By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
There's been an interesting addition tonight to the discussion on the future of the Labour Party, the policy directions it might take, and the personalities who may seek to influence that direction in the future.
Michael Meacher, who initially stood against Gordon Brown as Labour Party leader in 2007, has tonight sent out the following round robin email to a number of Labour Party MPs and activists, calling for a broad coalition across the Labour movement:
Dear ---,
After discussion with several parliamentary colleagues, leading trade unionists and various organisations of Labour Party members about how to mobilise Labour voters across Britain in the forthcoming General Election, and the policies we need to win, I am appealing for your support for a Coalition for Labour Victory.
Please let me know whether you support the following statement – we will publicise it when I have gathered a sufficiently broad range of support from all sections of the movement but, as an indication of its breadth, it does have the active support of both Compass and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy.
A COALITION FOR LABOUR VICTORY
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.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Meacher MP
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I hope so , How is your campigning going ?
ricki
I get the feeling the electric company wont like any neagitve pr .
ricki
I can not argue with you, but we have to deal with the situation we are faced with and not the utopia we like
the situation is simple in a FPTP system to gain power and do the goodd things you want you have to woo the 'middle class' and they are so fickle you can not get radical stuff through on the left as they perceive it as against them
the way round this is to PR which could marganilse the 'middle class' somewhat. Of course if Cameron got his way with the reduction of MP's in a FPTP we would struggle to ever get a majority again.
We except another letter/offer in a week , they offered £50 as an apolagy this time which i said was morally wrong as we had no control over the situation , We hope for a sensiable solution .
ricki
I hope so. I am lucky all my utilities and Council Tax are dealt with by the company I rent from. A peaceful life so I can focus on my very widespread and careful schemes and plans.
We recived a letter a few days ago saying we owed £700 because a meter wasnt set properly ( from 2005) They admitted it was there fault but want to increase our payments by 50% to pay back the debt ( We have a pre-pay meter) , I have typed a copy of the first letter to Alex and there will be more to come .
ricki
@Ricki, scandalous! I think you'll be in safe hands with Alex.
I will do , I also hope to have some news on electric problem next week ( had a intresting phone call with them today) .
ricki
Electric problem? What electric problem?
The power and allure of flattery, money and power is far to great for the ambitious and shallow.
Just look at how the establishment is still trying to protect itself and it's corrupt practices, espcially with the insanity of bank charges.
I guess GB and Darling want to join Blair at the banks when they get the boot after all.
I got your message via Alex
Hope you are ok
ricki
I am fine. Could you email which street you are on to Alex, and I'll double check that you get canvassed. The team in your area are good, unlike some they have been knocking on doors and delivering literature.
Well said, but money is the carrot you use to dangle in front of the donkey.
There are a lot of Donkeys in Parliament.
Who cares about the middle class? Mr Brown did he doubled the tax on lowest earners to give the middle class a 2p tax cut .
ricki
"Who cares about the middle class,it's their insular attitude that keeps us from ever achieving real potential"
The middle classes pay the taxes that allow your left wing governments to spend spend spend.
But you are right in one respect, Labour has nothing to offer the middle classes and Marx was right, it's a fight to the finish with no agreement between working and middle class.
In the good times many middle class people accept more left wing policies and more taxation/spending because its makes little difference to them. In recessions however things get tighter and they don't put up with it any more. Its the middle class that decide elections and when they get poorer they vote for the right - not the left. After all its them that get milked most for the extra spending.
Ask middle Britain what they think of public sector pay in boom years you'll hear "nurses have a horrible time, they should be paid more - they're essential", in recessions you hear "why are public workers getting 2% pay rises when I get 0? Why do they have better pensions than me?" etc... In this environment the right prospers.
You saw this played out in the EU elections, the left were battered all over Europe, people simply don't want it right now.
Consider
but of course when the public services go tits up because of this very same attitude the middle class are the first to moan ...
