What the NPF can learn from Labourhome.
jkitleft Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 09:22:55 PM GMT 
Facebook
As ever, I agree with Polly Toynbee that the eclectic mixture of policies discussed at the NPF, like labelling fur products, don't inspire. They don't tell people who we are, and what we stand for.
We as a government, have talked right more than we've acted right. We've needlessly isolated Labour supporters who can be proud of many achievements, and rightly angry about right-wing symphonys on many policies.
We as a government, have talked right more than we've acted right. We've needlessly isolated Labour supporters who can be proud of many achievements, and rightly angry about right-wing symphonys on many policies.
Consider how Blair would score on the scale of Keir Hardie's priority list: not bad. 2 and a half out of three, with devolution, a minimum wage, and the (partial) abolition of heriditary peers.
But if we don't tell our core working class support what we stand for, noone else will.
Currently, the progressive wing of the cabinet are apparently mooting some radical policies, such as a windfall tax, a new tax rate at 100k, and a far heavier emphasis on jobs for renewables and cracking down on tax evasion.
The reason why triangulation is dead hasn't hit the uber-New Labourites. Or more accurately, the uber-triangulators. Flint, Blears, Hutton, Clarke, Milburn and Byers seem to believe that only emphasising a privatise the air platform can allow Labour to win. But the problem of triangulation hit Labour in late 2005, when Cameron was elected. Cameron stuck to a fake centrist ground. But the Milburnite wing of the party has been struck dumb by this, running around ever more like a headless chicken, while the Tories can sit with smug smiles at bewildering attempts to be right-wing from Brown and his merry men and women.
The best form of triangulation, would actually be to emphasise our progressive values, with the kind of radical suggestions being floated amongst the left-wing of New Labour, and Compass. Cameron would have to return to blue territory.
But where to start? Well, often the radical policies entail a direct shift towards one wing of the party. Either you accept a whole platform of McDonnelite or Milburnite ideas. Also, they're often not ground breaking. They often simply involve returning to a policy, like re-nationalising, or re-privatising an industry for example.
But in the three miserbale months since the Mayday Massacre, there have been some ideas floated on this website, which break new ground, in having not being discussed in the media as a whole. This certainly does not mean they are not credible.
I have two in particular. One is from Proudvotinglabour, and the other from Tony Hannon.
Proudvotinglabour suggests that we should legislate for all employees to have a share in the company they work for, and to give them rights to join together as shareholders, while giving shareholders rights to vote down pay packages without voting down whole annual reports.
This is a great way of introducing industrial democracy in the private sector, and could prove a boom for union membership.
Tony Hannon suggests that the BBC license fee should be abolished, and should be paid for through income tax. I think it would be a great way of preserving public broadcasting. Currently, the right are using the license fee to suggest the Beeb should be sold off. We cannot afford to sell our democracy away, by allowing Murdoch to gain control of the Beeb.
We should not cut any funding by switching to the income tax. But it would make massive savings in the 12% of magistrate cases about not paying the fee, and in administrative costs, as well as legal aid. We should use these savings for prison rehabilitation, BBC funding, and for increasing legal aid respectively.
Also, how about a new slogan, to fit with new policies to underline what we stand for. Lets go with what the Battersea Labour party once had as a slogan: "Not for me. Not for you. But for us."
If we can follow these examples, then it wouldn't be bad for the Labour party at all.
But if we don't tell our core working class support what we stand for, noone else will.
Currently, the progressive wing of the cabinet are apparently mooting some radical policies, such as a windfall tax, a new tax rate at 100k, and a far heavier emphasis on jobs for renewables and cracking down on tax evasion.
The reason why triangulation is dead hasn't hit the uber-New Labourites. Or more accurately, the uber-triangulators. Flint, Blears, Hutton, Clarke, Milburn and Byers seem to believe that only emphasising a privatise the air platform can allow Labour to win. But the problem of triangulation hit Labour in late 2005, when Cameron was elected. Cameron stuck to a fake centrist ground. But the Milburnite wing of the party has been struck dumb by this, running around ever more like a headless chicken, while the Tories can sit with smug smiles at bewildering attempts to be right-wing from Brown and his merry men and women.
The best form of triangulation, would actually be to emphasise our progressive values, with the kind of radical suggestions being floated amongst the left-wing of New Labour, and Compass. Cameron would have to return to blue territory.
But where to start? Well, often the radical policies entail a direct shift towards one wing of the party. Either you accept a whole platform of McDonnelite or Milburnite ideas. Also, they're often not ground breaking. They often simply involve returning to a policy, like re-nationalising, or re-privatising an industry for example.
But in the three miserbale months since the Mayday Massacre, there have been some ideas floated on this website, which break new ground, in having not being discussed in the media as a whole. This certainly does not mean they are not credible.
I have two in particular. One is from Proudvotinglabour, and the other from Tony Hannon.
Proudvotinglabour suggests that we should legislate for all employees to have a share in the company they work for, and to give them rights to join together as shareholders, while giving shareholders rights to vote down pay packages without voting down whole annual reports.
This is a great way of introducing industrial democracy in the private sector, and could prove a boom for union membership.
Tony Hannon suggests that the BBC license fee should be abolished, and should be paid for through income tax. I think it would be a great way of preserving public broadcasting. Currently, the right are using the license fee to suggest the Beeb should be sold off. We cannot afford to sell our democracy away, by allowing Murdoch to gain control of the Beeb.
We should not cut any funding by switching to the income tax. But it would make massive savings in the 12% of magistrate cases about not paying the fee, and in administrative costs, as well as legal aid. We should use these savings for prison rehabilitation, BBC funding, and for increasing legal aid respectively.
Also, how about a new slogan, to fit with new policies to underline what we stand for. Lets go with what the Battersea Labour party once had as a slogan: "Not for me. Not for you. But for us."
If we can follow these examples, then it wouldn't be bad for the Labour party at all.
What the NPF can learn from Labourhome. | 2 comments (2 topical)
What the NPF can learn from Labourhome. | 2 comments (2 topical)
