach that will actually reduce harm and prove most effective in protecting communities is one Chris Grayling should bear in mind, as he considers a crackdown on sex in prison.

The statistics on consensual sex in men’s prisons are limited and vague – a Home Office study back in 1994/5 reported that between 1.6 and 3.4 per cent of their sample adult male prisoners admitted to being engaged in consensual sex with an inmate. However, the true figure is thought to be higher. The British Association of Sexual Health and HIV told us that while female prisoners were likely to be open about sex with each other, male prisoners were not. According to the Terrence Higgins Trust male prisons tend to be more homophobic than the wider community, making honest reporting harder. Indeed, far from being ‘cosy’ for LGBT prisoners, all the evidence suggests that they are at greater risk of discrimination and most vulnerable to sexual abuse while inside.

The prison service instruction manual states: ‘there is no rule specifically prohibiting sexual acts between prisoners, but if they are observed by someone who finds (or could potentially find) their behaviour offensive, a charge…may
be appropriate.’ in practice this results in an inconsistent approach and a system ripe for abuse. Some prisoners have reported being left alone as long as they were discreet, while others reported staff trying to catch them out in order to issue them with a warning. It has also been suggested that separation and being written up can be used as a means of discriminating against openly gay prisoners, while policies preventing sex in prisons can be seen to ‘legitimise’ homophobic attitudes.

There is no denying that the issue of consensual sex in prison is a tricky one. The National Offender Management Service argued, in their evidence to us, that it is virtually impossible for staff to tell whether a relationship is consensual or coercive. It can be further complicated by the fact that what starts as consensual can later become coercive.

On a trip to the US I met Troy Isaak, a member of Just Detention International Survivors’ Council. He told me that during one period of incarceration in a Los Angeles jail he entered into a consensual relationship with another inmate but then when the relationship broke down he was repeatedly raped. Staff refused to do anything as he’d originally consented. Sex is banned in US jails.

However we must be careful not to learn the wrong lesson from cases such as this, which call for greater action in tackling the complexities of sexual abuse behind bars, not making the system more punitive for those who engage in consensual sex. A blanket ban on sex in prison leads to prisoners failing to report rape or sexual assault for fear of punishment. While a 2005 report (pdf) from the Prison Reform Trust and National Aids Trust expressed concern that ‘if sexual activity is subject to punitive sanctions, or stigmatised, the likelihood is that people will be less likely to take precautions.’ Most respondents to the Home Office study admitted they did not practice safe sex.

The Department of Health states that prisoners are more likely to be affected by blood-borne diseases, more likely to have engaged in high-risk behaviours and as a result are at higher risk of sexually transmitted infections. To ignore this and then ignore calls for help in practicing safe sex is, according to the Terrence Higgins Trust, ‘highly irresponsible and unethical.’

Her Majesty’s Prison Inspectorate, the Terrence Higgins Trust and National Aids Trust all raised concerns with the Commission about the variable access to condoms within prisons. We heard a range of approaches. Some prisons offer advice and make barrier protection, dental dams and lubrication freely available. However, in at least one privately run prison prisoners are only issued with a condom if they then return it used before being issued with another. Other prisons refuse to issue barrier protection. We received evidence from one HIV-positive prisoner who was refused protection and, as a result, went on to have unprotected sex with another inmate. We heard that some prisoners are sanctioned for requesting too many condoms. One prison governor even said they had no need to issue barrier protection as his prison contained no homosexuals. The National Aids Trust said, ‘attempts to control consensual sexual activity between prisoners risk undermining efforts to promote HIV prevention and improved sexual health in prison populations.’

What Chris Grayling and others need to remember is that this is not merely a health crisis confined to prisons: all of these prisoners will eventually return to their communities and will pass on any infections to the wider community. A policy of banning all sex in prison will not work: it will further legitimise homophobia within prisons, its implementation will result in a system ripe for abuse as well as discrimination against LGBT prisoners; it will discourage prisoners from reporting rape and sexual assault and divert attention from the real law and order issue – which is the correct management and response to occurrences of coercive sex in custody. Most importantly of all, it does nothing to address the fact that prisoners will continue to have sex and an even more punitive system will worsen the risky practices causing this public health crisis.

In the US, Just Detention International successfully showed that prison rape was not only inhumane but also cost the community far more – financially as well as socially – than successfully preventing rape behind bars. Similarly, the cost to us all will be greater in dealing with the spread of STIs than a pragmatic policy to ensure safe sex in our prison system.

