First off the Starting Blocks in Launch of National Leadership Tour
Now the Sun has been kind enough to inform us of the timetable for the departure of the Prime Minister and the schedule for the process by which a new leader of the Labour party is to be elected I am launching my national leadership campaign tour at a publc rally at the Mechanics Institute in Manchester on Thursday night. Joining me on the platform will be Tony Benn, Alice Mahon, Jeremy Dear NUJ General Secretary and Dave McCall Regional Secretary of TGWU.
We are to be the first off the starting blocks in the election campaign to determine the future leader and therefore the future of our party.
We are following this up with a barrage of fringe meetings at the TUC next week at which I will launch my Trade Union Manifesto and calling for support for a series of policies including:
the trade union freedom bill,
an end to privatisation and restoration of public ownership,
protection of pension rights,
increased state pension and restoration of the earnings link,
a new health and safety regime and quality of life at work legislation,
a peace programme including withdrawal from Iraq, justice for the Palestinians and scrapping of Trident.
I just want to get on with the political debate.
I have to say though that I found it nauseating watching New Labour MPs turn on Blair.Most of them owe their whole existence to Tony Blair and have sycophantically supported often in the most degrading terms every policy he has introduced. They were motivated not by any policy or philosophical disagreement but simply to save their own political skins. Many of them were hand picked by Blair and were parachuted into their seats by the New Labour machine controlled under Blair. They served as his boot boys in Parliament or in the media whenever grovelling sophistry was needed to crowd out real debate.
They still haven't got the message though have they?
The reason Blair is unpopular is not the individual but the failed policies that he stands for and the style of government New Labour has introduced where trust has been coroded by spin and dishonesty. A change of leader without the fundamental break with New Labour, its policies and its politics risks not just the loss of office but the potential of a party broken and in the wilderness for a generation.
Many Labour MPs cling to the hope that they can pull off the same strategy as John Major after Thatcher i.e. changing the leader and clinging on to office at the subsequent election.
There are a number of fundamental flaws in this comparison.
First no recent poll has suggested that a change of leader to Brown or Reid or any cabinet member would lead to a lift in support.
Second Major had the odd advantage of relative anonymity and hence a significant avoidance of guilt by association with the worst excesses of Thatcher. Brown and Reid and others are all irrevocably tainted with New Labour.
And third the opposition to Major was Neil Kinnock, who was never seen as a popular or competent alternative. It is a truism that oppositions do not win elections but governments lose them. Then all oppositions have to do is to be seen to be a safe pair of hands to catch disillusioned voters. Cameron is following exactly that strategy.
My fear is that all sorts of grubby manoeuvres will be attempted to prevent members of the party being able to participate in the political debate about our policies and future in Government. I will do all I can to lay the foundations of this critically important process of political engagement. I urge all party members and supporters to become involved but also to make it clear to MPs and others that we demand an election for the leader which enables this debate to happen and not some one candidate election reminiscent of past Stalinist regimes.
Come along to Manchester if you can and have your say. See you there.
We are to be the first off the starting blocks in the election campaign to determine the future leader and therefore the future of our party.
We are following this up with a barrage of fringe meetings at the TUC next week at which I will launch my Trade Union Manifesto and calling for support for a series of policies including:
the trade union freedom bill,
an end to privatisation and restoration of public ownership,
protection of pension rights,
increased state pension and restoration of the earnings link,
a new health and safety regime and quality of life at work legislation,
a peace programme including withdrawal from Iraq, justice for the Palestinians and scrapping of Trident.
I just want to get on with the political debate.
I have to say though that I found it nauseating watching New Labour MPs turn on Blair.Most of them owe their whole existence to Tony Blair and have sycophantically supported often in the most degrading terms every policy he has introduced. They were motivated not by any policy or philosophical disagreement but simply to save their own political skins. Many of them were hand picked by Blair and were parachuted into their seats by the New Labour machine controlled under Blair. They served as his boot boys in Parliament or in the media whenever grovelling sophistry was needed to crowd out real debate.
They still haven't got the message though have they?
The reason Blair is unpopular is not the individual but the failed policies that he stands for and the style of government New Labour has introduced where trust has been coroded by spin and dishonesty. A change of leader without the fundamental break with New Labour, its policies and its politics risks not just the loss of office but the potential of a party broken and in the wilderness for a generation.
