My vision for the future

A Labourhome member writes

New Labour is dead in the water; its electoral credibility has been shattered and it's time we took a long hard look in the mirror, remember what we believe in, what we joined this great party for and look to the future. Gordon is the past, and he needs to go sooner rather than later if we are to remain a force in British politics. Here's my vision for the future, not for now, not necessarily for 2010 but for the long term health of the party.

I joined this party because it was a party of conscience, of vision and of clear direction. When I talk about conscience, I mean a sense of fairness, justice and morality. We were the party who cared about those who needed caring about in society. We weren't the party that stole from the pockets of those whose pockets we were supposed to be lining with the proceeds of economic prosperity. It's not just the 10p tax row that has gotten my back up; it's difficult to tell from our leaders what we believe in anyomore. Blair's vision has gone, with his exit went his direction. What has changed in the 12 months or so that Gordon has had the premiership, nothing. He promised us something different and has failed to deliver. Oh, it's true, the first few months were fine, but that was for the most part, people enjoying the honeymoon period after what they saw as a tired Blair. Gordy lampoons the Tories week in and week out for being "all style and no substance" but we're slowly going the same way. The man, once an economic powerhouse has become a damp squib, and lamentably now needs to be shown the door.

Maybe the Party needs an electoral defeat in 2010 to put its house in order, so to speak. Nothing is guranteed to make our leaders wake up and smell the roses like an electoral smack in the mouth. We need to recognise that to succeed for the future we need to focus on three key maxims, Progress, Change and Action. Many people have called for a "turn to the left" and fewer for a "turn to the right", but for me for the key is progression. We should be standing on a platform of progressive reforms, recognising that it isn't the 1970s and Bennite style Socialism isn't going to work. Giddens' mantras of "social justice" and "equality of opportunity" are words that shouldn't just be bandied around as powerful pieces of political rhetoric but are words that must be enacted.

Taxation should be reformed properly and progressively, recognising that ordinary people are earning more nowadays, these people should be taken out of the top rate of tax, and the lowest earners taken out of tax altogether. Those who have benefitted most from our economic buoyancy should give something back, a proper level of tax on the super rich to properly address the grave inequalities existing in Britain today. We need to get more money in the pay packets of ordinary folk, the minimum wage needs augmenting, reflecting the increasing cost of living, personal tax allowances too; we should be letting people know that we are on there side. Council tax is a regressive tax that needs reforming and annual increases need to be capped. I want better local services for everyone, but it needs to reflect ability to pay and not hit those on low and fixed incomes, the vulnerable people like pensioners.

We need proper regulation on businesses to ensure that consumers get a fair deal. Is it genuinely fair for Shell and BP to report record profits in the many hundreds of millions when hard working people are struggling to fill up at the pump?
 
The notions of the "common good" need to come back into our vernacular, we need to encourage businesses to realise that they have responsibilities to their stakeholders. We need to make sure that everyone can own their own home, this is a fundamental right denied to many today. It's all well and good making a couple of hundred million pounds available but it doesn't go far enough. First time buyers need proper help and we must deliver. The clue is in our name, we are the Labour Party- the party of the working man, not the party of capital and billionaires. We need to be representing and safeguarding the needs of the people that need our help.

This is the direction we need to adopt under a new leadership. The so called "Primrose Hill" gang of the Milibands, the Purnells, the Burnhams, the Alexanders, the Byrnes of the party, need to stop thinking of themselves as "Blairites" and "Brownites", reconcile any differences they might have had and step up. These people are bright, young and charismatic with broad appeal, I see David Miliband as the next Blair, not in policy terms, but as the person capable of changing our Party with decisive action like Blair did in 1997. He needs to step up to the plate, recognise that he is the future, that we, the party are behind him, and that he is the man best equipped to lead our party into another successful administration back with the principles that we all share. We need to balance the accurate portrayal of our principles with electability, we need to capture the hearts and minds of those people that count, ordinary people and then we will be a party that we can justifiably be proud of again. People need to know what we stand for once again, and that we will deliver for them, because that is our responsibility, because that is what we belive to be just.

Progress, Change, Action: 3 words that will define our success in the future. If we can deliver those three things, united behind a new leader, we will succeed, otherwise we will fail. That is the bleak truth that we now face.

Progress, Change, Action
Michael Brown



Display: Sort:

Re: My vision for the future (#1)

I stopped reading at "recognising that it isn't the 1970s and Bennite style Socialism isn't going to work."

Anyone who uses the old "not going back to the 70s" canard really must do better when explaining why Bennism doesn't work.

Anyone who mentions Michael Foot gets minus points. Foot was not a Bennite or the left-wing candidate for leader.

Re: My vision for the future (#23)

My objection isn't necessarily to Bennite policies (although I wouldn't support it as the main ideology for Labour), it is to Benn. His actions in the '80's were slightly egotistical, and perhaps oppertunist. His supporters were trying to purge anyone to the right of Benn from the party. There were many needless deselections. He did immeasurable damage to the coalition of the party.

Similarly, I don't support the purging of the left of the party. I don't think Benn is a nasty man, and he now seems to genuinely believe in what he stands for, but he was all to quick to denounce the Callaghan and Wilson governments he was a part of, while never being known as the most left-wing member of the party. I believe his actions in the '80's are a disservice to the actions of many on the left (Nye Bevan, Foot, Barbara Castle).

Also, Michael Foot is a very principled man. His views are what socialism should be: universal. He doesn't just oppose fascism in Spain, Germany, Chile, Argentina, Serbia, but he also opposed communist tyranny in the Soviet Union, and the rest of the Eastern bloc, when many on the left didn't.