Michael Amherst is on the board of Just Detention International and the Howard League Commission on Sex in Prisons

GSK seals £1.35bn sale of Lucozade and Ribena (FT)

Suntory of Japan is to pay £1.35bn to buy GlaxoSmithKline’s high profile consumer drinks brands Lucozade and Ribena.

Banks face up to £10bn hidden bill for swaps mis-selling (Telegraph)

Banks face a hidden bill of as much as £10bn to settle mis-selling claims linked to commercial real estate projects, according to research by one of the property sector's largest consultants.

Neiman Marcus up for sale with $6bn price tag (FT)

Luxury US retailer Neiman Marcus is likely to be sold rather than listed, in an unexpected development. Neiman’s private equity owners TPG and Warburg Pincus are close to an agreement with Ares Management and Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board on the terms of a deal that is likely to be valued at more than $6bn, according to people familiar with the matter.

UK economy is turning corner, George Osborne to say (BBC)

The UK economy is "turning a corner", Chancellor George Osborne is expected to say during a speech in London later.

Mr Osborne will cite "tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery", but is expected to stress that it is still the "early stages" and "plenty of risks" remain.

TSB name reappears across UK High Streets (BBC)

The TSB name is reappearing after 18 years at 600 Lloyds bank branches across the country.

Five million people will have their accounts transferred.

It’s just the kind of the thing you don’t want to hear. Reportedly, nine of UK’s 10 biggest payday lenders have seen their turnover double in the last three years. One has even recorded a 32-fold increase in profits since the start of the recession.

The worrying news comes days after payday giant Wonga reported record profits – a 36 per cent increase to £62m on a turnover of £309m in 2012. In fact, a year-long review by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has revealed that half of the payday lenders' revenues was the result of rolled over loans.

Every time there is optimism about the economy, news about how payday lenders are still very much thriving across the UK as well as the US, and only getting stronger, provides a reality check. Over the years, small and medium sized payday loan shops (many not so ‘small or medium sized’ any longer) have mushroomed (think Quick Quid, Better Credit, Ferratum…) and the demand keeps growing. Recently, there has also been much talk around adverting spends for payday loans increasing exponentially.

Wonga has predictably been criticised for profiting from the poor’s miseries and pushing the needy deeper into debt. However, Errol Damelin, Wonga’s founder and chief executive, has defended the firm’s profits saying most of Wonga’s customers are apparently “young, single, employed, digitally savvy and can pay us back on time”, and it’s not about “people on breadlines being desperate”. At this point, Wonga and the likes of it are in a strong place.

Recently Labour MP Stella Creasy said that money made in the payday lending industry comes at a heavy cost to Britain. Rightfully so. But clearly there is massive need for such quick money. Earlier in the year, research from uSwitch.com found that 49 per cent of those who took out a payday loan actually cited their experience as positive, contrary to popular perception, and one in three said they would even take one out again.

A few months ago Citizens Advice said high street banks should step up and provide short-term, micro-loans to fulfil demand for “these kinds of products”. But is it actually better when banks offer similar, predatory, expensive short-term loan products to customers?

Leading banks, particularly across the US, offer payday loan-like schemes that they vehemently defend as products aimed at stopping customers from going to dodgy small shops when in immediate need of cash. Top US lenders such as Wells Fargo (Direct Deposit Advance scheme), US Bank (Checking Account Advance loan), Regions Financial (Ready Advance loan product) to name a few offer short-term, sky-high interest loan products that almost mirror payday loans. 

Going back a couple of years, the Big Banks Payday Loans report, published by non-profit research and policy organisation, the Centre for Responsible Lending (CRL), in July 2011, revealed that bank payday loans carry an annual percentage rate (APR) of 365 per centbased on the typical loan term of 10 days. The average credit card interest rate, comparatively, in 2011, was just over 13 per cent annually, and the average personal loan from a commercial bank was 11.47 per cent. 

Through bank payday loan rates, consumers pay over $900 in interest to borrow approximately $500 for less than six months, the CRL report calculated. In general, an estimated 12m Americans are annually caught in long-term debt from such loans.

Banks, however, insist on the contrary. A spokesperson for Wells Fargo told me last year that the lender’s Direct Deposit Advance (DDA) loan scheme – a product that charges $1.50 for every $20 advance – is on offer because the lender “understands that financial emergencies come up and we want to be able to help customers with that”. Though she accepted that it is an “expensive form of credit” that is “not intended to solve longer term financial needs”, she also explained that “customers can extend or roll over the advance so it does not grow” and “there is never a mountain of debt that this customer is under”. Fair enough.

