By Jeremy Beecham
Next year’s elections will pose a stark choice between two fundamentally different approaches to government.
That choice will be between a Labour Party deploying resources nationally and locally to promote economic recovery, social justice and a better environment – and the Conservatives, who are content to let the market lead their decisions with scant regard for the social consequences.
Local Labour has launched Putting Fairness First – the local Labour manifesto for a new term. Labour councillors from across the country have worked to put this document together, celebrating the values we embody in local government - and to influence our national manifesto.
Although the economy is going through difficult times, many of our proposals are bold. We want to see the Future Jobs Fund extended to 25-34 year olds in long-term unemployment, and the extension of Sure Start to cover 5-7 year olds to help provide in-the-round care and advice for all primary school children and their parents.
Many more of our policies show how Labour councils can make a real difference to people’s lives. Take the examples of Manchester and Oxford, who have set a locally-determined living wage to supplement the national minimum. Or local Labour’s commitment to build new council and social housing.
Contrast this approach with the new Tory ‘flagship’ councils, who are giving a flavour of what a future Cameron government would look like. Authorities like Barnet and Hammersmith & Fulham show what the resurgent Tory right is capable of - the ‘politics of Ryanair’, the most basic service possible with any extras at high personal cost; cuts for the voluntary sector they profess to value; the decanting of council tenants; and a freeze on affordable or social housing.
The ideas in our manifesto could represent a key shift for the Labour Party, re-emphasising our focus on the local design and delivery of services by local politicians for local people. The moment has come for all of us to re-engage with our communities in ways that celebrate the organic link between local action and modern socialism.
As we define what Labour stands for in the 21st Century, we should remember the defining goal of municipal socialists throughout the 19th and 20th centuries – to involve local people and their representatives in a productive and worthwhile partnership in order to address specific local issues. For the faithful in Labour’s ranks, localism has never been an end in itself – it has always been, and remains, a tool to deliver essential social democratic values, whose application quite rightly varies according to place and circumstance.
Almost all we ask for will cost money. The inevitably constrained condition of the public finances necessitates continued debate about national priorities. That is why we have called this manifesto Putting Fairness First – we think that this mantra must condition all of our spending proposals for the next parliament and beyond, ensuring that public money is only spent where it promotes social justice and encourages a better life for the overwhelming majority of people.
If virtually everything is up for discussion, even life-long anti-unilateralists like me will question whether billions should be invested in replacement for Trident, or whether the introduction of ID cards could not be even further deferred.
The task ahead of us as we count down to the next general election is great. The tasks we will have to undertake after the election will be greater still. Labour councils and councillors have compelling stories to tell about how we can overcome the challenges facing us.
Now is the time for us to make our voices heard.
You can download the Local Labour Manifesto here.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
lets say I earn £30K a year, I am married, my wife is at home, i like to smoke and drink and take a holiday a year.
PAYE Tax P.A £5,000
N.I Tax P.A £3,000
Council Tax £2,000
Ciggie Tax £1,30 (based on 20 a day)
Car Tax £ 200
Petrol Tax £2,340 (based on £50 a week)
TV Tax £ 140
VAT £ 888 (based on spending £500 a month)
Electic & Gas £ 1,000(based on annual bill of £2,500
Total £14,698 and I have not included the 100s of other in direct taxes we pay such as Stamp Duty, Flight Duty,
So Monkey Bot your wrong, fact, and the next Tory Gov't will increase the burden further with VAT at 20% and all the other tax rises they have planned.
Within a year we will all be paying 60% Tax unless your rich or an MP, have you seen the bonuses announced by Goldman Sachs today, for one years work £14billion in bonuses, the whole stinking system is corrupt from the top to the bottom.
I respect honest people/Mps more even if i disagree
ricki
But shouldnt we be more inclusive ? I dont always agree with Guy but there is no need to get bitchy ( i hope i can say that if not sorry ) , That is the one thing i dislike about what happens now in parliment .
ricki
Stop Acting like Mps and debate instead of disregaurding opposing views , I think this site is better for debate .
ricki
The policies guy posted are I believe the true tory agenda that Cameron is hiding because that agenda would not win the election.
for example how can you remove a body that reviews every educational facility who would look after them then ? It is madness to say get rid of these things because the result is one of neglect and abuse.
