By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Organised by Michael Meacher's Coalition for Labour Victory, which LabourList reported on last November, over 40 Labour MPs have signed a statement calling for Labour’s election campaign to be based on a "radical redistributive programme", including public investment in housing, public services, de-carbonisation and requiring banks to pursue social objectives and support manufacturing.
Michael Meacher said:
“Labour can win if it is prepared to be radical. Policies aimed at jobs, homes and redistribution will resound with Labour voters whose loyalties have been strained. And floating voters have supported higher taxes for the highly paid and also want to see bailed-out banks repay the community. Ed Milliband has invited submissions on what the Manifesto should include. Like dozens of CLPs, I urge him to focus on these principles, and break for good with the market fundamentalism of the last 30 years.”
The full statement is below, with the list of supporting MPs. It is also supported by a number of CLPs around the country, trade unionists and Compass.
"In order to mobilise the maximum number of Labour voters in preparation for the next election, we believe that Labour should now focus its campaigning around the following key principles:
A. The recession should be tackled not with cuts in essential public spending, but by massive public investment in house-building, infrastructure and the de-carbonisation of the economy.
B. Banks should be split up with their casino investment arms hived off. Publicly-owned retail banks should be required to meet new social and community objectives and support manufacturing, with lending to businesses and homeowners restored to 2007 levels. Pay and bonuses should be tightly regulated.
C. A clean break must be made with market fundamentalism – deregulation and privatisation. Public provision should be expanded – in health care, education, housing, pensions, energy and transport. Royal Mail must remain wholly in the public sector.
D. In the face of huge and unacceptable growth of inequality, a big redistribution programme must swing resources away from the rich to provide sizeable increases in pensions, the minimum wage, the lowest benefit levels, and to fund job creation and improved public services. Union rights must be restored – it is in economic crisis that workers are most in need of that protection.
E. To achieve the 80% carbon emission reduction target by 2050, renewable sources of energy should be promoted on a far bigger scale, industry (including airlines) should be required to reduce its climate change emissions by at least 3% per year, household carbon allowances should be introduced, and the UK targets should be fully met by domestic action and not by carbon offsetting abroad.
We also believe that if Labour is to revive its membership in numbers and activity, it must fully restore its internal democratic procedures so that the voice of its individual and affiliated members is listened to and taken account of. This process has begun with the adoption of all-member voting rights for the National Policy Forum. But we believe that several further reforms are needed, in particular to restore to the elected NEC full supervision and control over the party’s operation and finances, to introduce a charter of members’ rights and a Party Ombudsman to enforce them, and to renew for all party employees the core civil service values of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity in the development of party policy and selection of party candidates."
Diane Abbott
John Austin
Colin Burgon
Ronnie Campbell
Colin Challen
Michael Clapham
Katy Clark
Harry Cohen
Michael Connarty
Frank Cook
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Cousins
Jon Cruddas
Ann Cryer
Ian Davidson
David Drew
Bill Etherington
Mark Fisher
Paul Flynn
Neil Gerrard
Fabian Hamilton
Dai Havard
David Heyes
Kelvin Hopkins
Lindsay Hoyle
Brian Iddon
Lynne Jones
Andrew Mackinlay
John McDonnell
Michael Meacher
Alan Meale
Austin Mitchell
Chris Mullin
Gordon Prentice
Ken Purchase
Linda Riordan
Alan Simpson
Marsha Singh
Graham Stringer
Paul Truswell
Joan Walley
David Winnick
Mike Wood
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
As a member of a group of unpaid family carers at Carerwatch I hope all these MPs will sign the two campaigns at the Carerwatch site before the general election. They are simple humanitarian campaigns - one for carers and one for seriously and enduringly sick people who are caught up in ESA. Jon McDonnell and Michael Meacher are supporting us and we hope many more Labour MPs will sign before the next election so carers can see who will care about them in the next parliament.
Cheers...still shuddering over that one though....
But how much of the Labour manifesto has been written?
I'm not sure what the writer means by the platitude “market fundamentalism”. Public provision has been expanded, look at how much extra we have pumped in to “health care, education, housing ...”. My own observation is that we have increased spending by significantly more than we have increased productivity. Introducing market forces is an attempt to increase the efficiency of the organisations providing public services. It's a long way from the kind of “market fundamentalism” that you would find in the USA. In my view we need a revolution in the way that we deliver public services. I'd suggest a near total involvement of the “third sector” made up of local cooperatives and charities. These organisations can use the existing "fat" to build capacity by innovating, delivering and managing services to the communities that have generated them. This will break down large state run organisations into smaller local ones that understand local needs and have the potential for greater innovation and efficiency. The worry is, if we do not do this quickly then then the Torys will do it using companies to deliver ossified services to an “SLA” with the consequent focus on the bottom line. In this context it will be interesting to see if the 200+ newly formed cooperative trust schools do innovate and improve education provision in their local communities.
