Gordon Brown will announce with John Hutton on Monday yet another review of welfare benefits to the unemployed. One of Brown's investment banker friends is to undertake the review. Clearly the Chancellor believes that an investment banker has so much more experience of welfare benefits than the unemployed themselves or the people who actually administer the systenm or give claimants advice.
Just an idea, why can't we have a review of the system undertaken by the claimants themselves for a change?
The main proposal being promoted by Brown is privatisation of the administration of welfare benefits. Private companies are to be given the responsibility for getting people into work. An incentive arrangement is to be introduced. The private company will be able to retain as profits a part of the unemployment and other benefits of the people they force into work.
This is a recipe for the intimidation and harassment of the unemployed to make profits for private companies. It appears that the Chancellor is vying with the Tories on who can be more brutal to the poor in our society.
If this is a taste of the policies planned for his fabled first hundred days as Prime Minister it stands as a stark warning to those party members, trade union general secretaries and Labour MPs who are considering backing him for leader.
If Brown even before entering Number 10 is capable of setting the wolves of private sector companies on the poorest in society there is no limit to how far he could go if he ever achieved prime ministerial office in undermining the principles upon which our movement founded the welfare state.
I salute the health workers and campaigners who today demonstrated all over the country against the job cuts, unit closures, privatisations and pay cuts inflicted upon our NHS by the Chancellor. Brown's welfare review demonstrates that the attack on the NHS today is merely a foretaste of what could follow across the whole of our public services and welfare state if we allow it.
37 Comments:
Jaw-droppingly shocking. I don't know why these things still shock me, but... This obsession with privatisation is just bizarre. And this concept (which is used a lot, such as where private 'consultancy' firms have taken over education authorities) of private profits coming directly from public money is so basically corrupt and dishonest that it never fails to shock me.
I wonder if it will be one of the firms like Crapita which recruits for tbe civil service; not sure if I can put this on a website but there is probably already an anti-Capita website somewhere in the vein of the other anti various company websites...I was once recruited by them for my sins as a new graduate desparate for any public sector job to start paying off the debts so I expect they will let me off...
Anyway I've thought of a great wheeze to stop yourself being forced in to a job and the profits going to fat cats but you need to be female...
get pregnant!! If you are claining child benefit but are not working you don't need to sign on as unemployed and available for work to get your national insurance stamp!!
Sorry for the farcical tone it must be the lunar eclipse!!
But the point is these New Labour policies are truly farcical. I had thought at one point that I should perhaps sign on even though I get child benefit so that I could be part of the hidden unemployed statistics but I'd better not now. Also my nearest job centre is now a twenty minute train ride away as a nearer one has closed! Wouldn't be ideal with two kids in tow...At my old jobcentre in Uxbridge got a new two storey building but unfortuntely they made yo usign on upstairs (no lift) which meant I had to leave my pushchair sometimes with sleeping baby in under the care of the security guard or if the baby was awake try to stop him wriggling off and escaping down the wide open stairway while trying to keep in the signing on line-incredibly stressful. Perhaps Gordon Brown woudl like to try it with his family sometime in the manner of Andy Burnham's recent work shadowing in teh NHS which we heard about today at the rally; we had a good laugh at how the scales have finally fallen a bit from his eyes though I don't suppose it will make any difference to New Labour policy as as it was said today at the NHS together rally in London today, Ministerial careers have been staked on this. Also at the rally today we heard of a nurse who has £30 left to live on after paying her bills, petrol to get to work etc and that's before the below inflation pay increase she's been awarded. Another nurse was crying out because she is prevented from helping her patients by the systemn of fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS this New Labout government has implemented against everybody's will even their own voters; it truly is their poll tax, there was talk of stikes today as it's getting that desparate now and we set in for a long haul campaign.
Later at the rally against changes to abortion legislation we were reminded by the speakers of the many women across the world; even as close as Northern Ireland who have no abortion rights at all which is truly desparate. Of course we all hope that the need for an abortion dosen't arise in the first place but if/when it does we don't want to have to resort to dangerous back-street abortions again as many women round the world are forced to do. I agree with John's other points on this of course and it's also true that babies seem to be surviving outside the womb at an earlier and earlier age but we have to trust people's judgement when they request an abortion and make sure that no-one is ever pressurised by family, partner friend or anybody into an abortion they don't want as that can also happen. Nothing in the NHS should be a postcode lottery whether it be abortion rights or conversely fertility treatment; we should eb concentrating on reducing these inequalities and so making the NHS back into a world class public service instead of widening inequalities by having this NHS trust and PCT systemn where each trust makes it's own cuts willy nilly if it has overspent on useless management consultants such as the ones that told Epsom and Downs NHS trust was it to remove one light bulb in two to save on the trust's three million pound electricity bill. I think it was 100,000 pounds that a consultant employed by the Royal Sussex NHS trust for only three months earnt just to put this in some kind of perspective. Apart from using eco-lightbulbs I wouldn't have thought you could do much about the electricity bill in teh short term as sick people and especially newborn babies and the elderly in hospitals need to be warm and machines and operating theatres etc etc need electricity. Consultants though are not compuslory!