Many Labour MPs cling to the hope that they can pull off the same strategy as John Major after Thatcher i.e. changing the leader and clinging on to office at the subsequent election.
There are a number of fundamental flaws in this comparison.
First no recent poll has suggested that a change of leader to Brown or Reid or any cabinet member would lead to a lift in support.
Second Major had the odd advantage of relative anonymity and hence a significant avoidance of guilt by association with the worst excesses of Thatcher. Brown and Reid and others are all irrevocably tainted with New Labour.
And third the opposition to Major was Neil Kinnock, who was never seen as a popular or competent alternative. It is a truism that oppositions do not win elections but governments lose them. Then all oppositions have to do is to be seen to be a safe pair of hands to catch disillusioned voters. Cameron is following exactly that strategy.
My fear is that all sorts of grubby manoeuvres will be attempted to prevent members of the party being able to participate in the political debate about our policies and future in Government. I will do all I can to lay the foundations of this critically important process of political engagement. I urge all party members and supporters to become involved but also to make it clear to MPs and others that we demand an election for the leader which enables this debate to happen and not some one candidate election reminiscent of past Stalinist regimes.
Come along to Manchester if you can and have your say. See you there.
posted by John at 11:50 PM
24 Comments:
perhaps we can join up with our political equivalents in the US in campaigning against neo-con foreign policy - Blair is always banging on about globalism but as I see it it globalism dosen't just mean that with better transport and communications such as cheap flights and worldwide email we can just get cheaper and cheaper prices for everything from oil to cans of tomatoes no matter how much we exploit the people who produce it but conversely it should mean that as we now could easily fly to see our fellow humans in Iraq say or Congo or Bagladesh and many other countries in less than a day that as the world becomes smaller and smaller we realise that we have to finally start treating people the same wherever they come from and that for example we can learn from those in developing countries as well as them learning from us. it's not just giving them aid, I saw an article where young designers from Burundi (I think it was Burundi as I'd just switched over) were getting the latest Western clothing designs from the internet to help them with their own designs whuch is crucial for clothing is one of their main exports as they haven't many natural resources, they weren't making carbon copies of the Western designs, just looking at colours and patterns to be incorporated in to their designs and it struck me that fashion is enjoyed by young people everywhere is a great ice-breaker. I reckon in about five years time African capitals will be the new Prague for weekenders and gap year students. I noticed that when African Big Brother was on it wasn't repeated unlike the English ones so it seemed to be lower status but my sort of globalism would change this. When there is fighting and bloodshed on the tv news I think we can no longer placate our children with " that's a long way away" I prefer " by the time you're grown up they won't do that anymore", I just think the Blairites should drop all imperialism and if the ethical/organic/fairtrade/sustainable route for clothing and food production and so on and we save energy to limit fuel consumption and we won't need to fight for oil or suffer the worst excesses of capitalism anymore. Apparently China is trying to bring in new worker's rights laws that are much better than employment rights here although at the moment they have gone to the opposite extreme and have terrible rights i.e. non-existent but that it all said to change to really good conditions (which of course are proven tiem and time here in the West to actually increase companies productionr rates, staff retention rates etc) if the Bill goes through there, what a turn up for the books if it does, shows Another World is Possible! We always have choices in life and I think the Blairites biggest mistake is to try to make us believe that we don't.
We don't have to live with industrial and factory farming,
child labour, dangerous working conditions, bullying at work and stupidly long hours for fear of losing our jobs but bring bad side effects to our health and relationships, underemployment, too many insecure temporary and contract jobs, impossible shift patterns and the like; people aren't going to put up with this any more as the Gate Gourmet strikers showed at last year's conference and they wouldn't have to with a real Labour government as John proposes that would improve conditions here and camapaign internationally for child labour and the like to be abolished and actually help to bring this about practically for example by sourcing all the government stationery from a sustainable recycled/fair trade source.
If the Blairites try to tell us that a leadership election with detailed policy discussion is not what's best for us there will be no demcracy left at all in this country so we must push for one as John says but expect dirty tricks will be attempted and be ready for them, especially at the forthcoming conference in the light of today's Blair timetable to go reports!
I agree with all the policy proposals john makes and am very excited by the possibility of a principled , democratic socialist Labour Party for the first time in my lifetime. However, I wonder why the left candidate has to be John? I would love to see another woman leader of the party - why not Ann Cryer, Diane Abbott, Lynne Jones, Clare Short?. I also don't think Margaret Beckett is yet a lost cause for the left - if she'd resigned over Lebanon on principle she would be a hero now - she was obviously uncomfortable. She was also very successful when she was leader before, and clearly hates the Tories in a way which the New Labour lot simply don't.