Everything Brown has done proves this, he has created a state of Regions all packaged up nicely for his EU masters. Local Democracy, are you having a laugh? if the Electorate believed you Labour would not currently have the lowest number of Council and Councillors in its history. On a local level you are almost wiped out, the only places where Labour is still strong is where Public money is being spent with abandon and has a high percentage of people living on Benefits.
As for benefits, too many receieving moan that if they get a job they will be worse off or only a few pounds a week better off. Its better to continue claiming Benefits and then work in the Black Market. Why do Benefit Scroungers think they should get a job paying 20 - 25K to start? people who work accept you start at the bottom and work your way up. In time you earn more than benefits but this simple fact seems to be ignored, what we need is a Benefits system that helps out in difficult times, not a lifestyle choice.
I know all you Labour lovies now hate the Sun? did any of you read the report on the jobless in Wales yesterday? a high percentage of the local population are on Benefits, but are moaning at immigrants who are working locally for the minimum wage. Jobs they refuse to do! the paper placed a job advert in the local paper offering the minimum wage and not one local person applied! its time to sort out this problem once and for all.
Bliar promised us that Frank Field "would think the unthinkable" and then sacked him and Brown set about increasing Benefits. Brown was warned that if he increased Benefits substantially, what will he do when the next recession came and millions more could tap into Benefits at the same level as earnings, yes, it would bankrupt the Country, Browns response "I have ended the cycle of Boom & Bust". What a prize idiot you have leading you.
The money has now run out and we have over 7.5 million living on Benefits. Wages have stayed low for 10 years due to the 3 million immigrants that have arrived and the jobs for people starting out have gone, and the ones available offer the minimum wage, as the employers know that there will always be an immigrant who will take the job.
Tough love is needed to stop another generation living on Benefits, we simply can't afford it. The French immigration spokeswoman slated the UK for having such a lavish Benefits system which was creating the problem at Calais, well if the Treaty is ratified maybe the EU will force us in line with all the other EU nations and then Labour in opposition will blame the Tories...you can just see it coming.
Goverment needs to do less, get out of our lives and allow us to decide how we wish to spend our money. If you earn between 10K - 40K Labour are taking 50 - 60% of our salaries in taxes, isn't that enough? or do you Lefties think we should hand over even more, especially those of us living in the South.
Well I have news for you, we cannot afford a penny more, enough is enough. So before you start spouting all these grand ideas work out how its going to be paid for if you can't tax the South anymore?
Benefits are the minimum you need to live on. Why would anyone accept less than that in the hope that they may one day earn more than the minimum required to survive? It is only considered a "lifestyle choice" by those who have never had to live on benefits.
"If you earn between 10K - 40K Labour are taking 50 - 60% of our salaries in taxes, isn't that enough?"
Rubbish. That's just plain untrue. I earn 10k-40k and I don't pay anywhere near 50%.
""If you earn between 10K - 40K Labour are taking 50 - 60% of our salaries in taxes, isn't that enough?"
Rubbish. That's just plain untrue. I earn 10k-40k and I don't pay anywhere near 50%."
As soon as you clear the tax allowance you get hit by 20% plus 11% NI.
Throw in council tax, petrol tax, VAT, all the various duties levied and I think you'll find the government take pushing a third directly (unless you hit the 40% when it goes higher) and another large chunk indirectly just by living your life.
On £30,000 pa the income tax burden is around £5,000. Compare this to a council tax rate of £2,000 to £2,500 for a middling house in the south and you can see that those local and indirect taxes add up to a fair old sum.
It may not hit the 50% to 60% but it sure as hell goes well past the 40% mark and close to the 50%.
For a lot of us that is too much and frankly I don't see the value that government brings to my life to justify that level of tax steal.
That's what I pay now. I don't see any conservatives promising to get rid of council tax, fuel duty or VAT. Don't think that I'm pro-Labour, I've got bricks ready to throw at these sons of bitches whatever the colour of their rosettes.
"Then can you say what exactly you would cut"
Just about every form of governmental red tape currently placed upon business and it's enforcement
The entire tax credit system (partly offset by raising the base threshold)
Most of Ofsted and all government "target" monitoring of schools
The entire "equalities" comission
The overseas aid budget
All government database projects
All regional development agencies
All government propaganda ..... I mean advertising
All printing or publishing of governmental information in non English
All subsidies to Royal Mail/Post Office
All funding for illegal immigrants
The vast majority of PCT and SHA staff in the NHS
there's a start knocked out in a couple of minutes for you.