Re: My vision for the future (#30)

I agree with everything you write. Whatever you think of Benn as an man, his Marxian pursuit of ideological purity did Labour no good at all, and contributed to keeping our party out of power when Britain needed a progressive alternative to the brutality of Thatcherism.

Re: My vision for the future (#33)


This is just nonsense.  'Marxian pursuit of ideological purity'?  Tony Benn is and always has been a firm believer in the the broad church of the Labour movement.  The fact that Tony didn't read any Marx until the late seventies at the earliest is beside the point.  The idea that people who want the leadership to follow the policies passed at it's sovereign body, the conference, are engaged in a 'Marxian pursuit of ideological purity' is a ridiculous one.

What Tony did believe in was trying to make everybody more accountable and, yes, that included trying to make Labour MPs more accountable to the people that selected them.  Why not?  The events of the last few years have shown that many Labour MPs see themselves as superior to the activists to whom they owe a living.  I was told of MPs who resented being lobbied by members re: their nominations in the leadership and deputy leadership elections last year!!  Why the hell should they resent that?

Yours (and t'other chap's) analysis - based, presumably on Foot's own 'Loyalists and Loners' and the ill-informed ramblings of Johann Hari - are a mixture of disinformation, pure propaganda and political jealousy. The truth is that Foot - whom I respect, as a radical liberal of integrity - voluntarily ceded the leadership of the left to Benn, in exchange for the future leadership of the party; and then spent a decade resenting the fact that Benn picked it up and used it, as Foot had, rather than declaring the End of History.  The charge that Benn was egotistical is simply untrue.  Tony was given the heavy burden of being the credible candidate of the left and took up that mantle despite personal misgivings because of the strong pressure from the grassroots who, through him, had hope.  Tony did not demonise the Wilson and Callaghan governments, as Foot and Hari suggest, he criticised them: rightly as there was plenty to criticise.  Foot criticised them himself.

The Labour Left has had many leading figures and most of them have been demonised until a point where they can be reincarnated as national treasures (sometimes this takes an aging conservativisation, sometimes death; only really Barbara Castle, Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner achieved this in still radical, active life).  Foot was criticised in all the ways Benn was (he had the whip removed for two years, which Benn never had); he edited Tribune during the 50s when it was a furiously anti-leadership newspaper; I would never accuse him of doing any of this through egotisim.  He did it because he believed in it.  So did Tony.  There was no 1970 conversion, based on ambition.  This is a fantasy.  Benn was an H-bomb rebel in the 50s; was invited to join the Bevanites but was reluctant to be too aligned to one group in his early parliamentary career (not for reasons of ambition); from the late '50s for quite some time Benn met with Foot and other leading left-wingers (basically the Bevan group without Bevan) and was seen as one of the left ministers, alongside Foot and Castle, for most of the '60s.  Benn was prepared to confront the content of Powell's Rivers of Blood speech in a way the leadership at the time was very unwilling to do. 

Don't believe everything some spotty kid in the Independent writes (after all he spent two years condemning everybody who opposed the Iraq War only to anounce that he now realises they were right and he was wrong!)

Re: My vision for the future (#43)

Ok, point taken.

Btw, I would agree partially with Hari's analysis of war (I just wish World Bank neo-liberalism hadn't been enforced upon Iraq). We do need to get out, but in a way that presevres democracy for Iraq. My simple wish is that while it is just to hold Blair to account for spinning his case for war, we must also help the PUK and the IFTU in any way possible.

We must support the democratic longing of the Iraqi people, while saying that the model to rebuild Iraq must be based on how the US built up Germany and Japan. Iraq has mass unemployment, and it rises amongst Sunni young men. There is mass inequality. I personally believe that if we reform the IMF and World Bank, we can then agree that Iraq must have control over their own oil supplies, so that it is no longer in the hands of a privatised mafia cabal, greedy Chinese, French and Russian oil companies, or in the hands of Republican backing oil lobbyists in America. To fight the insurgency, we must fight for a social democratic future in Iraq.

Re: My vision for the future (#53)

"We must support the democratic longing of the Iraqi people..."

No we don't.

This sounds like the people in my Union branch who, when faced with the need to advance the interets of members at work try to get us to spend branch funds on foreign causes.

The Labour Party, and this debate, needs to focus on ther British people. The Nats are in power - not just office - in Scotland delivering social democratic policies because enough electors thought that they put our people first and they thought that Labour didn't. 

Re: My vision for the future (#55)

I can't believe your saying that we shouldn't support democracy for Iraqis, or everyone for that matter. This MUST be a point anti-war, and pro-war people should agree on.

Re: My vision for the future (#32)

It was down to Benn and all those activists who campaigned for democracy in the party that we won the right to elect our leader...

Doh!

Re: My vision for the future (#44)

I simply don't agree with that. I believe that John Smith played a bigger part in insuring democratic elections. In 1981, several unions voted with block votes (in Americain-style electoral college fashion (winner takes all)), against their members wishes. Ditto for CLP's. Healey under a democratic system would have gained more votes.

Re: My vision for the future (#46)

Well, that's not my recollection about John Smith playing a prominent role. Whatever you say about Benn he did spend the early 80s campaigning relentlessly for democratic reform of the party.

And on the block vote - there is nothing undemocratic about a federated structure (think of the US constitution for example). The union link is one good reason for remaining in this party.

