Just for fun - what other bits of that infamous/iconic 1983 manifesto should be ressurected?

That 1983 manifesto was dubbed the "longest suicide note in history" by Gerald Kaufman - but it may have merely been a document 25 years ahead of it's time. This post is prompted by Channel 4 mentioning last night that nationalising banks was in that 1983 manifesto. I thought it would be fun to look it up to try to forsee the future as it were, and perhaps wind up our visiting Tories at the same time.

Here's a link to the 1983 manifesto. I suggest readers skip through the intro by Michael Foot, which seems a little longwinded, and skip straight to the manifesto proper.
 
One thing they promised was the nationalisation of the banks. Of course we arn't seeing full nationalisation now, only a government stake in the banks, but this is as near as we are going to get in our lifetimes!

Other promises in that manifesto:

1. Introduction of minimum wage (Acheived by New labour in 1997)

2. Introduction of Freedom of information bill (achieved by New labour in 2000)

3. Reform of the house of lords (well, it's partly been done, the hereditary peers have gone)

4. Devolution to Scotland (New Labour delivered devolution to Scotland and Wales and London in 1998)

5. "Encourage the development of effective traffic management schemes to alleviate the problems of traffic congestion" (Ken Livingston managed to deliver congestion charge to London in 2003)

6. Program of works to help the Construction industry (er.. delivered by Blair in bringing the Olympics festival of construction to London)

7. Raise pension payments in line with earnings rather than inflation (Labour's Pensions Bill of 2007 brings this in with effect from 2012)

8. Phase out TV licences for pensioners (well, Labour has abolished licences for the over 75s)

9. Reduce VAT (well Labour have managed to reduce VAT on domestic fuel from 8% to 5%)

10. "Establish an integrated system of child care with priority for children in the most deprived areas" (Labour have brought in Sure Start)

11. Increase child benefit in real terms (Labour have increased child benefit by over 55% since 1997, from £11.05 to £18.80 a week for the first child and from £9 to £12.55 for other children)

12. phase out married man's tax allowance (Labour has done that)

13. Increase Health spending by 3% per anum in real terms (we were spending 4.976% of GDP on health in 97, it's now 7.515% of GDP - not quite 3%, but not bad)

14. Abolish corporal punishment in schools (it was the Tories who achieved that in 1986)

15. Increase aid to the developing world to 0.7 per cent of Gross National Product (achieved by new Labour)

16. Reverse Tory cuts in maternity rights and increase the maternity grant (Labour increased maternity leave to 39 weeks at £117.18 per week, and this will increase to 52 weeks)

17. Urgent repair of run-down council estates (labour have upgraded 1 million council houses and built another 336937 affordable new homes.)


What hasn't happened of course is

1. withdrawal from EU (Labour is now opposed to this)

2. stop nuclear power stations (Labour is now committed to nuclear power)

3. introduce a new wealth tax (labour has no plans for this)

4. remove the ceiling on NI contributions (Labour has no plans for doing this, though we did introduce a 1% charge for earnings over the upper limit)

5. Build coal-powered stations (Labour is considering a station, but depends on CO2 emmissions, may not happen because of that)

6. Increase North Sea levy to 50% (we've increased it from 10% to 20% and there are no plans for further increases)

7. Repeal the Thatcher union legislation (not going to happen)

I was also interested to read about gas prices in the manifesto. Gas prices in 1983 (and in 1983 gas was still publicly owned) had been increased by by 116 per cent since 1979 - and it was done by the Thatcher government, not private sector. Which is staggering for just four years. Puts the current situation in perspective (especially as from 1997 to 2007 prices were stable).

Obviously it's a very long manifesto - so what other things in there do people find relevant for the modern world?

Display: Sort:

Re: Just for fun (#1)

Leave Nato
Nuclear disarmament

Re: Just for fun (#2)

I'd reinstate virtually all of it.

Re: Just for fun (#15)

As I have said  on my blog, so would I

Re: Just for fun (#3)

Both NATO and nuclear power/nuclear deterrants are Labour achievements brought in by Attlee's government. Why do you want to get rid of them?

Re: Just for fun (#4)

Because NATO is used by the Americans and conflicts with the EU.  We need to decide exactly where we are as a nation and stop trying to be all things to all men.

Nuclear power at best is only a medium term option.  There isn;t that much fuel - 40 years worth at current usage according to the Aussies ,  and as more countries build reactors it will deplete faster and the price will rise.  We also do not have a secure source with a secure supply route (unless we use what's in the warheads).  We need to be seriously developing clean coal, wave and solar.

Nuclear weapons are not needed any more.  Who exactly are we going to bomb.  The taliban?  Muqtada al Sadr's Mehdi Army?   Unless of course you can't sleep nights for worrying what Iran or North Korea might do.

Re: Just for fun (#5)

No but don't you get it?? Russia is back on the radar. We need an arsenal so that we can whipe the Kremlin off the face of the Earth.