Tax credits - no, because they are often not claimed and the other option mentioned would be more costly as it wouldn't require a claim (I happen to agree with the suggestion, but...)
The Tories established OFSTED
If you have equalities legislation, then it requires a body to ensure people can use it successfully. I agree that it needs improvement but discrimination must be challenged
The Tories have said this will not be cut. I think it should be far more conditional
Impossible. Even if you farm them out it is necessary to utilise IT within government
I'm not a fan of the current government office system but left to its own devices all you will get is an ever more overheated south-east
Heard of freedom of information - government is obliged to publicise services and changes. Its also a tiny proportion of expenditure
Impractical. Even if people are encouraged to speak English there will be some who do not, for no fault of their own, and this would leave them open to exploitation
Bye-bye rural post services - that will be popular in the Tory shires
What funding?
Again, a tiny proportion, and most of them exist to run the internal market and commissioning system supported by the Tories. It can't run itself
Now, put away the dog whistle as it doesn't work here. If you are serious about reducing public spending, the largest budget - by far - is social security. Increased unemployment will put that up
But remember the Tories dream is of the ultimate free market with no regulation, need we look at what happened in the city to know that is a false ideology and one that fails every time once the rich take their cut of it.
No i dont have any respite offered nor would i take it , The only break i get is when my partner goes to hospital or goes to a drop in centre ( which she cant because of just having a op), I am just angry that both parties are trying to tar us all as scroungers , we had our benifits stop a few years ago it took a year of appeals before they got restored , It was only a 0% loan from a friend that kept us going .
ricki
I think the care you are giving saves the NHS and social services, who should be supporting you, in the region of £50,000 per year against paying you £2,600 pa in carer benefit along with the highest DLA payment. Both combined is still far less than the cost of care if the Government Agencies had to pick up the tab.
Does your local social service and / or NHS Trust not offer respite care for even a couple of hours a week to give you a break? Are you a member of a local carer support group?
I sense the whole situation of Government flim flam over the recent attack on 'benefit scroungers' has really hurt you. For me the reality of multiple generations on long term benefits points the finger at long term Government ineptitude and failure than any 'criminality' by 'Benefit Scroungers'.
I have a theory that this group is actually held where they are for the cynical political benefit the Tory and Labour parties think they can accrue at election time. That is not what Beveridge's Social Welfare Plan, enacted into law by Labour in 1948 was meant to create long term. There is a big difference between the 'safety net' envisaged by Beveridge and the reality we see.
Why Do the core vote labour? I dont know , I can tell you why i voted labour , First we had enough of the torys , Then the 10p tax rate , min wage before you jump in i know MR Brown doubled ten years later , Do i support the current Labour goverment ? No
My vote will not go to a Labour goverment that has MR Brown as leader and a tory front beanch .
ricki
The problem a lot of Mps have they go saying the people on benifits sit around and have a good life on benifits, Its not true , The fact both sides ( labour and the torys) are trying to play tough on this subject while makes good headlines strike fear into genuine sick people and there carers , The appel process can take up to a year and can leave you in debt , And do i like getting £50 a week and not pay tax ? I dont get a choice .
ricki
The problem you face is that this government and those before it have let the numbers claiming benefits snowball so that now it's time to pull the numbers back the really deserving get hassled.
5 million people on benefits is unacceptable and unsustainable and it has to change. The sad thing is Labour's desperate attempts to reduce the figures will no hit some of those deserving the support they constantly tell us the Tory party care nothing for.
But my base point is this, why is it that those in receipt of benefits they don't have to pay for vote Labour and those who have to pay through their taxes vote anything but Labour?
Yes i am on benifits , I am a carer i look after my partner 24/7 7 days a week if i didnt do that how much more would it cost the goverment ? More than £50 a week , Please dont tar all benifits claimants the same
ricki
I'm tarring no-one.
What I am saying is it is all too easy for Labour politicians to promote policies that cost large amounts knowing that the people who form their core vote will not be the ones paying the cost.
Or should I ask if you are surprised that the majority of the people who have to pay the high taxes to fund Labour's high spending don't vote Labour?
There was a time when Conservatism stood for service and responsibility - it may have been paternalistic, but it wasn't uncaring
Personally I'd say yes to all your ideas but make them fully fundable through local taxation. When you have to massively increase council tax to fund your proposals and get beaten at every local election you might get some sense.