"But Lehman's collapse did dispel the myth that aggressive free marketism is viable. It was the final nail in the coffin of Thatcher-Reaganomics. "
It did Richard but I have yet to see any proof from Labour we have changed from the notion deregulation is best. Darling said today that the failure was of regulation but we have yet to see any new regulation appear.
I don;t expect the Tories to learn any lessons, I expect us to but my paitence is wearing out.
I could also manage the voters dislike of all the gerrymandering and avoidance of making real decisions that create real change to the undemocratic House of Westminster but that's really an argument for PR and we know how much the current incumbents in the House hate the idea of PR and being held to account!
Is there any particular reason you don't let my comments through until I ask you to? I understand that you may disagree with some of what I write, but surely a more mature respone is to post my comment and then argue against it?
And yes, it was quite long. But posts of comparable length have been posted on other threads since I submitted mine. I'm sure you aren't trying to Draper-esquely ensure discussion only proceeds in the correct channels, so I'm utterly confused as to why mine are held back.
Nonetheless I withdraw my scandalous accusations, and apologise for any offense that may have been caused.
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.
So lets ignore the biggest debt that has been created and spend even more, lets go all the way and lose our credit rating and have the IMF impose real hardship on all of us.
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.
If the Americans don't do this then its pointless us doing it, as our Banks will not be able to compete. We are also allowing the EU to dictate to us about breaking up our Financial Sector as they want some of it for themselves which will leave the UK poorer.
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.
Nu Labour have expanded Health, Education and look at the mess they have made and the billions it has cost. There is no money left so how are you going to pay for all of this Public Provision. We are heavily taxed all ready and cannot pay much more.
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.
Nu Labour have allowed the rich to become stinking rich in the past 12 years. Nu Labour have allowed Public Sector Workers wages to grow at such a rate they are now on average salaries higher than the Private Sector and that’s before you take Pensions into account. We have a Government who has employed another 230,000 people in the last year even though there is no money to pay for it. And now you wish to strengthen the Unions so that no one can take an axe to this unsustainable Public Sector insult to all of us in the Private Sector who actually pay for this outrage.
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.
Yes lets tax our people to death and drag them back to the Dark Ages so we can pretend that we are Green. Your own Goverments Policies prove that Man made Global Warming is a total and utter con.
12 years ago you could spout crap such as this and the UK Electorate fell for it, you will not be able to lie this time as we no longer trust a word that drips from their lying thieving mouths.
"So lets ignore the biggest debt that has been created and spend even more, lets go all the way and lose our credit rating and have the IMF impose real hardship on all of us."
I think you'll find that the increase in private sector debt far exceeded the increase in public sector debt in the years 1997 - 2007, before the 'credit crunch' murmurings first started to appear.
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.
So lets ignore the biggest debt that has been created and spend even more, lets go all the way and lose our credit rating and have the IMF impose real hardship on all of us.
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.
If the Americans don't do this then its pointless us doing it, as our Banks will not be able to compete. We are also allowing the EU to dictate to us about breaking up our Financial Sector as they want some of it for themselves which will leave the UK poorer.
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.
Nu Labour have expanded Health, Education and look at the mess they have made and the billions it has cost. There is no money left so how are you going to pay for all of this Public Provision. We are heavily taxed all ready and cannot pay much more.
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.
Nu Labour have allowed the rich to become stinking rich in the past 12 years. Nu Labour have allowed Public Sector Workers wages to grow at such a rate they are now on average salaries higher than the Private Sector and that’s before you take Pensions into account. We have a Government who has employed another 230,000 people in the last year even though there is no money to pay for it. And now you wish to strengthen the Unions so that no one can take an axe to this unsustainable Public Sector insult to all of us in the Private Sector who actually pay for this outrage.
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.
Yes lets tax our people to death and drag them back to the Dark Ages so we can pretend that we are Green. Your own Goverments Policies prove that Man made Global Warming is a total and utter con.
12 years ago you could spout crap such as this and the UK Electorate fell for it, you will not be able to lie this time as we no longer trust a word that drips from their lying thieving mouths.
