Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again?

Cabinet rising star Andy Burnham tells the Fabian fringe that Labour should revisit its statement of aims and values, so that an inspiring mission underpins Labour's agenda for the next decade. Should Labour have a new Clause four debate? What would you put in a new Clause Four, or should we stick with the one we've got?

http://fabians.org.uk/news/burnham-clause-four-07/ 'When I joined the Labour Party as a 15 year old in Warrington in 1985, it was very clear, it was a question of identity: which side are you on?', said Burnham. 'What the Labour party stands for probably isn't as clear to young people today'. There is a need for a new expression of our aims and values. We wrote that new clause four in opposition, It was very relevant to the time. I think ten years on, we should look at it again. We renewed our aims and values 10 years ago. We need to think again about how we can look again at that: how can we express what we are for, in a way that makes sense to young people in particular", Burnham told the Fabian fringe on Campaigning for Change. The Fabian Review has argued for a new Clause Four, proposing a text with equality at its heart to kickstart a debate: 'The Labour party is a democratic socialist party that strives to create a fair and more equal society. We campaign to eradicate poverty and discrimination and to extend opportunities to those denied them because we believe that no citizen's life chances should be determined by the circumstances into which he or she is born. We hold that a free and fair society is founded upon mutual respect, compassion and understanding. We will work internationally with all who share our values, to spread justice and human rights and to sustain our common environment for generations yet to come.' More on clause four http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunder_katwala/2006/04/why_labour_needs_another_claus.html

Display: Sort:

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#1)

The new clause proposed by the Fabian society removes the statement:

"power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few"

Does the Fabian Soc no longer care whose hands the power is in?

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#2)

How about:

"To secure for the workers, by hand and by brain, the full fruits of their industry..."

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#5)

Too vague. You'll have all the dogmatists arguing for months over the meaning of words like 'secure' 'brain' 'fruits ' and 'industry'. Fabians are much clearer over equality and fairness.

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#3)

I wonder whether the word 'equality' really sums up what we mean nowadays.  Increasingly, the 'many' are the mass affluent (at least by historical standards) and the 'few' are the poor - a reversal of our 1995 doctrine.  Rightly, our newly wealthy society cares increasingly about 'fixing' the problems of (say) the bottom two deciles rather than worrying about parity among the other deciles.  Addressing the problems of the disadvantaged is not so expensive that it would require a massive redistribution of either money or opportunity away from everyone else. Candidly, money isn't the constraint on social justice: the constraint is focus.  Labour should define and differentiate itself as the party which best understands those at the bottom of the pile and is most competent to address their needs.  We should emphasize the unnecessary obscenity of British poverty, rather than talking too much about the distribution of wealth among everyone else.  A country which is so concerned with making poverty history abroad will reward us for doing the same at home.

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#4)

I can understand in a way why the public ownership bits (part 4) of the old clause 4 were scrapped, but part 5 seems to me even more relevant today than when it was coined - it sums up for me exactly what Labour's about:
Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly on their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life.

What's wrong with that? It's aspirational, inclusive of both middle and working class voters, and says what our core value is - greater freedom, achieved through greater equality.

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#6)

I'm a member of the Fabian Society and it was a Fabian, Sidney Webb, who wrote the original clause four. I think he got it about right back in 1918. In addition, it is a superb piece of English in stark contrast to the banality of the present wording, and to the meaningless drivel that fills official party documents. Looking back at the 2005 manifesto i think its authors need to go back to school for a few of Mr Blunkett's literacy hours.

Re: Should Labour rewrite Clause Four again? (#7)

That should be 'I think its authors...' I really must remember to press 'preview' before posting.