I have to say that at the end of the day, if it was a choice between a left-of-Brown candidate who could win (Short, Peter Kilfoyle, Beckett, Angela Eagle)and a campaign-grouper who couldn't, I'd vote for the former -at the end of the day, we're in Labour because we care about people, not to keep our consciences clean, and if a little compromise on principle gets a more socialist party, I'm willing to go along with that. Having said that, if no other left candidate comes up, I will definitely vote for John, and I'm not saying he can't win - just look at the great NEC results - but if getting John means losing power - which, given the power of the right-wing media it may - then that's not a price worth paying for any amount of principles I'm afraid to say. Now is the time, I fear, for a Nye Bevan figure rather than a Tony Benn - and my personal choice would be a Short/Kilfoyle dream ticket!
Thank goodness we are getting to the end of this political ping pong game of when Blair will go, and can get onto the important issues of the direction and future of our party and how this country will be governed, your campaign will hopefully encourage the public to have a greater interest in the events going on, instead of being isolated and put off politics by the present tennants of numbers 10 & 11
I was a Labour voter and over recent times I have lost the interest in a party which seems more interested in appearance than substance. However, I support your stand regarding the leadership of the Labour party. It is better for the country and for the party that a proper leadership election is undertaken. Without that and Brown becoming Prime Minister it will look as though Labour is ignoring democracy and preferring the exercising of presidential power.
I can't make it to conference this year, but I do hope that there will be some debate on Education.
Apart from enabling the public to make better decisions, independent of those expressed in their Daily Rag, we need to ensure that we have a well-educated workforce to meet the needs of the future. Once the idea of tertiary level study is discarded by bright children of low paid families due to the high cost of servicing a large debt, then the attitude to secondary level may also degenerate (what's the point of A levels?).
The first thing I learnt in my degree was how to distinguish between spin and truth. This could be from an "official" report designed to present a certain point of view, to determining if a newspaper owner has his/her own agenda when reporting politics.
Please let's drop top-up fees forthwith!
re: johnb
I would only back this campaign if a principled socialist stands for leadership, which i believe John Mcdonnell to be.
I find it incredible that you regard Peter Kilfoyle as a suitable candidate, even a "dream ticket".
As a former constituent in Walton and who has personally known key figures in Walton Labour party whom were active in the 80's, this praise flatters kilfoyle and misleads others.
p.s Thanks to Marsha for website.
Mark, Worcester.
I would like to encourage all disaffected Labour supporters who have quit the party over the last few years to rejoin in order to support John's leadership bid.
It's no good complaining if Gordon Brown is elected and we get 10 more years of arrogant presidential-style leadership if you can do something to stop the right-wing drift in our party.
If you want party renewal and a different style of politics, then just sign up to rejoin the party so you can vote for John as leader. If he doesn't win, a substantial vote in his favour will kick-start a genuine debate over Labour's direction and will reaffirm the role of the party's neglected grass-roots.
Don't moan from the side-lines, renew your membership so that you have a direct say on the leadership of the Labour party and the leadership of this country.
Join Labour to stop New Labour!
re: Mark
I assume you're referring to Kilfoyle's denunciation of Militant in the 80's? Well the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party, with no place for Trotskyists and revolutionaries, and the idea that we could have 'no enemies on the left' was ridiculous. Also, you say that you 'would only back this campaign if a principled socialist stands for leadership' - does this mean you don't currently vote Labour. If so, remember that as Bevan said, it's Labour or nothing, and sometimes the price of ideological purity is practical impotence - and it's Labour's people who suffer. You can't get socialism by immaculate conception. Kilfoyle, though I don't know him like you (though my mum grew up in Walton incidentally), has consistently opposed Iraq etc, and regularly writes good (very partisan) articles in Tribune. He also says that he doesn't believe in charismatic leaders, which sounds to me like a call for a more democratic party. However, you may be right, and I'm sorry if I misled anyone - how about Short for leader and Alan Simpson or Angela Eagle for deputy? Any takers??
From TB statement today (7th)
"I think it's important for the Labour party to understand, ...., that it's the public that comes first and it's the country that matters, and we can't treat the public as irrelevant bystanders in a subject as important as who is their prime minister."