Oh, and simply changing "public spending" to "public investment" does not make it any more sustainable or any more likely to actually engender substantial growth.
B. I call Bullshit. Having Banks with both an Investmnet and Retail Banking arm did not cause the current banking crisis: Lehman's was exclusively Investment, Bear Stearns was exclusively Investment, Northern Crock was exclusively retail. Lloyds TSB was both, but was absolutely fine until Gordo decided it should recue RBS.
What caused the crisis was an inefficient regulatory system compunded by a belief, propogated by the (now High Chancellor Adam Sutcliffe) then Chancellor Gordon Brown that the Asset Bubble could be sustained indefinately since he had, and I quote, "abolished Boom and Bust".
C. I am firmly of the belief that while the Government should have a hand in these things and they should mostly remin free at the point of use, these aims can be attained far more cheaply, efficiently and provided more universally and to a better standard if contracted out to the Private Sector. I have yet to see any evidence that changes my mind.
D. This would simply drive the wealthy, who are wealth generators and investors, out of the country. Whilst this would be in accordance with Labour's ideal that no Poppy should grow taller than any other, it would quite simply wreck our economy.
E. Frankly, in the days after evidence of a fairly serious conspiracy amongst some well-respected High Priests of the AGW alarmists is uncovered do you really believe that a public, of whom more than 50% either do not believe the world is warming or do not believe that man has anything to do with it (if it is warming), will accept a reduction in domestic activity due to 'personal carbon allowances', or higher taxation on businesses (who then provide goods and services at a higher cost to the consumer)?
Whilst I can agree with the fact that Investment is needed to overhaul the UK's ageing national grid and power generating facilities (something that is, in large part, the fault of Labour's lack of prior investment which results in predictions that by 2017 we could be experiencing rolling black-outs not seen for almost 40 years) and that a substantial part of that investment is needed in the renewable sector, I do so not on the basis that the world may be warming up: I do so simply because I would very much like to see our dependency on Russian gas reduced *and* the dependency of our economy on the whims of the price of oil reduced.
In short, Mr Meacher, in my opinion you could not find a group of more wrong-headed policies outside of the BNP or Communist Parties. It's almost as if you've designed them to offend me personally, in which case the depths of your research are, well, impressive.
When MP's can't even manage to stick to their promises to their own membership then they can't be trusted with anything.
I think the best way to encourage me to go out and work for them would be for Meacher to actually DO something rather than more promises of pie in the sky.
We have yet to see any substantial ideas from the dolts in power in addressing the recession.
As I mentioned earlier if you take someones idea in isolation you cannot understand the context within which the idea sits.
GB mentioned in his speech recently when addressing the business community that he will use "a coherent and consistent" policy programme.
No he cant. All he and his colleagues, advisers and speechwriters can do is look to others to compensate for their own lack of ability.
GB at conference mentioned something I had touched on regarding a Center for Technological Innovations, but he doesn't understand the full context within which such a developmental policy can take shape, or in fact where such a development should take shape.
MP's cannot harness other's ideas and words without understanding the depth of that thought. It is like opening a book and taking three pages at random, you cannot undrstand the full story on this piecemeal method.
So what we have is a mish mash of clumsy power mad policies because unless policies benefit MP's personally and finacially they don't seem to be able grasp what they are for.
As for Mr Meacher he is a nice fella but his attempt to lead the restoration of a corrupted leadership will be in vain. He can only hope to turn to the Unions with a begging bowl and they won't bother with him overly much as he has no real power and whatever he promises to do will clearly not be done.
Talking the talk is not walking the walk, and when it comes to the walking we are left with vacent pathways and empty streets both metaphorically and literally as the less self-interested membership continue to jump ship or just not bother.
When you put a cretin in charge, you're bound to get a cabinet full of idiots and yes men. Given that you can't even find a competent leader, why would we trust you to manage anything else?
As long as you're contaminated by Brown, you're not going to win.