It is in ways safer for a customer to borrow from a familiar, popular bank as opposed to small, seedy loan sharks online or across the street.  But the question around whether or not these options should exist in the first place – especially be offered by financial institutions that people trust – is the bigger issue. One does wonder what kind of message that imparts, even though it may be the lesser of the evils.

Most welfare organisations are not convinced by banks’ “concerns” towards cash-strapped consumers. The federal agency primarily responsible for regulating consumer protection in the US, the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB), began operations in July 2011, and has the power to write and enforce rules against predatory practices in payday lending. US’ National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), in fact, issued a statement to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as well the CFPB back in August 2011 stressing that regulators put a stop to banks offering payday loans or similar products all together – but of no avail so far. Similar requests have come up time and again. Consumer groups have also complained that the OCC's guidelines are not “tough enough” and perhaps encourage more banks to offer such loans.

There are already several concerns surrounding UK banks’ most common overdraft schemes – including high cost, short-term balloon repayment, and consequent excessive use. Do customers need more ways to pile up bad debts? Considering the necessities, maybe it is time for banks to take a more customer centric approach and design new products that can be of immediate short-term help without leading disadvantaged clients into further financial agony. One can only hope.

Banks offering payday loan-like schemes do make them seem more approachable for customers who still think twice about walking into small shops for urgent money – the big-bank-backing may well make skeptical customers go ahead and do so – which is a bad sign. But there are enough people already reaching out to non-bank firms for money, which is a sign of grave need. There are doubts and dangers both ways, and unfortunately all one can say with certainty right now is that it’s been a good year for Wonga. That can never be a good sign.

“Frances O'Grady, TUC, giving my first speech as General Secretary.

“And after seeing that film, ever more determined that our movement should help build a stronger, fairer Britain.

“We are now just 18 months away from a General Election. And the choice that the British people make could shape the kind of country we live in for generations.

“If we’ve learned anything since the financial crash, then it’s this: politics is too important to be left to the politicians.

“People don’t need us to tell them how tough life is for them.

“They want to hear the alternative. They want hope. And they want action.

“It was five years ago this month, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in New York, citing debt of over 600 billion dollars.

“A price tag on obscene greed and monumental stupidity that sent shock waves around the world.

“But the roots of the crash go deeper still – more than three decades to the election of Margaret Thatcher’s government.

“When the Right set out to break the post-war consensus.

“Once, it seemed everyone agreed that the State should provide decent public services and social security as a human shield against boom-bust capitalism.

“Everyone saw the value of a mixed economy that put the brakes on private monopolies and guaranteed a public realm.

“But no longer.

“What followed became the articles of a new economic faith.

“A fire-sale of public assets. Deregulation of the City. Weaker worker rights.

“And trade unions, once respected across the political spectrum for our role in fighting fascism and as a pillar of any free and democratic society, now treated with disdain.

“The values of a mythical middle England came to dominate, stretching the United Kingdom to breaking point.

“The City and the new kids on the block – private equity, hedge funds and share traders – increasingly called the shots.

“And they unleashed an escalation of greed and inequality that ultimately led to the financial crash.

“Creating a new Anglo-American model that was a kind of capitalism on crack cocaine.

“A legacy we’re living with today.

“But it hasn’t always been like this.

“Whatever happened to the Conservative Party that, over 100 years ago, backed Winston Churchill’s proposal for tripartite wages councils, so that every worker would be guaranteed a living wage?

“Whatever happened to the Conservative Party of John Major who at least felt obliged to promise voters a ‘Classless Society’?

“And whatever happened to the Conservative Party of Theresa May who once warned against becoming the Nasty Party.

“But who, just this summer, sent government funded vans onto the streets of multiracial London brandishing a slogan last used by the National Front?

“This Government seems intent on dividing Britain, Thatcher-style.

“Between those in work and those out of it.

“Between the tax top rate payers and everyone else.

“Between the metropolitan elite, with their country retreats in Chipping Norton, and the so-called desolate North.

“Governments may have had no choice about bailing out the banks.

“But they have got a political choice about what went wrong, and about where we go next.

“After all, the rest of continental Europe did not deliberately de-industrialise and make a fetish of financial services in the way that 1980s Britain did.