I always remember a humourous quote from Jilly Cooper of all people who described "when the management consultants moved in on a symphony" the upshot of which was that they thought most of the passages in the slow movement wer redundant so they cut it out all together....leaving of course no symphony left at all... (and this was written in 1968 along with lots of other advice as to what to do if your office suffered a 'plague' of management consultants such as saying everything takes you twice as long to do as it really does and so on and so you might end up with a better job yourself in the end after they have cut out the deadwood.....If manangement consutants were ridiculed for their intergral shortcomings in humourous books ("How to Survive from Nine to Five by Jilly Cooper who of course is known to be right wing "is the book in question)nearly forty years ago then why are we feteing them in 2007! If they had the answers we'd have known about it by now!!
Interestingly she also tackles workplace bullying by explainin how the bullies "screw up people's self respect so badly they feel incapabale of getting another job" and sadly that's how many firms operate now which contributes to our damagig long hours culture and even when there's no bullying people such as some of the health workers I saw today are afraid to speak out even after being down graded to a much worse grade as they fear for their jobs. We need solidarity action through the unions here otherwise these injustices will continue. Also I'm sure everyoen saw the recent Pananrama which highlighted teh violence that health workers may routinely experience; their jobs are often as difficult and dangerous as you can imagine so why is the government compoundin their problems instead of supporting them.
Shame on this government which is Labour only in name. But we musn't let the real Labour MPs be dragged down with them; we must instead redouble our efforts to elect John as the only credible alternative and then begin immediately to change course and repair the damage done to what's left of our public services and welfare state.
Which other Helen is blogging by the way?? Mind you you can call yourself anyone in the web but do we have two like the two Duncans??
Jaw-droppingly shocking, yes. After 10 years of New Labour, I can't understand the reasoning behind these appalling policies being proposed by the Chancellor.It's maybe a shock because many in the Party (myself included) thought at one time that once Blair went our problems would be over. Obviously, that was utterly naive and, to coin a phrase, things can only get worse under Brown it seems.
I hope the unions will mobilise, I hope enough Mps will rally behind us to force a contest and alternative ideas.I fear for the future of the Labour Party if they don't.
John,
Thank you for responding via my comment box. Here is my own attempt at a lighthearted response. Although Alan Milburn will probably take it seriously.
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-mcdonnells-farm.html
(long)
Hi all,
Its great that John is raising the issues round welfare and the comments here, unlike the rest of the left he supported the Coalition Against The Welfare Reform Bill(CAWRB) Protest at the Labour Party Conference, where all the various left groups who (with a few exceptions) were largely absent. One can argue it is this lack of challenge from the Labour movement that has emboldened New Labour to ratchet up the reforms into areas even the Tories in the 80’s would not have dared to go! What is clear is that Hutton and Murphy have been brought in as ‘hatchet men’ to dismantle what lefts of the welfare system in this country.
For example, the Welfare Reform Bill now going though parliament means over 1 million disabled people(including now we hear existing claimants) will be forced into possibly unsuitable work with the threat of losing more than 30 pounds benefit if they don’t/can’t comply with very stringent back to work measures, more severe medical tests, etc.(see resources) The move to privatisation of welfare services proposed in the Freud review, which is supported by Gordon Brown will ultimately only benefit only these dubious ‘third sector’ (read private) companies such as A4E owned by Emma Harrison who has become a multi-millionaire from the largesse of Govt contracts for the discredited New Deal programme, etc.*
There has been very little consultation with the people who will be affected most by these reforms, the claimants and of course the public sector workers in the DWP. In terms of the WRB over 600 responses were sent to to the Works And Pensions select committee consultation on the green paper. Sadly, its not just Blairites who are pushing all this through, the Works and Pension Select Committee which is dominated by Labour Party M.P’s including the chair Terry Rooney MP has been instrumental in pushing through much of the very draconian welfare reform in the last few years. The TUC is also culpable, its leader Brendan Barber is ‘generally supportive’ of the WRB and indeed BBC’s Politics Show has just revealed that the TUC were very much involved in the Freud Review. One could also ask where are the claimants views in all of this
John, along with some campaign groups such as Welfare Reform UK and Sheffield Welfare Action Network (SWAN) have identified that these are the biggest structural changes in welfare since the 1940’s and work in tandem with the NL’s neo-liberal agenda. Indeed, there are two major Gov’t/Business led conferences coming up about welfare reform (and yes, one is funded by Crapita!) which includes speakers/advocates who were instrumental in Clintons seminal 1996 welfare reforms which have been such a disaster for the poor in the U.S.