The problem with the Royal Mail is who owns them!! Whilst it is within the ability of government ministers to capriciously decide its fate there is always going to be a serious probability of privatisation. In my view the Royal Mail should be mutalised and deregulated. Owned directly by the British public and run by the employees of Royal Mail on their behalf (similar to a Building Society). With no direct (or indirect) government interference whatsoever. Private companies (only allowed to provide the same universal service with the same delivery and collection timetables) will only get a hold if the Royal Mail upsets its new owners by overcharging for their service beyond the premium that you would expect to pay in order to maintain a Public Service ethos.
I think that it will take revolutionary and innovative ideas where I can see the potential for achieving socialist goals before I will become excited and regenerate my interest. This is just another "lefty big Government" solution.
I do though believe that they are right to focus the last paragraph on Labour Party democracy. I would add that this needs to extend to the PLP having a strong say (perhaps the NEC also) in the persons appointed to the major offices of state (chancellor, Foreign Secretary, etc). We must break the dictatorial power currently wielded by Labour PMs through the use of patronage.
If Labour were to run with that in the manifesto, Cameron would take home a hundred seat majority. Climate change has less political traction than PR, and everyone knows that ``household carbon allowances'' means ``making life for poor people even worse''.
Still that's past.
Problem is these people want to run before they can walk. A return to democracy within the party is needed,and maybe then some of these items could be implemented. Not all of them, because there would have to be a spirit of compromise between all sides.
As for including them in the next manifesto. I imagine hell will have frozen over before Mandy(and a few others) lets anybody insert clause D in the manifesto.
Too much emphasis on redistribution which will scare the horses, and two little emphasis on ideas that would do this without giving the press an Aunt Sally to launch their biros at. Say for instance, not saying redistribution but instead say proposing a limit for a multiplier of the lowest paid employee that could be paid to the highest paid employee of any organisation.
That should apply some pressure to executives, who don't want a massive pay cut, to do the right thing, without the government doing the distributing for them. Obviously agency/outsourced staff functions have to be included in the equation.
It would also put paid, with any luck, to the old boys network of remuneration committees. Also obvious fairness would be rather difficult for the Tories to attack.
Likewise more power to the Unions is anathema to those with memories of the seventies. But regardless of the fact that that isn't the intention, that'll be how the papers portray it. Saying you want to have a German model of Union reps on the company council acheives a similar end, but again doesn'y play into the hands of a very antagonistic Fleet Street (or whatever they call it these days.)
I agree with their sentiments. Looks very much like the 'Save The Labour Party' proposals. Just wish they'd refined it before publishing it verbatim.
Some good and very relevant and interesting points. We do need to look at modernisation which does not look towards a deviation from the Right.
Good to see you in better spirits.
'We do need to look at modernisation which does not look towards a deviation from the Right.'
Not sure if that came out as intended, but I imagine some compromise is needed by the right to accommodate some alternative thinking on dealing with the same issues.
Seems to me that the right has cornered the media savvy element, but objective analysis and thinking isn't one of their great strengths currently.
As I've said before a balance has to be reached, not the domination of one section over the others.
There seem to more on the left who, I guess for ideological reasons have retained their reputation and credibility because the self enrichment aspect of being an MP just wouldn't have occurred to them. We need people like that in more prominent positions to act as the conscience of the PLP, and maybe keep the others feet on the ground.
Apologies I meant it must not permit a "deviation to the Right".
Sorry.
Don't apologise to me. It's unnecessary. I think I've read enough of your posts to recognise the odd spooling mistake.Like in this case.
Your comments are refreshing, and I hope you are here to stay for a while?
Kind regards, Jo.
Definitely!
B. Banks should be split up with their casino investment arms hived off. Publicly-owned retail banks should be required to meet new social and community objectives and support manufacturing, with lending to businesses and homeowners restored to 2007 levels. Pay and bonuses should be tightly regulated.
Mostly agree, just cant see how we can make it work. But that is what debate and people who understand these things is all about. On the pay thing yes.
C. A clean break must be made with market fundamentalism – deregulation and privatisation. Public provision should be expanded – in health care, education, housing, pensions, energy and transport. Royal Mail must remain wholly in the public sector.
Perhaps to aspirational and questionable if we can afford it. But we MUST invest in rail and environmentally friendly social housing. Agree on RM.
D. In the face of huge and unacceptable growth of inequality, a big redistribution programme must swing resources away from the rich to provide sizeable increases in pensions, the minimum wage, the lowest benefit levels, and to fund job creation and improved public services. Union rights must be restored – it is in economic crisis that workers are most in need of that protection.
On union power this will back fire if not done correctly. The German model works but if we do it then we MUST ensure the egotistical Scargill, Red Robbo et al) are kept in check.