“And today, while workers in many countries have also seen their living standards fall, they have not taken the same hit we have, and trade unionism is not vilified in the same way.

“Even from the European engine room of austerity, the German Chancellor still defends co-determination.

“And her finance minister has called on business to meet union wage demands as a way to boost consumer demand.

“Here in the UK, more thoughtful Conservatives are nervous that this war on working people will lose votes.

“They admit that the Conservatives are seen as the party of the privileged.

“They worry that attacks on the unions of ordinary decent working men and women look high handed, cold-hearted and out of touch.

“To paraphrase Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady, why can’t David Cameron be more like Angela Merkel?

“But instead of listening to his moderates, and perhaps against his own better judgement, the Prime Minister is in hock to those who demand an ever more uncompromising stance.

“Plenty of ugly talk about a crackdown on migrants. But no crackdown on those bosses who use cheap labour to cut costs.

“Tough on welfare fraud for sure. But no sympathy for those unlucky enough to fall on hard times or lose their job.

“Freedom to raise prices for big business. But no pay rise for ordinary working families.

“Decent families up and down the land; facing worries that the Eton educated elite, with their serial holidays, hired help and inherited millions, simply haven’t got a clue about.

“And beyond the rhetoric, what has this government actually done to recover and rebalance Britain’s economy?

“Invest for the future in greening Britain’s infrastructure? No. Leave the banks alone and slash state capital investment by £22bn.

“Back Britain’s advanced manufacturing base? No. Hand out government contracts to the cheapest bidder regardless of the cost to local business and jobs.

“Build affordable housing? No. Launch a lending scheme that risks the very same perfect storm that got us into the mess in the first place. And then slap on a cruel bedroom tax.

“The government is rehearsing the same old arguments, repeating the same old mistakes, rehashing the same old bust model of an economy built on sand.

“I know Conservatives are fond of referring to PR man Lynton Crosby as their very own Wizard of Oz. But what does that make Cameron, Osborne and Clegg?

“When it comes to any vision for a new economy, they are the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion:

“No brain, no heart and no courage.

“In many ways it is a testimony to the enduring strength our trade union values of care, compassion and fairness that the Right has chosen to put us in the firing line.

“It explains why this week they are debating a Lobbying Bill that, far from dealing with the real dirt in politics, is designed to deny us a political voice.

“Now, debating the internal arrangements of the Labour Party and the role of its affiliated unions is not the business of Westminster, nor, indeed, of this Congress.

“And in the hall today we also have unions who are just as proud of their party political independence.

“But one thing is for sure.

“We are united in defending the basic democratic principle that ordinary people have the right to a political voice.

“That union money – the few pence freely given every week, by nurses, shop workers and truck drivers – is the cleanest cash in politics today.

“And that whether unions set up a political fund is a matter for members, not ministers.

“Because for too long, politics has been controlled by those who already have far too much money and far too much power.

“Half of the Conservative Party’s funding comes from the City.

“One third of their new intake of MPs are drawn from the banking industry alone.

“And we know what happens when the super-rich get to run the tax system.

“In contrast, unions are Britain’s biggest democratic membership movement of ordinary people.

“We are already required by law to report our membership records every year.

“We have more than ten times the membership of all of Britain’s political parties put together.

“It may even be more.

“The truth is, we simply don’t know.

“Because political parties don’t have to account for their members, in the way that we have to account for ours.

“In fact, the Conservative Party refuses point blank to say how many members it has.

“But, I’m pretty sure that David Cameron has fewer members than our very own Sally Hunt or Mike Clancy. And maybe even Bob Crow.

“So before he starts lecturing unions about transparency, the Prime Minister should take a long hard look in the mirror.

“We already publish our numbers.

“I challenge David Cameron to publish his.

“But more than all this.

“And here is the democratic bottom line.

“If unions were denied a political voice:

“We wouldn’t have had the 1944 Education Act; we wouldn’t have the NHS; we wouldn’t have equal pay for women; we wouldn’t have a minimum wage.

“And remember who first exposed the scandal of tax avoidance?

“Who first raised the alarm about falling living standards?

“And who first blew the whistle on zero-hours?

“You can see why some people want to shut us up.

“That is why we must now stand up for our rights.

“Not just union rights.

“Civil rights.

“People’s rights.

“The government has attacked the union link to Labour.

“A link that, of course, will evolve and change over time.