Bernard Little has said
"The whole of our benefit system is built on the myth that if we are not in paid work we are up to no good. Swinging the lead. Shirking. Pretending we are ill. And this cruel myth hits the most vulnerable the hardest .We need to have a far more flexible benefit system that breaks down the barrier between paid and unpaid work. That recognises the reality of life with its ups and downs, good days and bad days, our sickness and health. A benefits system that recognises that we are all different."
The Left and genuinely progressive forces must speak out more on these issues, and defend the welfare State before it disappears.
*Steve Davies, senior research fellow at Cardiff University school of social sciences, in a report for the PCS has identified a swath of companies set up to provide training for disabled people, the unemployed on New Deal programmes, and young offenders are now multimillion-pound enterprises.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1811141,00.html
(2)
www.swansheffield.org.uk
http://www.welfare-reform.org.uk/Welafre%20Reform%20Bill/CAWRB/Default.aspx
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/
http://dlahelpgroup.com/
A poll here in Tribune asking if Meacher was right to stand for Labour leader:
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/Templates/onlinevote.html
Vote NO and spread the word!
There is so much to be utterly disgusted at with the Welfare Reform Bill and one area being Clause 17 (Disqualification) and who will make that decision to take away benefits is not entirely clear. It is vague and ambiguous.
What I would also highlight is the attacks on legal aid, advice and the issue of "fixed fees" and how this will impact on the poor. Their chance of support, proper advice and justice will be severely curtailed if the Carter Review is accepted. It will be a case of rough justice to the poor.
At the Law Centres Federation AGM last year they voted to boycott these new proposals from the Carter Review.
Hello all,
Sheffield Welfare Action Network and others are in the process of writing an open letter to the Guardian, Times and Independent about the massive structural welfare reform proposed by the gov’t, particularly that of the Welfare Reform Bill and now the Freud review. We are particularly concerned that these changes are being foisted on claimants and that such people have little voice in the current policy making process. We are asking grassroots groups, academics and individuals, etc to sign this open letter, we welcome minor changes and additions (and grammar, structure, etc!) but hopefully they will be very brief. We would hope to include all signatories but are aware the editor may cut them.
John Rogers
for Swan
www.swansheffield.org.uk
email
sheffieldwelfare_an@yahoo.co.uk
the open letter
Dear sir/madam
There would appear to be a consensus across the main political parties (perhaps challenged only by the Labour leadership candidate, John McDonnell) and sadly the TUC that drastic welfare reform is needed. However, one needs to ask where are the claimants voice in all this? There has been very little consultation with the people who will be affected most by these reforms and of course the workers in the DWP. In terms of the (in our view), draconian Welfare Reform Bill (WRB) sadly going largely unopposed though parliament, over 600 responses were sent to the Works And Pensions Select Committee consultation on the Welfare Reform Green paper. Yet, very few, if any of the fears and concerns of these respective groups have been taken into account in the published Bill.
The latest savage proposals in the Freud review to privatise the welfare system and force individuals back to work will ultimately benefit only these dubious ‘third sector’ (read private) companies such as A4E who have become multi-million pound companies from Govt contracts.
These reforms are clearly the biggest structural changes in welfare since the 1940’s; indeed, there are now clear similarities between the Freud proposals and President Clinton's seminal 1996 welfare reforms which have been such a disaster for the poor in the U.S. Many many people on welfare benefits, particularly disabled people, have contacted our various groups and are very concerned and distressed about these reforms and wonder what the future holds for them.
Regards
John Rogers
Sheffield Welfare Action Network
Steve Blake
Welfare Reform Uk
your name here
I wonder if we could coin a phrase for loony New Labour policies in the mode of 'loony left' (which was never a fair label anyway of course) but today's latest idiotic proposal to give the long term unemployed clothes for interviews and tatoo removal, haircuts etc is just another banal attempt by the government to shift the blame on unemployed people who are struggling, the great majority of them through no fault of their own and really to stigmatise them as unconfident, badly dressed etc. I did once read one of the jobcentre's leaflets which advised people to try not to keep wearing the same clothes to interviews and to borrow a suit etc if they don't have one. It is a gimmick though as it would be great if you could claim for interview clothes etc but it would take so long for the claim to be processed as you would presumably have to buy the clothes first and get the receipts that it wouldn't be that great a perk anyway, in fact you could end up out of pocket as you would probably have to borrow or use credit if the suit etc was quite a big or a very big purchase anyway as it would be more than your two week's JSA. The people planning these sorts of things seem to think thar everyone has bank accounts and visa cards etc to tide them over when the opposite is the case.. Why not go the whole hog and have a jobcentre wardrobe for people to borrow from as they have at detention centres for desititute men and women and these days presumably kids too as the amount of kids in detention seems to be far worse under New Labour than even with the Tores not to mention it being against their human rights particularly as children) though the clothes weren't always exactly fashionable as you can imagine.