I always understood that the public choose a party for government, based on published policies, and thus implicitly accepting the leader that the party elects. Is Tony confusing British Politics with the US method of choosing a president?
Scoop! Below is the text of a secret media briefing given last night by Ed Balls:
'The state of Brownism has the right to defend itself. The vicious assault and kidnap of our beloved financial policies from our own soverign territory by the terrorist Hizbyers cannot be tolerated by any civilised faction. It is unfortunate that some have chosen to see our reaction as disproportionate, but they are working from their own agendas. Until full control of our policy agenda is returned to us unharmed, we will continue to take any and all measures necessary to protect ourselves'
OK John. Ask Gordon if he's willing to guarantee that Britain will not join the single currency for at least ten more years, and see if you get an answer.
in reply to johnb:
I don't want to turn this into a polemic with Johnb, as this campaign presents a great opportunity and a need for a united left campaign, but i can't let certain things pass without comment.
These "militant and trotskyists" in the party had been members in Walton since the early 50's. The same period in which there was similar witchunts within the Labour Party against the man you quoted, Nye Bevan.
There doesn't seem to be anything "democratic" about the methods in which these members were removed or the way in which the LPYS was dissolved.
The imposition of Kilfoyle and the treatment of Leslie Mahmood was a tragedy and a disgrace to Heffer's work for Walton and the Labour movement.
Also correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't the marxist SDF one of the founders of the Labour Representaion Committee in the early 20th century? No place for revolutionaries hey?
Mark, Worcester.
I am sure John McDonnell is a principled socialist and a first class constituency MP but the prospect of him becoming Prime Minister in a few months time through winning the Labour leadershp gives me cause for concern.
With policies of "restoration of public ownership, protection of pension rights, increased state pension and restoration of the earnings link," the run on the pound will bring the country to its knees in weeks.
Why do you think Gordon brown kept to Tory expenditure limits for the first two years? Ans=in order to prove to the international financial markets (love them or loathe them) that a New Labour governemt can manage an economy effectively. Only after a period of building trust was it possible for Labour to increase public exepnditure as it has done in more recent years. We might not likeit but to ignore the global economy is just not possible. We live in a market economy and create wealth through trade and we have to live within that reality.
You may argue Gordon Brown was lucky becoming Chancellor at the time in the economic cycle. That ignores the possibilty that a less shrewd Chancellor could have just as easliy managed to ruin the economy in a very short time.
Yes we should address the issues of financial and social deprivation in England, but policies which withdraw investment from UK won't help anyone. Thank heavens for the minimum wage and lets continue to gradually increase it until faster than inflation.
With regard to tuition fees. Without these University education would be paid for through tax including the poorly paid workers who haven't benefitted from such an education. Redistributing the cost between the taxpayer and the individual has been shown by opinion polls to be much more popular than most parents of university students care to admit.
Reference to the comment "I always understood that the public choose a party for government, based on published policies, and thus implicitly accepting the leader that the party elects" Its about time we implicitly accepted the leader we voted for and not trying a coup mid parliamentary term.I'm not saying this about John McDonell but the nauseating New Labour MPs now turning on Tony Blair 18 months he led the party to victory for a third time.
I agree with John McDonnell that we should have an election for leader when TB decides to go. Any one appointed without an election will always lack legitmacy.
Good luck to John McDonnell on his tour but I fear he'll be preaching to the converted and not winning new voters from middle England which is exactly what we need the leader of the Labour Party to do if we're going to still have Labour goverment in 4 years time.
The current political definition of success in purely economic terms must at some stage be tempered with a regard for the quality of ordinary peoples'lives.
In fact it should always be secondary to the welfare of the citizens.
The two are not mutually exclusive by any means, but the present prioritising of and glorification in financial accumulation is causing untold stress and unhappiness in our society.
Much of what Blair has been up to policy-wise is nothing more than covert tax payers' money laundering into his friends' pockets presented and spun as "modernization" "change" "more choice" etc.
For example wind-generated electricity. Despite the government's wild enthusiasm for covering the high countryside with these towering monstrosities in the name of reduction of carbon emmissions, the scientific fact is that they make no real difference because the power supply to the national grid must be constant and steady ( very unlike the wind!). So although wind energy may be supplying electricity to the network, the big coal, oil and gas power stations must still keep their furnaces stoked-up and burning at full pelt 24/7 to smooth out the variations in power from wind. Wind farm construction is just another a giant scam which profits landowners and co-incidently, the man who owns the German company which manufactures the turbines for the towers is a big donator to New Labour - and a friend of phony Tony.