Re: My vision for the future (#48)

I think it is undemocratic to have the TGWU bosses being able to immedietly decide 8% of the electoral college: particuarly against their member's wishes.

Re: My vision for the future (#49)

Against their members views wishes? Well ideally they should represent their members wishes, and members should hold officials to account. But we are talking, with the Labour Party about a federated structure and there is nothing undemocratic about that at all.

Similarly representative democracy involves representatives like a union general secretary taking decisions on their members' behalf. My MP may take decisions on behalf of constituents that don't necessarily reflect constituents' views, and there is nothing intrisically undemocratic about that - unless you are advocating an Athenian style direct democracy...

Re: My vision for the future (#50)

Dont the Unions still work under the old bloc structure within the party? I.E they hold a vote internally before giving the Labour party the majority result?

Re: My vision for the future (#51)

Well you might not agree with it, it's what happened.  Before 1981 only MPs had a vote.  Neil Kinnock was the first Labour leader to be elected by a wider electorate - the electoral college.  It is still essentially the same system we have now, though there is now the 'OMOV' element. 

So - praise John Smith by all means, but the reforms that led to us going beyond just MPs were spearheaded by Benn.

Of course, looking at the system now, it is clear that it is still unsatisfactory; the MPs still play far too massive a role in the process (choosing the candidate list - through the nomination process - AND having a 1/3 of the college which, even when the PLP is big, is nothing like 'one member one vote' - is now a bigger role than the MPs have in the other two main parties, even though we were the pioneers of internal party democracy in the first place)

Re: My vision for the future (#52)

I personally support complete OMOV

Re: My vision for the future (#56)

Yes but Duncan, the leader of the Party has to be able to gain the support of the Parliamentary Party otherwise it will be difficult to get legislation through - it's perfectly understandable that MP's should have their share of the vote.

My biggest concern is people who have not joined the Labour party voting in our internal elections.

Re: My vision for the future (#57)

Well that isn't my biggest concern!  Many will choose not to exercise their vote.  Those that do, their vote is worth a tiny proportion of the votes of members and a virtually non-existent proportion of the votes of MPs.  In exchange for that, it keeps our internal democracy rooted in the broader labour movement and the working class.

My concern is that the PLP have it tied up at both ends.  The PLP are our representatives; we select them, we're part of the larger group who elect them; we can deselect them; they're there to implement our policies (unless unable to under their conscience).  As such they should be happy to accept our choice as leader.

If the system is one where only the PLP's choice should be able to win then everything else is an expensive PR exercise and we might as well return to the pre-1981 situation.  I'd rather not do that; we're already falling behind other parties in terms of internal democracy without further retrograde steps.

I'm not arguing for a reduction in the PLP vote (despite my strong misgivings about the democratic deficit); all I'd request would be a reduction in the threshold required for nomination, so that at least there would ALWAYS be a contest when there was a vacancy, and all members would get a chance to vote for their preferred candidate, and any lesser evilism gets worked out via the preferential voting rather than through the nominations.

Re: My vision for the future (#2)

In response to that, my contention perhaps was slightly pooprly worded, in that when I meant "isn't going to work" as in it is not electorally sustainable, rather than impractical. I'd like to think we can build a new Jerusalem but we can only do that with the electorate on our side. Perhaps, that clears things up. Moreover, perhaps I could persuade you to read on...

Re: My vision for the future (#7)

OK, being a bit more constructive this time...

I don't agree with the basic premise of New Labour which is that socialist policies are electorally unsustainable.

Agree with some of what you say.

Although it's not the be all and end all, the decline in membership numbers must a) tell the leadership of the party something, and b) be one of the reasons why we are struggling to hold onto council seats outside Labour strongholds. I know that in the London elections we simply didn't have the manpower to GOTV in Inner London AND work hard in our areas of support in the doughnut.

Re: My vision for the future (#8)

I don't think that Socialist policies are intrinsically unsustainable electorally, merely that the way in which they have been put across in the past, have made them appear as such. We need to be moving forward embracing aspects from different periods in our history from Benn and Blair alike and putting them forward in a way which is about action, desicion and proactivity, rather than at present where Gordon waits for something to go wrong and tries to fix it. It's about reasserting our principles in an appealing manner.

I'd agree that perhaps policy needs to be padded out, I don't claim to be an expert on economic or social policy. What my intention was, was to instigate a debate on here, amongst people like myself, at the grass roots of the Party about where we are headed, where the future lies and what sort of approach we should be adopting. My main contention is that, in my view, things as they stand are stale and need reinvigorating and my proposals are a solid start, just that, a start, from which we can launch a campaign whereby we can sustain our rightful place at the forefront of British politics.

We need to win back the faith and trust of the electorate in the immediate future with good housekeeping and modest reform so that further on, we can implement a broader and more wide reaching system of major reform.

Re: My vision for the future (#16)

I agree. the fact is that the 'old' socialism will no longer work; many of those who espoused it are now elderly or no longer with us. Labour has to speak to a new generation of voters brought up in a technological age, with no memory of the post-war Govt, or the Wilson Govt, or the battles of the 80's.

Re: My vision for the future (#35)

What is the 'old' socialism?

Socialism is a belief system, an economic model, whatever you want to call it. Old and new are irrelevant words, except inasmuch as New Labourites like to paint anything leftish as "backwards" and anything rightwing as "progress".

Re: My vision for the future (#3)

The fact is the Tories are the Tories tax cuts, getting in private companies to run the NHS , benefits, cutting jobs in the public sector to cut cost.

What have we got with Labour, private companies to run the NHS, private companies to run the welfare state, rising taxation, and the same old bluff.