“But their real aim is to discredit all unions.

“And the reason is clear: we stand for popular policies to shift wealth and power from the few to the many.

“So if they can’t win the policy argument, then attack them as ‘trade union demands’.

“If they don't like what we say, call us ‘union paymasters’.

“And if all else fails, then try the old trick of smears.

“The government may be preparing for a humiliating climb down on some of the worst parts of the lobbying bill.

“But don’t be fooled into thinking the battle for civil liberties has been won.

“Unions still will be hit by cuts in funding limits.

“Many charities could still find themselves clobbered.

“And, shockingly, one thing is sure, this Bill will virtually close down Hope not Hate and Unite Against Fascism in what amounts to a free gift to the BNP.

“This government should be ashamed of themselves.

“Congress, this is an anti-democratic, dangerous bill, and it must be defeated.

“But delegates I also need to issue a challenge to the cynics within our own ranks too.

“We’ve all heard those who tell us that the next election does not matter.

“You don’t have to go far to hear people say there’s no difference between the parties, it doesn’t matter who wins, they’re all in it for themselves.

“I respect their right to an opinion but I must tell you they are wrong.

“The result of the next election does matter. It matters a lot.

“To the unemployed teenager, desperate for a decent job.

“To the young family, hoping for a decent home.

“And to the elderly, the disabled and their carers, who know there must be a better way.

“For trade unionists to argue that voting is a waste of time is a dangerous game that plays into the hands of our opponents.

“Because ever since the Chartists first lifted their banners, the democratic voice of the people has always been our best weapon against rule by the markets, the rich and the powerful.

“To deny that would be a betrayal of the millions of our members whose jobs, living standards and pay depends on it.

“I am not arguing that we should button up and keep quiet in the run up to the election.

“Nor that we should be put up with a vanilla version of austerity.

“On the contrary.

“But it does mean that we have to roll up our sleeves and help shape the choices on offer.

“We need to win public opinion to our policies.

“And we need to prove that they are election winners.

“Remember when we first campaigned for a minimum wage?

“The business lobby said it would wreck the economy and politicians trembled. Now it’s as much part of the mainstream British culture as curry and chips.

“It’s time for us to push the same kind of ambitious policies – to transform our economy, improve working lives and change the country for the better.

“A popular programme that can inspire voter confidence.

“A test of both values and valour.

“I’m going to tell you what should go on a pledge card.

“And, today, I challenge politicians from all parties to say where they stand on it.

“First, decent jobs.

“It’s time to restore that goal of full employment, and give a cast iron jobs guarantee for the young.

“Full employment is the best way to boost the economy, drive up living standards and generate the tax that we need to pay down the deficit.

“And let’s be clear, the reason why low-paid jobs are growing is because people have no choice but to take them.

“That is wrong.

“Employers should compete for staff. Not the other way around.

“Now, George Osborne will say – but how are you going to pay for it?

“Well, of course the best way to pay for it is by getting economic growth. That’s why we need to invest in an intelligent industrial strategy for the future.

“But if the Chancellor wants to talk numbers here’s a big one.

“According to the Rich List, since the crash, the 1,000 richest people in Britain increased their wealth by no less than £190b.

“That’s nearly double the entire budget for the NHS.

“So when they ask how we’ll pay for it, let’s tell them. Fair taxes – that’s how.

“One of the best ways to create jobs and apprenticeships would be to build new houses. And that’s pledge number two.

“One million new council and affordable homes.

“Our country has a desperate shortage of housing. That means landlords rake it in and the housing benefit bill rockets. It drives up the cost of a buying a home, and puts people in more debt.

“So cut the waiting lists, stop another bubble and let's build the homes young families need.

“Pledge number three: fair pay – and new wages councils to back it up.

“Of course the national minimum wage should go up and we need tough enforcement.

“But take one look at company profits and you’ll see that there are plenty of industries that could, and should, pay more.

“That’s why we need new wages councils, so unions and employers get around the table and negotiate.

“That’s the way to guarantee not just a minimum wage, not just a living wage but a fair wage, and fair shares of the wealth workers help create.

“And pledge number four could be the most popular one of all.

“Let’s pledge that the NHS will once again be a public service run for people and not for profit.

“Let’s make adult social care a community responsibility by bringing it together with the NHS.

“That would save money because good social care helps elderly people stay at home when they want to be, instead of in hospital when they don't.

“And while we’re about it, let’s have a proper system of care for our children too.