. . . who has not one shred of concern nor compassion for the people. If he had, would he have sent getting on for 200 of our lads to their deaths in Iraq on the back of a 45 minute-lie that he himself helped to forge and then perpetuate?
This country needs a shift in values, inspired by a leader with vision and inspiration.
I'm afraid Gordon Brown is not that man, not to mention Cameron or Campbell.
Brown stands for more of the same. More taxes, higher utility bills, tighter squeezing of the individual's rights and disposable income. Brown represents the continuation and even the acceleration of modern dictatorship in Britain which, arm in arm with big business and partly under the guise of terrorist threat-fear is gradually herding the populace into a high tech' prison.
New Labour has strayed far from its roots, yet people are suspicious of change - many have profited from the gravity-defying house prices over the past 8 years. Can they be persuaded to vote not only with their wallets but also with their hearts?
I wish John well in his campaign for true rights and justice for the ordinary people. I think he has a good chance of surprising Westminster by sparking a fire of passion and striking a chord of harmony within a nation truly beaten down over the past decade by vicious capitalism and insane privatization.
There is also the thorny ( for the left) issue of immigration that perhaps should also be addressed by John - there is a far far greater and genuine disquiet amongst the electorate on the scale of migration, current and proposed, than is represented in the media.
MStM
I have a few things to say to Middle England. Most commuters to the City are users of public transport and are directly affected by poor quality of service, safety problems and high prices that have accompanied privatisation. Overwhelmingly, they are also users of the NHS, where creeping privatisation and unrealistic targets are leading to a postcode lottery and a chaotic system of management that is directly hitting people's pockets and their health. And in the supposedly Tory rural heartlands, these problems are even more acute yet remain unaddressed by mainstream politics - don't be under the illusion that the countryside is populated by the gentry. Everyone is affected by the future of pensions and there are serious doubts that the private sector alone can ensure that everyone gets the stress-free retirement they deserve after a working life.
Various methods of privatisation - eg PFI, PPP, contracting out - have not brought down taxation nor have they been shown to be more cost-effective and better run than direct state management.
John McDonnell's platform could provide answers to problems that affect Middle England as much the "old" Labour working-class constituency. They need not be expensive and certainly he would be able to save money by ending the current trend of invading Muslim countries - a policy that is deeply unpopular across civil society.
I don't believe that Mr McDonnell is a class warrior nor that he is some loony lefty. Certainly, taking a stance on state pensions should not be of great concern to international financiers.
As for immigration, support for workers' rights could go a long way to stopping illegal immigrants working below the minimum wage and undercutting the legitimate labour force. I think Mr McDonnell is the only potential candidate for the Labour leadership who is addressing workers' rights, which lies at the heart of the immigration debate.
Dan
The Labour Party was created to represent all parts of the British working class movement. As such it should encompass all who want to be a part of it and resolve policy by democratic means, even if, at times, the left is very strong. The party must hope to represent the broader class and that includes revolutionaries and socialists of many flavours, though few in number. The answer isn't to exclude but to organise yourselves better and include more people in the debate.
The expulsion of Militant and the witchhunting of the left was just cravenness before the demands of the right and, as such, a symptom of the lack of confidence of the times.
Times, however, have changed and those left wing policies look pretty attractive now, particularly the idea of having an energy industry under democratic control in the face of climate change.
To Uxbridge lp realist:
Wasn't the Labour Party formed to give working people a voice in parliament? Strange then that your major concern is the middle class. Unfortunately the middle class are deserting New Labour despite thier "sensible" policies, but more importantly the working class are insreasingly moving away or abstaining from voting. Lose the working class and you've lost the overwhelming majority of Labour support.
Secondly, if we can't introduce any reform that treatens investor confidence, a run on the pound or appeasing the corporations that dominate and dictate government policy, you might want to sit down in a corner and quietly whither away.
Increasing amounts of workers and young people around the world are standing up to the power of the multinationals and are becoming educated about their role and that of economic system they represent.
You might believe globalisation is all powerful, but ultimately they represent a tiny minority of society whereas the international working class is immense.