The problem is with both parties they are fighting the same old things, we have nothing to vote for. Do you believe the Tories well nope I do not, do you believe Labour nope I do not.

The fact is for the first time in my life time I have to look hard to find a different in all three parties.




Re: My vision for the future (#4)

Yeah we all know that, but what're we going to do about it? I think the ideas here are a bit wishy-washy - let's have a few practical 'municipal socialist' policies: making some more things free for everyone.

Re: My vision for the future (#10)

That's a fair enough observation. I quite agree we could give more things free to more people. Extending the free bus travel scheme from the elderly to those on low incomes, so they are less burdened by spiralling fuel costs, perhaps. We should, quite rightly make education from nursery all the way to university, free, decreasing the financial burden on families when at this time, they really need it, opening access to good quality education that is free at the point of need. One less thing for parents with young children to worry about and one less thing for budding scholars to worry about.
 
I want to stimulate a debate on this type of thing, the people visting this site are the people that matter, the grass roots. My intention with the piece was to get the ball rolling on a debate about where we need to be headed, in frank realisation, that at present our electoral chances are diminishing.

Re: My vision for the future (#5)

I'm not sure the next election's lost. The fact is Labour are still in government and still have two years to turn things around. What I think the public are desperate for is signs of some good old fashioned sensible housekeeping, spend a little less than we've got coming in, don't tax ordinary people till they bleed, less crazy news headlines like war heros being told their bins won't be emptied because they've put a sauce bottle in the wrong place, or someone getting a criminal record because their bin lid's open 4 inches on collection day - it's all getting a bit silly and I agree with you I think as a party we've forgotten what we're about. Is it right that we're allowing energy companies to make billions in profits while they put up our gas and electricity bills by 30% or 40% a year? This shouldn't be happening after 11 years of a Labour government.

I've got three books on my table as I write - David Craig's "Squandered" and "plundering the public sector", and "The Bumper Book of Government waste 2008".

If only a fraction of what's in these books is true we wouldn't need to be having discussions about why we have over a million of our poorest people who are still going to be paying more income tax even after we've just borrowed an extra £2.7 billion.

£70 billion to management consultants who know nothing about the public sector? Billions to new quangos, some whom are doing the same jobs as each other? If we could just cut back on even a little of this we wouldn't need to borrow that £2.7 billion at all, would we? Our hearts are in the right place but maybe we've taken our eye off the ball a bit.

If we could just admit mistakes have been made and cut the waste we could recover I'm sure of it. The 2010 election's not lost yet. 

Re: My vision for the future (#9)

The next election is not necessarily lost yet, but if things do not improve soon, and when I say soon, I mean within three or four months, then it will be, and that defeat would then be what the party maybe requires to sort itself out.

I agree with you, we have been too bureaucratic, wasted money that should have been spent on the worthy causes, those people who need it most. Maybe, though, it is a change of leadership that could spark this. A little bit of a new direction, swift action. I hoped that this would be the case with Gordon and it hasn't been that way and that is why the time is right for a leadership change, now or after an election defeat. I've Gordon a fair chance, I wanted him to succeed as much as anyone, but for the sake of the party, action and change are needed.

Re: My vision for the future (#19)

I agree with you Tolpuddle.

Re: My vision for the future (#6)

I have a problem with your "progress, change, action" which seem quite empty and could apply to any political party at all.

We risk a polarisation of the party (as your somewhat careless "Bennite socialism isn't going to work" emphasises). And we need to acknowledge political differences whilst rebuilding a coalition of the left and centre (or as Livingstone recently expressed it - putting ourselves at the centre of such an alliance - thus recognising the need for allies outside the party).

Most of your policy suggestions are modest but OK as far as they go - though in truth I feel that many of them could be probably be supported by Tories and liberal democrats.

I'm not at all sure that putting Miliband in charge would help with anything at all - and he seems pretty much identified with the right. We need someone capable of rebuliding our coalition. But, when talking about leadership we need to think about: the consequences of replacing a leader at this time, the practicality of replacing a leader at this time, and whether the outcome would positiviely influence our prospects at the general election (I have doubts on all three fronts actually).

As for three words for a slogan - how about 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'?

Re: My vision for the future (#31)

'Liberty, Equality, Community' would be better perhaps. Although that may sound too communitarian (something I oppose). Some nice word related to societal cohesion would be nice. To indicate our better vision for a Britain without so much of the Tories' dog-eat-dog market fundamentalism.

Re: My vision for the future (#11)

Interesting.

A suggestion – if you feel the party is a party of conscience, vision and clear direction – why not make those your suggested maxims? Why not make “fairness, justice and morality” the maxims?

The reality is that for some people we’re talking about politics – for others we’re talking about marketing. I often struggle to tell the difference.

The reason, I believe, why people are so angry about the abolition of the 10p tax band is that we are held to a higher standard than other parties. Rightly so. People were more than disappointed – they felt betrayed…and they were but they were betrayed by a mistake. Not our “direction” or “vision” – just a stupid mistake.

With regard to the 10p band abolition – tell me what we’re talking about. Is it the principle of it or is it the amount of money?

If we’re talking about the money then we absolutely must do something about the cost of local government and getting a better deal for consumers. Perhaps that involves shutting our bloody mouths when someone suggests where we can save on waste? Perhaps we don’t ruin every discussion of tax cuts as a Tory “black hole” creator – especially when we’re as willing to create them. Perhaps it means telling David Cameron to shut his cakehole when he talks about fewer regulations for markets on the one hand but would’ve intervened in Northern Rock.