E. To achieve the 80% carbon emission reduction target by 2050, renewable sources of energy should be promoted on a far bigger scale, industry (including airlines) should be required to reduce its climate change emissions by at least 3% per year, household carbon allowances should be introduced, and the UK targets should be fully met by domestic action and not by carbon offsetting abroad.
Dont know.
We also believe that if Labour is to revive its membership in numbers and activity, it must fully restore its internal democratic procedures so that the voice of its individual and affiliated members is listened to and taken account of. This process has begun with the adoption of all-member voting rights for the National Policy Forum. But we believe that several further reforms are needed, in particular to restore to the elected NEC full supervision and control over the party’s operation and finances, to introduce a charter of members’ rights and a Party Ombudsman to enforce them, and to renew for all party employees the core civil service values of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity in the development of party policy and selection of party candidates."
Yes and go further, commit to ensuring a reversion to a parliamentary democracy, an elected upper house on non party lines without interference from the commons.
What a pathetic lot ;)
They should grow some courage because pleanty of voters in the middle and the left would love to vote for something clean, why is it so much for them to ask for?
The 20% Vat rate is a certainty after the election, who ever is in power. All taxation affects the poor more than the rich. It is a function of them being poor. If you want to end poverty, make education central to all of our policies.
Here we go again... Why do you want to take money from the middle classes and give it to people who are poor? Why is that fair? What is the point in getting an education, and striving to improve yourself if the state is going to step in and take it from you?
And, before you tell me that it will be aimed at the rich, it won't. The rich will structure their wealth in order to keep it out of the Taxman's reach. The burden will therefore fall on the middle classes.
Fortunately, this will not amount to anything, because Labour will not be forming the next government.
The suggestion has been bruited that the Tories will increase VAT to 20%, in which case it will be most detrimental to the lowest income groups, then the middling income groups, and not affect the affluent at all - regressive taxation.
The track record of the PLP control and command system leaves me with grave doubts they will be willing to be the turkeys that vote for Christmas.
In East Lothian they have a situation where 25 out of 30 Constituency committee members want rid of Anne Moffat (the sitting MP) but the NEC is stalling because it fears the loss of Union votes (and funding) that Ms Moffat brings with her. Labour SO's suggest that Ms Moffat should be given her P45 by the NEC because that is the constituency's democratic wish but I doubt many think it will not happen given Moffat's championing by Brown.
I await for Yousef to soundly shout me down for rubbishing Labour in Scotland, again, but folks you do have to ask yourself just how well will a constituency party who wants rid of their MP (who they see as an electoral liability) support her come May, if foisted on them by a toothless NEC?
Given that they were lending money to people who couldn't pay it back, I don't think the levels of lending should necessarily be the target here.
These are policies that I would vote for, but I wouldn't trust New Labour to pay them more than lip service. There's no point in a Labour manifesto without a Labour party to implement it.
The answer apparently given here - that we can raise more money by squeezing the rich is a nonsense. This is the 21st century, they'll just relocate to other countries, and we will end up trying to spend more public money with a dwindling tax take.
Are all your foreign players doms or non-doms? Perhaps they could contribute.
In Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus it were the butler what done the blag weren't it?
Popperian, then? You logical positivists are just so predictable.
*Freddie Ayer wasn't really that bad beneath the skin*
Thankyou Ludwig too- are you new on here?
Jo.
But this site has opened up a whole sphere of networking and a knowledge base, and an online community where some can share common values and aims.
I think Labour List in particular is a unique space, and of high professionalism and calibre- all credit to you Alex, and the contributors.It is vibrant and constantly on the move- "where it's at."
This must have required a lot of hard work and commitment, and I for one am not complacent.
I also love the fact that there can be a meeting of minds between the lay public with a range of life and professional experiences, and political activists/politicians...this has broken down barriers.
In an era of mistrust and voter apathy/malaise- this is just what is needed to galvanise the troops, and provoke debate.
It also made me smile when you referred to the blogisphere as being "saturated" by the right wing elements...yes- we can all relate to that!
I predict there will be concerted "fight" until May, as some have much to lose.
But you have provided a truly democratic forum Alex- and in my opinion, unsurpassed online.
Good luck to you- and all!
Jo.
Being an OAP with some time on his hands, between decorating and gardening duties, I trawl the web as it is called. In terms of right:left blogs my take is the the difference in numbers are at least a factor of ten for the former. If there were a GE where only bloggers voted then the Tories would have a landslide and Labour would be left with just a few fringe seats. The Tory roar out there is deafening, articulate and not tribalist. In fact Cameroon gets a lot more stick than you could imagine.
Jo is a kind and gentle woman who does not hesitate to give compliments where they are due. She was open in her gratitude to Alex for this opportunity. Others, like you and me, seem, in comparison, misanthropists.