More government control, more centralised bureacracy, a smack in the face of innovation and business entrepreneurialism.
I really loved, 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.
Ther ewould be no businesses!!! Those who thought about starting one, would just give up at the thought of all there work going towards the funding of the high life for those who frankly can't be bothered.
Mr Meacher, your living in the seventies, Labour cocked it up then as your cocking it up now!
If you want this country to grow, enable! And if you can't enable "get out of my way"
The right is alive and kicking in Parliment on both sides .
ricki
They may be alive.
But their economic policies are dead.
Would a Labour party attack the disabled like Mr purnell has ( so good the torys like it) , We dont have genuine debate , no choice , That i would say is badfor democrecy , Its tweedledum and tweedledee .
ricki
Still can't do any harm - can it?
Has it come to that ??
this is why we need a party of the left and a party of the right , To give voters a clear choice , at the moment we have tory party (red) and tory party (blue) , If Mr Meacher stood for leader of the Labour party i would vote for him .
ricki
I think that voters have been firmly rejecting parties of the left since 1979. In order to be attractive to the electorate, Blair moulded Labour into a centre right party. He just forgot to tell Labour members... The electorate now have their political leanings catered for by two centre right parties. It is telling that with Labour now on the ropes, the most left wing party, the Lib Dems, have not prospered.
Calls for a return to the left is to call for a march into the electoral wilderness. The country will need Labour to be a strong opposition, but that cannot be delivered by a party that purposely turns it's back on the beliefs of the electorate.
The left is electorally dead, and has been for 30 years...
I think something new is emerging, out of the ashes of both left and right.
Chris, this is silly. The collapse of Lehman Bros did not change the gut beliefs of the man in the street. Neither do I believe that the right was burned during the credit crunch. Indeed, I think the have done very well out of it, and the polls reflect this.
We are in a financial bubble at the moment and when it collapses - which it will - the right are furthest away from any solution.
The left at least understand solidarity and mutuality.
I think labour could really benefit if we adopted it and we missed our chance to be really brave and radical, I suspect many high in the party also know this
You are partly right , but if Mr Meacher is asking for a Labour coalition based on his proposels ( which i fully suport) How can people like Mr Purnell (welfare reform ) and Lord Mandleson (royal mail) be part of a Labour party that is left not right ?
ricki
I know this if you polled the membership his proposals would get vast majority support
How do you square someone like Mr Meacher who is in favour of raising benifits and not privatseing the royal mail with Mr purnell and Lord Mandleson ? and not call it a split?
ricki
Of course the method of delivery is different, it is possible to agree with Meacher on some issues and Mandleson on others.
Is he prposing the plp split? Because the torys in our party are against most of the propsels , Has Mr Meacher costed the proposels ( which i am in favor of) ?
ricki
Labour has built sod all social housing so Blair and brown could give fodder to the Mortgage cartels called Banks, so we build no social housing, New labour, our Hospitals were given a one off massive dose of public money for which they wasted the vast majority, my local hospital employed an art critic to see if he could improve the pictures hung in the hospital to aid recovery cost £90,000 a year. he is of course gone now and so has that massive influx of money, six weeks ago I waited in my hospital to be seen five hours. I've been waiting for an appointment for twelve months, so little has changed except the media does not bother much anymore.
Welfare reforms are not about giving me the chance of getting back to work, it's about moving me to a lower benefits, even though I'm severely disabled and use drugs like sweets, since my spine was crushed.
The fact is if your disabled in a labour world I have the right to take people and companies to a court of law to get access, but should that access not be made by the councils planning officers, not me taking people to courts. and paying for it.
As I said I've been an active person within Labour, but my activity was cut short because I could not get into meeting anymore because of steps, it was only last year my polling station was given a ramp for us to get in.
New Labour is not the party it use to be some say thank god, I say you have forgotten why we worked to make this party a party of the people, and the working people. You can now keep it.
it is part of the debate the party must have and it should not be seen as a split but as a proper debate.