If were talking about the principle – then are people really credibly suggesting that the new party of the working class is the Conservative Party? The ground goes that quickly?

If we want to discuss principles ever again and be serious – we should de-select Steve McCabe. The moronic, imbecilic, ruinous Crewe campaign should be apologised for and we should ask the Tories and Lib Dems to sign a “no gutter politics” campaign pledge with us from now on.

You are right about better regulation for businesses and more progressive taxation but let’s not pretend there has been no progress made. The well off pay massive sums of tax and businesses didn’t have CSR programmes in the nineties. Everyone is very well aware of the common good but I’m sure we can all do better. The “common good” is not out of “our vernacular” and it’s depressing and offensive to suggest that it is.

I struggle to think of great achievements since 2005 but, at the very least, have the decency to give credit where it’s due. We have massively changed the debate in Britain into one more favourable for open-minded, left-leaning progress.

We may need a term in opposition to sharpen our minds and kick out the complacent but please, in all this discussion about vision, direction and all other blather - let’s acknowledge massive progress the Party has made for itself and more importantly, much more importantly, the country.

Re: My vision for the future (#13)

the last bit of the first paragraph should read 'for the longterm health of the country' surely.

Also for what it's worth, I think the labour party is doomed so long as it keeps banging on about toffs, the rich, the working class and so on. Tony Blair recognized the inherent apsiration in working people.  Like Mrs Thatcher he recognized the existence of the aspirational classes. He recognized that 'profit' was not a dirty word. profits leads to good share price leads to good investment for private pension funds leads to pensioners not reliant on state handouts.. surely a good thing.. as an example.

 

Re: My vision for the future (#37)

"Why not make “fairness, justice and morality” the maxims?"

Because Labour is not showing any of the three. Fairness means "targeted discrimination", justice means locking up people before they commit any crime and morality means "do as I say, not as I do".

Look at the cabinet - full of rich people and champagne socialists, ex-public school boys and girls (Harriet Harman apparently went to a posher school than the Crewe & Nantwich "Tory Toff") - they even have millionaire ex-tory Woodward.

Until the labour movement (and socialism) takes a good hard look at itself and finally admits that what they say and what they do are miles apart, then don't expect a recovery in party fortunes.

 

Re: My vision for the future (#39)

I wouldn’t say miles apart…

These same criticism can be made of the Conservatives.

The Tories have all women shortlists. They (the Conservatives) “locked up” Catholics in Northern Ireland in the seventies and eighties even when it was found they HADN’T done anything and don’t we all remember the family values Tories and "back to basics" protagonists who were caught lying about their extra-marital affairs.

Your criticisms are perfectly valid but they are criticisms based in the general hypocrisy of politics and politicking.

Re: My vision for the future (#41)

"The Tories have all women shortlists...."

And the Labour party doesn't....????

 

"They (the Conservatives) “locked up” Catholics in Northern Ireland in the seventies and eighties even when it was found they HADN’T done anything"

Well then, isn't there a lesson to be learned there? Rather than repeating 20 year old mistakes with this 42-day nonsense should we realise that proper policework can be done without convicting people before you charge them? I grew up in Northern Ireland and I remember internment well, I remember the division it fostered and how ineffective it was.

 

"and don’t we all remember the family values Tories and "back to basics" protagonists who were caught lying about their extra-marital affairs."

Yes - but that was just pure entertainment. :-)

 

Re: My vision for the future (#42)

The Labour Party does - of course - I was just making a point attempting to contextualise your "Labour needs to look at itself" point.

On your other points I'm in full agreement.

To David Cameron's credit, in his leadership election, he said it was because of internment that much was lost in NI and that as a policy it was a disaster.

I also can't understand why the Government persists with this 42 day nonsense and indeed I often consider it an issue worth tearing the membership card up for...

Up Sligo!!

Re: My vision for the future (#12)

Why is getting rid of Brown a necessary part of your vision?

The electorate, and the commentariat, are devastatingly fickle.  Remember the Brown Bounce?  Last year Gordon Brown seemed, for a short while at least, to bear the hopes of many on the centre-left who had been disillusioned with Blair and wanted someone more solidly social democratic.  Even his bookish charmlessness seemed an asset at that point: a breath of fresh air of 10 years of Blair.

How long ago that all seems.  But Brown still represents the best hope for Labour: to ditch him now would present Labour as hopelessly conflicted and unelectable.  Brown has genuinely social democratic instincts - on poverty, on international aid - and needs some substance that articulates these instincts.  His worn criticism of the Tories - all style, no substance (or some permutation thereof) - is looking increasingly like a criticism of his own government.  The most substantive policy his government has managed has been a 2.7bn pound tax rebate to cover the 10p tax fiasco, in time, of course, for the by-election.

Labour needs a big change in direction, you are right, but I think there would be massive negative consequences from a leadership challenge at this point.

http://fabians.org.uk/general-news/general-news/-change-can-still-be-brown-s-winning-formula

Re: My vision for the future (#36)

The electorate are remarkably fickle but I can't help thinking that this is it. The electorate have lost faith completely. The loss is now irrevocable in my opinion. Even a men such as Gordon, with his courage, couldn't do it now. The 10p thing, and I do hate to go on about it, has been seen as a betrayal and people haven;t taken it lightly- they see Labour has renaged on what it believes in and a leadership, will help to solve the problem.

We have two years, probably, until an election, ample time for a new leader to consolidate his position and regain control of affairs. 