Re: Just for fun (#6)

I was in the army in Germany when the wall came down.  For a laugh some of us went to Magdeburg which was the headqurters of the Soviet's main assault force for their invasion that never was - 3 Shock Army.  They were a shambles.  tanks with fake barrels tanks with no engines - a Russian Bear with blunt claws and no teeth.

Since then they have shrunk dramatically.  True they have increased defence spending but their equipment is out-dated, antiquated and unreliable.  The newer stuff is poorly made.  Their soldiers are in the main conscripts and conscripts are dodgey at the best of times.

They are not the USSR of old (which was overrated anyway) and never will be.

Re: Just for fun (#7)

We should put the emphasis on multilateral disarmament. Last year, we voted to reduce our arsenal by 20%. We should have gone for a more radical cut of say 50, or 60%. I personally would like to go for the Japanese option.

Re: Just for fun (#8)

Most EU members are also members of NATO (apart from the neutral countries like Ireland and Finland etc) so NATO is actually a sort of armed branch of the EU.

The reason to keep NATO and nuclear power is this - the future is an enigma, none of us can predict what will happen and anyone who claims they know is likely to be made a fool of (in the manner of the "end of history" crowd). Just because we go a long time without continental conflict does not mean there won't be any. There was a 100 years between the Battle of Waterloo and the start of WW1.

Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin knew that Britain couldn't sustain another big war on her own. So they came up with a Labour solution - collective defence, NATO, and talked the Americans into it (the Americans were not into the idea of collective anything, and Labour had to work hard to sign them up). You could argue that collective defence in Europe kept the peace these last 60 years. As for the next 60 years, we don't know what that holds, so we might as well hold onto the structures that have served us so well thus far. If it aint broke, don't mend it.

Re: Just for fun (#9)

Hear hear.

Re: Just for fun (#10)

In that case, we need to integrate into the EU properly - including the single currency - and form a proper defence pact along the line of NATO.  That way,  we will always only be doing whats best for Europe and unable to do what's best for America unless there is significant overlap.

And pigs will fly before that happens.

Re: Just for fun (#11)

I don't hear a strong argument for nuclear power in there, snowflake.

I don't think it's sensible to take an ideological position against nuclear power, but it's still legitimate to say that increasing reliance on nuclear just won't work in practice.  New nuclear won't come online before 2020.  But we will have a sizeable energy gap before then, both due to increasing demand in this country and due to our current nuclear power stations winding down.  We will have to meet that gap with non-nuclear measures before 2020- that means either energy efficiency measures, or renewables, or a combination of the two.

Nuclear gets in the way of that, I think, because the type of energy infrastructure that needs to be built in order to increase use of renewables and microgeneration is not the same as the type you need if you have lots of big nuclear power stations.

Bizarrely, all the government statements on this point almost equally strongly for renewables / energy efficiency as they do for nuclear.  I just fear that we're going to end up either undermining our work on renewables in the short term, in which case the only way we'd be able to meet the energy gap running up to 2020 would be by importing gas... probably from Russia.  Which would in turn make our climate change reducation targets probably impossible to meet- although I suppose it would make NATO membership and nuclear weapons 'relevant' again...

Re: Just for fun (#12)

It was a strong argument for nuclear deterrance actually (which requires a lot less uranium than nuclear power stations).

On nuclear power stations, you do have a point, but the nuclear/renewables debate is not an either/or decision. We can do both. I'm also rather keen on clean coal power stations - we have so much coal in Britain, and now the technology exists to reduce the pollution, I think we should go for it.

Re: Just for fun (#14)

Well you started the thread 'Just for Fun' but if you want me to be serious...

To describe the nuclear deterrent as an achievement of the Attlee government seems fairly bizarre.  After all, nobody knew - during the Attlee government - that we had developed the bomb.  I assume even Cabinet didn't know (certainly Bevan never suggested, after resigning, that the bomb was being developed).  Whatever we might think of that government's decisions regarding the bomb, if you put Attlee's words to the test of the current situation (not the situation that he was dealing with): 'A Labour Government, in organising the defence forces of the country, will, as I have stated, be doing so definitely on the basis of providing the forces necessary for the preservation of peace through the League of Nations.  It will not therefore be engaged in organising national defence forces, but international.  It will be working the for the abolition of national forces and for their replacement by an international police force.'  So an independent deterrent is anathema to Attlee's perspective; and we are committed to the non-proliferation treaty so, were we to commit ourselves to the sort of international polity that Attlee favoured, we should not have renewed Trident.

As for Nato - the alliance that exists is not the alliance that Attlee imagined.  Apart from anything else it is a Cold War relic (like the so-called independent deterrent) and actually prevents us from properly securing collective defence rather than encourages it.

Re: Just for fun (#13)

All of it.

Re: Just for fun - what other bits of that infam (#16)

0.7% of GDP to aid to developing countries has not yet been achieved, although we are making great strides towards it. Target date is 2013 - a budget that the Tories always cut when in office.

Just for fun (#17)

Tony benn's idea that the police federation become a union, can go on strike and join the tuc