“So instead of shrinking the welfare state, let’s strengthen it.

“That’s the way to build a stronger economy too.

“And five – fair rights at work.

“No more union busting. No more blacklisting. And no more zero hours.

“Instead we need decent employment rights; strong unions with the freedom to organise, and a bit more economic democracy.

“We already work with the best employers, keeping workers healthy and safe, giving them the chance to learn new skills, guaranteeing fair pay and fair treatment.

“Through the worst of the recession, we made thousands of agreements to save jobs and keep plants open.

“And let me say this, I believe there isn’t a boardroom in Britain that wouldn’t benefit from giving ordinary workers a voice.

“Of course these aren’t the only issues on which we campaign.

“We oppose the creeping privatisation of our education system.

We want our railways returned to public ownership.

“And let’s send a strong message from this Congress – we will fight this latest senseless, sell-off of the family silver – hands off our Royal Mail.

“We’ve got sensible policies. Good policies. Popular policies.

“And their importance is that, together, they make a promise of a better future.

“They cut through the pessimism, and give people confidence.

“So I want to end not just by asking Congress to back the General Council statement that I move today.

“But more importantly: To unite. To organise. And to campaign.

“As the late, great poet Seamus Heaney, wrote:

‘Move lips, move minds and let new meanings flare’.

“For the people we saw on that film.

“For a new economy that puts the interests of working people at its heart.

“For our values of equality, solidarity and democracy.

“So that, together, we build a Britain of which we can be proud.”

The recent move by the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to ban the stimulant Khat is only the latest in a long line of drug policy decisions by governments of all persuasions that ignores evidence and will prove counter-productive. Drug policy still appears to be one of the only areas where evidence-based policy making has no place. Despite the obvious failure of the ‘war on drugs’, and a growing body of evidence that suggests that aggressive law enforcement makes the situation worse, politicians seem determined to pursue the same futile policies in a desperate attempt not to appear ‘soft on drugs’. Criminalising the sale and consumption of Khat will only result in the creation of an illegal black market, which will enrich organised criminal networks; most probably newly formed criminal syndicates.

Not for the first time, the government is completely disregarding advice by its own scientists. In February, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) published a report which recommended that the law should not change to include Khat as a substance controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The study found that Khat ‘has no direct causal link to adverse medical effects’. It also noted that there was no evidence that Khat was linked to ‘serious or organised crime’. Given these findings it is a tragic wonder that the secretary of state opted to push ahead with the ban.

When questioned as to why she chose to ignore such scientific evidence, the home secretary said she had to look at the issue ‘in a wider context’; stating that there ‘was the potential for the UK to become a smuggling hub for Khat’. However, the ACMD explicitly state that VAT figures provided by HMRC on Khat imports suggest this fear is unfounded. They go on to state that there is not “any evidence suggesting the UK is a landing point for the onward transportation of significant quantities of Khat”.

Khat is a part of the culture of many Somalis, Yemenis and Ethiopians. Given this it is highly unlikely that they will stop chewing, as noted by Keith Vaz when Theresa May appeared before his home affairs select committee on 16 July. The increase in price inevitable when a substance is banned will make supplying Khat much more profitable than it is now. This will attract organised crime, and given the nature of the communities where Khat is prolific, and the cultural acceptance it has there, it is quite possible the gangs that will control the trade once illegal will be newly formed organisations from within the consuming communities. While the ACMD report states that there is no link between Khat and organised crime, it is hard to see this statement remaining true post-ban.  

The 'war on drugs' approach of criminalising supply and consumption has been an unequivocal failure. Eduardo Porter writing in the New York Times (July 3 2012) gave the shocking statistic that a gram of pure cocaine from an average, local dealer now costs 74% less than it did 30 years ago. This demonstrates that banning a drug does not impact the availability by pricing consumers out of the market. 

One of the biggest flaws in the war on drugs is the counter-productive nature of law enforcement. Once the market in any illegal drug is established, law enforcement interventions actually increase violence. A systematic review of the effect of law enforcement on drug violence for the International Journal of Drug Policy showed that in that, in 14 out of 15 studies, law enforcement interventions not only failed to decrease violence, but led to more violence. Dan Werb et al (2011) state this is due to the resulting conflict to takeover when top figures are removed by investigations, and by ‘target hardening’, where organisations become increasingly militarised due to constant threat from rivals or the authorities.