If Gordon can turn it round, hat's off to him. I'll hold up my hands and admit I was wrong. Look, I admired Gordon Brown over the last ten years, really admired him as a hero, but we can't afford to get sentimental, when the future of the party, and more importantly, the nation are at stake.

Re: My vision for the future (#45)

"I can't help thinking that this is it. The electorate have lost faith completely"

As a floating voter I can tell you what concerns me.

Security.

The need for security is being vastly overplayed. "keeping you safe" is actually becoming "keeping me watched". There is virtually nowhere I can go, nothing I can do and no-one I can speak to without being seen, observed or listened to. I have no privacy of any kind. I have no criminal record either so it is not like I'm trying to hide nefarious activities.

Now, before anyone trots out the old saw about "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" let me point out that the German identity system that was set up to assist its govt. was then used some years later by one Mr A. Hitler to round up those he did not like.

Just because the current govt. is benign it does not mean that its successors will be. Also having this data available will invite misuse and intrusion.

If the tories put it in their manifesto to abloish ID cards and start rolling back the highly useless CCTV then I will have to give them serious consideration.

Re: My vision for the future (#14)

Personally sitting here sort of on the right-wing of things I feel Labour has a number of problems and I hope to explain why in a largely non-insulting manner. I also note, unfortunately, the fuel argument came up again, which is a shame as I may froth at the mouth slightly during my response to that, but here goes:

The Labour Party is the “Young Pup” of the Political Parties, formed in the 1920’s during the rise of the concept of socialism it has found itself in a nigh-permanent uphill struggle to actually gain power in it’s original forms, only managing a year long minority government in 1924 and then again in a minority government during  the 30’s. The Labour party became a credible force during the 1960’s and 70’s but was then absolutely shattered by Thatcher.

With the collapse of the USSR and many communist/socialist states a vast majority of the Socialistic arguments were rapidly debunked, especially economically. This meant that the Labour Party continued to drift, until someone with an Admiration for Thatcher came to the fore. Tony Blair. The sheer brilliance of Blair is that he realised that a lot of the country is “naturally” Centre-Right. They like change, but prefer it to be careful and progressive. [Don’t agree with me? Check the number of Tory Governments to Labour ones during the 20th Century, it’s 5 to about 15] Hence Blair set about drawing on Right Wing ideas to bridge the gaps between the electorate. With Brown the Labour Party seems to have crunched into reverse gear and propelled itself back into a microcosm of the Callaghan era, only much much quicker.

This is because Labour doesn’t really have an ideological leg to stand on any more, and I feel that this will continue for some time yet, maybe seeing the Labour Party nearly wiped out and pushed into a genuine minority opposition. [This is assuming C&N is lost to the Tories, that’s  165th on the target list. Meaning 164 Mps are heavily under threat]. The reality is the Party of the Left tries to resort to a hard-left approach to social injustice, which has too much burecratising as a result of it. The Labour Party at the moment is perceived as “Nanny knows best” through various systems that are disliked such as Tax Credits and numerous stories of overzealous H&S and Social Services Personnel. “The State is Supreme”.

If it wants to stand a chance, it’s got to look towards stepping away from people’s lives, being able to take a deep breathe and step away, it has to cut into taxes and try to cut down on government waste to nearly eliminate borrowing altogether. Which brings me on to fuel. Shell and BP make most of their money, not in petrol, but in Plastic manufacture and oil refinement, that’s where the record profits for the price of a barrel have been coming from. The sky-high petrol prices come from the Blair-Brown governments. Actual real term price of petrol per litre before Fuel Duty is only about 40p. Once we throw on all the increases such as FDT and VAT you get the staggering £1.10 per litre “average”.

The British have always had a natural hatred of high taxation, if the old fashioned Tax Rebellions are anything to go by, so making funded tax cuts instead of “desperate” borrowing may be the way forward.

Re: My vision for the future (#15)

What an utter load of ill-informed, historically ignorant nonsense.

How many more Tories can this site take before Labour members stop bothering to post on here?

Re: My vision for the future (#17)

Exactly where am I historically ignorant?

Re: My vision for the future (#28)

Well you could make an argument for the Labour Party being formed in the 1890s, 1900 or 1906, but there really is no case for saying it was formed in the 1920s.  The two minority governments between the wars were 1924 and 1929.  You missed out a rather important Labour government between 1945 and 1951, one which came to power in a landslide, on a radical, socialist, redistributive agenda.  Incidentally, even when they lost - in 1951 - Labour got the highest share of the popular vote, and in fact, numerically, the highest Labour vote ever.

So, the stuff from long ago was inaccurate and oddly selective.  The more recent stuff is just nuts - Gordon Brown has followed in Blair's steps absolutely as far as maintaining the centrist positioning is concerned.  It may not seem it from your perspective but as far as I can see the government's bigger problem is that the public are now to the left of the government on the vast majority of issues (there are one or two notable exceptions).

But it's interesting to discuss the historical angle on all this, even though I disagree with you.  Your point about Labour being a 'young pup' has a certain truth to it and, as such, the fact that it dominated, politically, four and a half of the decades that have passed since the Second World War is a testament to the British people's acceptance of a party of the left.

Re: My vision for the future (#18)

I disagree with your analysis.  British Social Attitudes surveys show that even through the Thatcher years, the British electorate retained (and still does retain) a solidly social democratic predisposition on many issues.  The British electorate is generally comfortable with high levels of taxation and expenditure, and, for all the bleating about the "nanny state", sees a legitimate role for the government in interevening in society more generally.