Democracy itself does not truly exist when instead of representing socities needs, you are only worried about receiving confidence from Wall Street or pandering to vile characters like Murdoch.
This is why the call for restoration of public ownership in this campaign is an excellent rallying tool, and i believe could be extended to other major parts of the econonmy.
Hopefully thats some food for thought at your next dinner party, when your debating how to win over middle England.
Mark, Worcester.
A lot of people are saying that McDonnell would have to appeal to middle england. In fact, this is not so - at the last election, labour won only 1 million more votes than in 1983, yet got a very good majority. Much as it currently benefits labour, no-one can deny that FPTP is inherently biased towards the centre ground - it elevates the concerns of floating voters in marginal constituencies to the fore, meaning that more partisan voters for example in Labour heartlands become irrelevant. I'm no great fan of PR, but I do think some more proportional system is needed to break the stranglehold of the centre on British politics, and get us out of the dead-end that is the third way. Millions of trade unionists, public sector workers and working class people still don't vote Labour, and Labour voters and the poor are far less likely to vote than others - surely we should be working on these voters before fishing around for others? Likewise, I believe we need to become an ideological party again, capable of inspiring all people, regardless of class or background BUT there must be strict limits on the ideology we accept - from Benn to Hattersley but no further in either direction! The point is that Middle England must realise that our current, bland politics, based in spending commitments not principles, cannot provide the answers to the immense problems facing the world today. Bevan spoke about this in the 50's remember in reference to people's contentment with the 'affluent society' - he recommended that "we must enlarge and expand those personalities, so that they can become again conscious of limitation and constriction. The problem is one of education, not of surrender! This so-called affluent society is an ugly society still. It is a vulgar society. It is a meretricious society. It is a society in which priorities have gone all wrong". Never was a truer word spoken! Clare Short gives a very good assessment in her lecture “The Future of the Left – do we need a new agenda?” which you can see at http://tinyurl.com/nw7n6
P.S. Mark - sorry if I offended you - we do need unity, not raking over the past, and I probably shouldnt criticise something which happened long before my time. Also Kilfoyle just had a quadruple heart bypass, so he's probably not up to being PM just yet!
Maybe the time has come in 2006 for the Labour left to re-brand itself, just as Blair did with Labour into New Labour.
Or it runs the risk of eternal negative associations in the public mind and of receiving knockout Blairite/Brownite attacks based on the past.
The electorate may well be ready for a new left to emerge, but only an intelligently and creatively re-branded one, I sense. A new glossy re-packaged sheen, but with real substance within for a refreshing change, could be a winner at the polls.
Uxbridge LP member says:
With policies of "restoration of public ownership, protection of pension rights, increased state pension and restoration of the earnings link," the run on the pound will bring the country to its knees in weeks.
I am not really sure that John's constituents are altogether happy with private ownership like Thames Water, whose record this summer was appalling. The cost of energy has rocketed, yet all of these companies are reporting record profits. It's a common rhetoric for the capitalists to denounce any increase in benefit to the populace as "bad for the economy". Let's not believe all we read in the papers.
Why do you think Gordon brown kept to Tory expenditure limits for the first two years?
To make up for the deficit the Tory party left behind.
We live in a market economy and create wealth through trade and we have to live within that reality.
Are you happy to live with an economy that allows rip-off Britain to continue and provide bigger and bigger profits to private (often overseas) shareholders? I am afraid the term "create wealth" jars with me. The term was invented in the Thatcher era.
Like energy, wealth can be neither created nor destroyed, it just changes hands.
You may argue Gordon Brown was lucky becoming Chancellor at the time in the economic cycle. That ignores the possibilty that a less shrewd Chancellor could have just as easliy managed to ruin the economy in a very short time.
I might concur on this one.
...but policies which withdraw investment from UK won't help anyone.
We need to be careful on this one. I've worked at a few UK based foreign companies who appear to invest in the UK. Initially they provide jobs, but then suck all the profits back to the home country. When things get tight they tend to lay-off staff and close down UK branches. Quite often they are initially supported by government grants.
... paid for through tax including the poorly paid workers who haven't benefitted from such an education
I can imagine a tax regime which would exclude the poorly paid worker. But why condemn his children and his children's children to an existence without a decent education and subsequent decent job? I haven't met anyone who doesn't remember the mantra Education, Education, Education when we discuss top-up fees.