The real danger is that this law enforcement effect gradually influences the newly formed criminal organisations supplying Khat, turning them into serious, hardened organised crime structures. If this is the case, Theresa May will have succeeded in creating organised crime, with the resulting fear and fallout, where none existed.

Last month, David Cameron tweeted that "we are on the right track - building an economy for hardworking people". But people across the UK won’t feel that at all – they only thing they can feel is their pockets being hit. Average earnings are £1,477 a year lower than they were at the time of the last general election. This means that, in real terms, workers are on average earning today the same as they were in 2001.

And the promises were so big. Before the 2010 general election, the Tories said: "We want to see an economy where not just our standard of living, but everyone’s quality of life, rises steadily and sustainably."

It has done anything but. Working families are worse off with energy bills having risen by £300, while the profits of the energy companies have soared. It is yet another year of inflation-busting fare rises will just add to the pressure on household budgets. Instead of standing up for hard-pressed commuters, this government is siding with the private train companies and helping them to increase their profits at the expense of passengers.

Consumers are a key driver of the economy, creating the demand for goods and services which provide jobs, stimulate innovation, create wealth and tax take. In a functioning economy, knowledgeable, informed and empowered consumers can drive up standards, supply and value for money as well.

In government, Labour recognised this and strived to be the party of consumers for the benefit of the economy. We built consumer interests into regulation, supported Trading Standards and created Consumer Focus which was respected by all stakeholders. We got a fairer deal for purchasers of energy and other basic necessities, and ensured an ever increasing standard of living - something this government has failed to emulate, as prices rise higher than incomes.

So what are ministers doing for consumers? Despite the rhetoric, the government’s recently published Draft Consumer Rights Bill, is little more than window dressing. Whilst steps to cover areas such digital downloads are welcome, reflecting arguments which we have been making on the need for protections for consumers in new markets, the Bill is a huge missed opportunity to help hard-pressed consumers by ensuring a fair deal on energy prices, tackling high rail fares and challenging the cost of living crisis engulfing Britain.

On top of this, ministers are ignoring the other pieces of the jigsaw such as enforcement, advice and funding. Their changes to consumer protection since 2010 have been muddled and have created uncertainty and confusion: They’ve abolished Consumer Focus and then set-up a new body – Consumer Futures – to do the same job. This is alongside a slashing of funding to local authorities which has significantly impacted Trading Standards, making it harder for consumers to uphold their rights and seek redress. Aggregate trading standards funding has dropped from £245m to £142m since 2010, with hundreds of jobs being lost estimated to amount to around 15% of the total workforce upholding and enforcing consumer rights. And through the Bill, the government now want to remove the ability of Trading Standards officers to make inspections unannounced. In response, the Trading Standards Institute has said it "would urge the government to refrain from removing the power of trading standards officers to enter premises unannounced. It is an essential tool for them to use and it is vital that when complaints are made, councils can investigate and tackle the problem immediately."

Ministers’ rejection of our calls for better standards in the private rented housing sector and their refusal to adopt a Code of Conduct for the banking and insurance industry reflect how they are standing up for the wrong people and their lack of concern for helping hard-pressed families. Similarly, the limited collective redress measures proposed in the Bill fall short of what groups of consumers across the UK need to obtain effective consumer redress when they have been wronged.

Simply, this government has resisted measures which would tackle the real living standards crisis which people are facing.

However, Labour is clear – if in government we would be taking action to implement a One Nation programme to boost people’s living standards. We need a tough new energy watchdog to force suppliers to pass price cuts onto consumers, and to ensure the over-75s automatically get the cheapest tariff.

Likewise, we’ve seen rail fares up 9% a year, after the government allowed train operators to increase some fares by up 5% above the supposed ‘cap’. We would be put passengers first by banning train companies from increasing fares above the cap set by ministers so that fares would be rising by no more than 1 per cent above inflation under Labour in each year of this parliament

And we are already examining plans to bolster collective action, empowering consumers so they can club together more easily to seek redress, as part of our policy review, led by consumer champion Ed Mayo last year. During the passage of the Bill, we will be pressing ministers for a strong, accessible collective redress mechanism, one which mirrors the Portuguese and Australian models that remove the legal excesses and is not a US-style class action, where litigation is dominant.

We know that David Cameron and his government won’t stand up for consumers. It’s time for him to wake up and adopt Labour’s plan to help working people – not keep filling the pockets of those at the top that exacerbates the cost of living crisis.