The electoral success of Blair does not lie in that fact that he accepted the Thatcherite economic settlement wholesale - although, of course, mass nationalisation of industry, and so on, had become unviable - but that he presented a government that was confident, moderate, and competent.  Thatcher's success, on the other hand, was actually in spite of many of her policies: the missing link, again, was that she presented a government of conviction and competence (especially at a time when the opposition was divided, and too radical for the electorate). 

In other words, there is space in British politics - and there are votes out there - for a party genuinely of the left, that manages to present itself as capable and competent, and that truly has a distinct vision for Britain.

Re: My vision for the future (#20)

Good counter post, but I think, if one looks, there tends to be "breaking points" historically for English and the overal British people. Most recently I think we can safely quote the Poll Tax and the 10p tax band. What you may see is a high tolerance, as opposed to being "comfortable" with it. The British have an attitude of "I'm alright Jack" and tend to moan a lot before actually doing something. However I don't think Labour can easily ignore the disparity between the number of times there have been Labour Governments to Conservative Ones. To me that shows either one of two things.

1) Either the Conservatives are more governmentally competent or 2) They tend to be societally and politically Centre-Right.

Re: My vision for the future (#38)

I appreciate your view but, predictably, disagree with the analysis. I think what you’ve written is more interpretation than analysis.

Your post begs the question: Why have the Conservatives had to lurch to the left to become electable?
People had eight years to get sick of Labour in 2005 but people didn’t believe that Tories were a credible administration to deal with immigration, crime and the NHS which made the centre pieces of their campaign. The most right-wing manifesto in years saw the Tories resoundingly defeated, for a historic third time.

Nobody likes high taxation – that much is absolutely true. What people are more wary of though is the false economy of inadequate taxation and government investment.

Given the simple messaging of politics, it’s also difficult to beat a party who says that it will be cheaper monetarily but makes no reference to the social cost of underfunding public services.

Do you believe Britain to be more right wing than Australia (tough on immigration) or than the USA (where the hard line on crime has imprisoned more people per population than anywhere else in the world) or than Ireland (socially conservative, tax cutting economy)? I think not.  

There is no question that the Conservatives were the natural party of power in the 20<sup>th</sup> Century. They certainly were. Labour only got in when the pendulum swung back our way. This has changed, I think, because Labour were first to recognise that ideology could be adhered to without being dogmatic.

We dropped Clause 4 because sometimes publicly owned is best and sometimes it isn’t. It is completely wrong to say that either public or private ownership is uniformly better than the other in all circumstances. We grew up. We were first.

Our current problems do not come from ideology or direction, they come from incompetence (phantom election, lost tax disks), personality politics (memoirs, Blair/Brown history) poor marketing (Brown’s uncommunicative persona, dirty campaign in Crewe) and the perceived handsome cut of David Cameron’s gib.  That’s it.

Re: My vision for the future (#40)

I mean 'jib'.

D'oh!

Re: My vision for the future (#24)

Well, simply matching the governments of the 20th century up is not a good argument. It was not a Conservative century: universal sufferage, the collapse of the European empires, and the forces of white supremacism. Free trade unions, gay rights, universal healthcare, social security, universal education. The emancipation of women, Keynesian economics, a progressive taxation system. I could go on and on. I wouldn't say socialist arguments were debunked, but there was a collapse in the morale of the Left. Many liberated countries voted for centre-right candidates, yes. Perhaps it was a reaction of being held under a "left-wing" tyranny (there was nothing remotely left-wing about communist tyrannies).

You seem to be saying, that WE don't realise that the majority of the public aren't as progressive as we are. I'm not so sure of that, and you are falling into a trap that New Labour mistakingly fell into also. Just because the Daily Mail say they're the voice of Middle England, and the Sun say they're the voice of the people, it doesn't mean it's true. I give 3 particular statistics when people say that others aren't as left-wing as me.

54% are against the renewal of Trident
70% support redistibuting wealth
66% support workers being able to have a say about their rights in the workplace

Support for non-proliferation has risen. Unquestionable. I know I would've been in the minority for supporting non-proliferation in the '80's. Redistribution of wealth, is the doctrine of many, and despite denunciations of Blair, it could even apply to him. And co-operatives have always been a cause of the left. The balence has shifted to the left. Notice how the Tories masquerade themselves in a cloak of liberalism. Their is a disturbing right-wing demagogy infused into 'New Toryism'. Notice the controversies over non-doms, the uber rich, the 10p tax rate etc.


I have no idea where the idea that the Left loves beaurocracy comes from. I think many leftists support regulation, yes. This could be say, regulation of the stock market. But I agree there is too much beaurocracy, say in having quangos or trop de paperwork. I disagree with you however, in that I think reducing police paperwork would result in a huge reduction in crime. I think though that you greatly exaggerate the degree to which health and safety etc. is enforced.



Re: My vision for the future (#21)

A provocative piece. Your first paragraph made me furious but I agreed with lots of the ideas in your later paragraphs.


Britain needs a progressive government and won't get it from the Conservatives - so it's up to us to get out there and make the case to people and persuade them to vote for us in 2010. Government is difficult and inevitably there will be disappointments. But I think it's irresponsible to say we're disillusioned with this government so let's give up on it and start planning the next one. It doesn't work like that.

You're right that we're called "Labour" for a reason - but we must think of working people as a much bigger and broader group than just the traditional working class. The issues we need to champion are the concerns of ordinary middle-class Britain. New Labour stands up for all these people, and as soon as we move away from that concept and start discussing whether Foot was Bennite etc, we condemn Britain to another decade or two of backward-looking Tory government that will ignore the needs and aspirations of these people.