The line that the Uxbridge LP member is toeing has been used since Blair became leader - the line is Labour needs to adapt to the modern world to be in government. But Labour was set up to change the world so that society was changed for the benefit of all working people, and if this upset a few mega rich individuals then so be it. Globalism is not inevitable - it happens because rich and powerful people want it happen to make themselves richer and more powerful - the facts show this clearly, as globalism increases, the wealth of the richest 5% has rocketed. Labour should be challenging this in conjunction with other governments and organisations who believe that society should be run for the benefit of everybody not just the rich. I'm sure that if the Tory party were bringing in the policies that New Labour are implementing (which is very easy to imagine), the Uxbridge LP member would be screaming their head off in disgust rather than defending them. The question for all Blair supporters is what do you want a Labour Party to do in Government - carry out Socialist policies to benefit working people(and this includes middle class people as well) or not upset the mega rich(for whatever reason!) If it's the latter, I think you need to join the Tories - as I firmly believe Blair will do in the future(especially if John McDonnell becomes leader - well, we can dream!)
If you read the detail of John McDonnell and the Labour Represetation Commmittee's policies which can be ontained in a red booklet called "Programme for a Real Labour Government" from the LRC office www.l-r-c.org.uk, you will find that although truly socialist the policies have been thoroughly modernised; unlike Blairism which is still fighting the battles of a decade ago when Labour came to power after so long in the wilderness and it was a totally different situation then after the boom and bust of Thatcher years economically speaking and also society looked very different, to take just one example eco-issues weren't on the agenda yet and workplace bullying and debt weren't so widespread, not so many women worked after having children...so the policies we need now need to be evolved onwards from Blairism and towards the future, this being most obvious in our foreign policy towards the Middle East and on nuclear weaons which do not have to be automatically renewed as we are not still living in the Cold War - the last person to be shot for trying to escape across the Berlin wall was I think as recently as 1984 - as well as at home with the desparate need to stop the privatisation causing the postcode lotteries within the health service, the spiralling house prices and lack of investment in council houses which has led to families in B and B or damp and inaccessible flats, parents with children in their thirties still living with them... We need to start explaining that John's policies will address these isseus and not allow the media to dismiss them as expensive as they have been thoroughly costed, details of this are also on the website the LEAP (left Economic Advisory Panel)unit has been specifically established to undertake the policy research into this -read it's Red Papers.
To those who say that John McDonnell won't appeal to middle England, I'd remind them that John represents Hayes, a typical middle England seat where he seized the seat from the Tories and regularly gets over 65% of the votes cast. He speaks to everyone on the doorstep and no one is too unimportant to get a personal reply from him to anything. His policies are also VERY popular with us middle englanders, as we've tasted the bitter fruits of privatisation and other neo-Thatcherite/Blairite/Brownite policies. Basically, we're sick of being ripped off by big corporations and their ventriloquist dummies in Parliament speaking through all 3 main parties. Only someone like McDonnell can give back to the British taxpayer some dignity and rights. His proposal to abolish private schools would improve the state education system overnight as everyone would have to use state schools, and my experience of schools shows me that the best schools are those where parents of whatever socio-economic backgrounds get involved. He would make Britain a country of peace once again. That way we can address issues like mass unemployment (yes, it's back!) and poor housing in our cities, instead of being diverted by some spurious war on terror designed to make us paranoid of our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim. What really worries me is the current media blackout on his campaign. I've written to the BBC to complain, and I'd plead with all who visit this site to have a word with the BBC so they can stop reporting Blair/Brown spin and talk about McDonnell's policies. Incidentally, McDonnell was on the Jeremy Vine show where the listeners, like me, are conservative with a small 'c' and middle of the road types, and after listening to his views, 68% of us said he'll get our vote. So all of you in the Labour party and the unions should give him a chance as he's the only decent candidate in this race. And to make it happen, if you haven't joined the Labour Party, do so today! You have to be a member for 6 months to vote in the contest. McDonnell won't be leader if we only talk about him, but don't vote!
I was one of the ones who didn't vote in the last election, as i had voted labout all my life and was appalled by what the "NEW LABOUR" had done to Britain. But after listening to John's speech's this week in Manchester, it has restored my faith in the labour party again. Here's hoping John wins, so labour can get back to being REAL labour again. And give us a PM that leads us into a better future, not a PM who dictates to us a worse one
L Walker
Post a Comment
<< Home