But then your core vote never has to pay for any of this sort of thing does it? They can sit their on benefits and low pay jobs and vote for you to hit the middle classes for more money to fund your "social justice" agenda.
People now say "I've always voted Labour..." in the same way they say "Hi. My name's Dave and I'm an alcoholic..." I'm thinking of starting a Conservatives Anonymous support group.
This latter group, among which there is a wish to avoid the dole and laziness, used to be the core for labour, but it has been taken for granted and not given all that much of a voice.
At the same time there has been a sort of rebranding of the party as a sort of messianic band of believers who care mostly for the poor and downtrodden - arguably it's the Methodist voice in the party resurfacing, with the old Christian mythology of caring for more the one lamb that goes astray than the 99 who stay put and so on.
This plays well with the more middle-class activists, but it lacks grounding in day to day experience of the old core - I'd say that's why on LL, where the writers are mostly from that middle class, graduate school, there are such a lot of posts about the poorest and most vulnerable. Of course they were always a part of Labour's mandate, but not to the extent implied here.
Personally I can't see how this gets repaired, unless perhaps through some reworking of the unions role, without the self-serving bureaucracy.
Re the Conservatives Anonymous support group, please do set it up - but I think to keep possible converts, you'll need to able to make a better case for George Osborne than he makes himself.
Amen to that. Claiming benefits honestly is humiliating, claiming them dishonestly is the easiest work around.
I grew up in a mining village in South Yorkshire, and my grandfather, uncles and cousins were all miners and staunch old-school labour voters. My grandfather walked the Barnsley stretch with the Jarrow march. My aunty is in a wheelchair and on disability benefit.
All them had or have, nothing but contempt for dishonest benefit claimants, and see the Labour party as having more interest in said claimants than in the likes of themselves.
To me it's more socialist to root them out, so the money can revert to those who have earned or pay deserving cases like Rikki, than to throw a fit every time someone tries to reform the system.
The Labour party's entire problems can be traced back to the fact that it is no longer a party of working people who look out for the interests of the working-classes. Its now entirely made up of prissy middle-class guilt-ridden pecksniffs who think they know what's best for the working classes.
This is about subsidiarity, New Labour does not do subsidiarity. The councils may get the 'decision making' but Gordon and his Darling will ensure there is no funding available to make it happen... just like always.
Time for Labour activists to wake up and stop being conned by the leaders of the PLP who appear more interested in their next job at the World Bank or making money out of poor Brazilians than their own party.
Your policies also are puzzling, why target specific age-ranges? Are these demographics the ones more like to vote Labour?
Perhaps the most nebulous concept here and the most facile is this - who decides what is fair or unfair?
So I dug a little deeper into your manifesto. This struck me first.
Councillors act as both place shapers and
place shielders, determining the ethos and culture of their
areas and influencing the nature of public service delivery
within the council boundary.
Now I tried to find a definition for what a 'place shaper' is and I found nothing. So what on earth are you talking about?
I went through the rest of the manifesto and it seems to overlap and duplicate much of what central government does.
Then I was struck by this made in the opening statement: If Total Place succeeds, then we will be well placed to
radically recast local public services, offering joined-up
delivery whilst cutting red tape and doing away with
unnecessary duplication, with councillors acting as the
lynch-pin in any local authority area.
This 'place' thing again. Again, no explanation what it is.
I am heartened that Labour currently do not control many councils as it strikes me that this manifesto is only fair to the vested interests of the Labour Party.
What is fair about taking central government funds and then creaming off 15 to 20%% before the front-line and your clients see it?
What is fair that this funding is to help the very people you talk about but the LA acts as another arbiter prior to distributing that funding? What value are you adding?
Surely, it is fair that the parent decides in terms of schooling, no-one knows their child better after all, what school their child goes to. Why does the local authority even need to get involved in schools?
In terms of 'green' policies, what is fair in prosecuting people for not recycling enough? Surely it is fair to offer incentives for people to recycle by paying by weight of recyclables per household. Surely, it might be in the interests of promoting 'greener' policies to look at things like municipal power generation (e.g. Woking) to the benefit of the local population.
What is fair on successive and above inflation council tax increases to fund this? Especially for those on fixed incomes?
What about carers ? We work 24/7 7 days a week and get £50 whats fair about that ? All the programs you list cost money How can we afford them ? and how will the extra spending help to halve the deficit in 4 years ?
ricki