This isn't an academic discussion; it's about the life-chances of real people and if we really want to make a difference then we need to get out there behind our government and make it happen.

Re: My vision for the future (#22)

@ e10rifles - I'm not trolling. I am merely giving an opinion and I apologised at the start of the article if I caused offense, though I don't sit here saying "Labour iz rubbish, ner ner ner." like many Tory Trolls have on this website. I didn't really say I am allied to the Tories either, I said I am "Of the right" and am genuinely intrigued at the strange collapse by the Labour Party, I have opposing ideals to many of the Labourites on this website and I respect that. I only ask that I also be respected in my personal analysis of history and various other Labour-based problems.

Re: My vision for the future (#25)

I just want to make a small point about taxation. You're absolutely right it needs to more progressive, but I strongly disagree that people on low incomes should be taken out of tax, to 'give them a break' or simplify the tax system. It's been said a lot elsewhere as well so this is a general comment really.

I think it's really important that everyone pays tax, even if those on low incomes then get money back and you end up with a situation where money just moves in circles. Psychologically, I'd hate to be someone who felt like they did not contribute to the functioning of the country, and it would create a massive inequality between those who paid tax and those who didn't.

Re: My vision for the future (#26)

Dear Matt1986 what we already unfortunately have is an underclass supported by the state who pay no tax and a working class who pay with one hand and claim back with the other, surely it would be more effective to raise the level at which income tax kick in and get rid oftax credits. People wuld still pay nat insurance contributions so they would still be contributing to society. Looking at the moment like Nu Lab have very little if anything to offer especially after looking at the Crewe and Nantwich propaganda

Re: My vision for the future (#27)


My vision is one where we believe that all sections of society have a value and seek to invest in them to make their potential a reality.

We need to set up a more formal contract between us all of what we can expect from eachother and what we are expected to contribute.

and it starts in the classroom with a pledge that no child will leave school without the ability to read and write, regardless of how much effort has to be expended.  It continues into adulthood, where criminal behaviour is not subject to the latest initiative but tackled by a serious programme to turn the person around, including serious alternatives to prision such as removing the person from their situation altogether.

and it ends with a recognition that the private sector is the private sector and the public sector the public sector.  They each have their place and should be run accordingly and to the best of abilities.

We aren't going to be able to survive in the new era of globalisation unless we start to look at our country as a cohesive whole. 

We certainly cannot continue with the waste of talent that currently exists with those not in work and those with essential skills deficiencies and we need to face up to the fact that we cannot do this through some redistribution of wealth agenda as in an age of globalisation, higher taxes will simple lead to outward migration of our best talents. 

Unfortunately we are diverging from my vision as we seem to increasingly dehumanise sections of our society through 42 days, hassle squads and government by initiative. 

Ultimately, this is all about leadership and competence, not philosophies and I don't think we are well endowed with either currently.

Re: My vision for the future (#29)

Is it genuinely fair for Shell and BP to report record profits in the many hundreds of millions when hard working people are struggling to fill up at the pump?

Remind me how much we are paying in tax per litre of petrol? About 75% of the total cost isn't it?


Re: My vision for the future (#34)

Talking of visions for the future, Hopi Sen has a great analysis of David Cameron's "live within our means" speech, in fisked summary:

1. We will fund everything good. No ifs or buts or maybes. All good things are defintely IN.

2. We will root out everything bad and wasteful. We'll be relentless in rooting out all bad things. Make no mistake - bad things are OUT.

3. I'm not going to tell you which things are good and therefore IN and which things are bad and therefore OUT.

4. ...

6. First, we'll save money by doing really expensive things.

7. Then we'll save even more money by building new "free schools" and spending more money on deadweight costs in other public services

8. ...

 

Re: My vision for the future (#47)

Some of you are so way out your gone, the reason why Thatcher stayed in power was the Falklands war, she was dead in the water going to get beat and the war came up people thought she was a hero, sadly afterwords we learned how close we came to messing it up, but she won an election on the back of this, but like Labour Thatcher was in charge of a party which was falling, do not forget Labour came to power in 1997 and was shocked.

How is helping people wrong, Brown has shown he has a serious problem with Labour, he should have perhaps joined the Tories his tax plan for the poor would have been turned down by them. Sadly New Labour are a party which is not sure yet if it's Labour or not.

You cannot lose so many members without a reason, you cannot lose 4 million voters without something being wrong.

Anyone watch Panorama last night, the worse place in the country for sickness, but it's not London is, London now has the highest level of unemployment, even with the Olympic games being touted as being the greatest employment hike in history, parts of London still has massive sickness disability and unemployment so why hit Merthyr and not London to close to home perhaps

Re: My vision for the future (#54)

The cause of the problem is GB himself, it was his idea to interfere with pension funds in 1997 and  to tamper with the 10p tax band as chancellor last year.People see him as the problem why can Labour activists not wake up and see what the electorate see.The comments about working class are not relevant these days as that group  is a dwindling minority but people not in that group  see his all his actions as an outrage against their fellow man. Who gave the sanction to talk about immigration on doorsteps when Crewe is full of Poles? A party with no policies  wins an a landslide  victory what does that tell you about the level of dislike for the Labour Leader? The electorate  were sending a message -get rid of him now as party members did not get the message at the local elections! I reckon if we do not get rid of him before the end of the summer we will lose a massive number of parliamentary seats at the general  election.
We need a new leader who will then  arrange abolition of road tax and abolish council tax in a manifesto.