Every week where I live we have clothing collections for either well-known chaities or Eastern European Recycling centres (these sell the clothes on to provide jobs, not for charity, you can argue about the ethics of doing this,)and I've even had a bag to collect clothes etc to raise money for my child's school (school will get paid per weight of items collected) Perhaps we could have a jobcentre collection!! No I'm just saying this to underline the state we're in, how it highlights the way we seem to have become like we were under the Tories where the poorest which have increased in numbers deserve nothing but charity and also there's more to being confident at a job interview than appearance anyway but they don't seem to have any better ideas to help the long termm unemployed except perhaps of they do provide more childcare as they are promising. At one point while on JSA I would have been eligible for a graduates into employment scheme if they had provided childcare (though it really only covered business jobs not any of the many other types of jobs and so was only suitable really for those who are trying to get into banks, large mulitnationals etc. There is also a serioud concern that if lone parents of kids over eleven are made to work it's still very young for them to be home alone and travel home alone particulary if they have no older siblings; it would also be tempting for the most hard up people to use them to look after younger siblings to save on childcare and there would be no responsible adult present - scary. Also what about when the children or parents are sick; cases of children having to miss school to look after younger ones can go up then and yet we are supposed to be beyond all that now. As those of us against the welfare reforms keep pointing out teenagers do need their parents for help with homework and general teenage angst and other issues and if they have to work full time this is very difficult to provide. Also many jobs especially the most crucial public service ones such as midwives, firefighters, police' prison and even immigration officers are not only inherently stressful, dealing with life and soemtimes death everyday and so on and they are very liable to run over time so they are logisticaly difficult to do with children to pick up; lwithout transport etc so not all parents can go back into these frontline jobs or city jobs where you have to work silly hours because to give one example that happened to a solicitor friend her client was buying a big ship and kept ringing her all the time and would not allow her secretaries to take any messages when she was busy as he was buying the ship and so he thought he deserved twenty four hour access to her time basically!
Also as usual the government minister Jim Murphy who's just been on The Daily Politics " couldn't comment on the specific case" despite the facts of a woman who is better off on income support than working with a seven year old and so has givenup being laid clearly before him which just makes him lookj incompetent as all the Blairitie Ministers now increaingly look and secondly Brendan Barber TUC gen sec rightly raised the alarm that they are going to use the private (and voluntary - this is because it's cheap) sectors to try to help the unemployed....My son's playgroup was a community playgroup it was properly inspected and well run but of course being voluntary we had to do a lot of fundraising when it really should have been state funded to provide the statutory free hours for three and four year olds bu that's how they do everything on the cheap. I remember being very shocked aged about eighteen when I discovered from a friend's friend who works for the salvation army how the government basically leans on them and other organisations to do a lot of their dirty work for them - no matter how laudabe the charity it dosen't replace builiding proper infrastructure to deal with things either physically or with practical support for jobseekers, mental health problems etc.Mental health is being cut again I hears at NHS together as it's an easy target as it dosen't have specific targets in the way other branches of medicine do so the goverenment can make more cuts unnoticed.
In my college magazine there use to be "rant" and "rave" columns and maybe back in the beginning in 97 when a lot of just Labour MPs were also elected as well as the New Labour idealogues and before the latter had dug their claws in with the lone parent benefit cuts I might have been able to find things to "rave" about after teh long years of Tory goverment at least although it wasn't as if true socialism had arrived over night. But now it's just one long rant but we must keep up our ranting as not enough opposition to New Labour's policies is being heard still but I think it's starting to increase a bit now at least in some media though some coverage is still dreadfully unbalanced and also the marchesa dn demos against the war and the bad privatisations will have an effect' it just takes time to build a cumulative effect.
Thats a great idea, they, NL are the real extremists, entryists, etc. Having said that only 25 Labour M.P's rebelled against the privatisation of the probation service
'I wonder if we could coin a phrase for loony New Labour policies in the mode of 'loony left' (which was never a fair label anyway of course)'
John, how are you going to respond to the Telegraph poll? Whether in words or actions? I wonder what % support you have among TUs? It's a bit of a depressing read!
'I wonder if we could coin a phrase for loony New Labour policies in the mode of 'loony left' (which was never a fair label anyway of course)'
The Privateers
With regard to the Telegraph opinion poll it is not as depressing a read as one might first think.
A similar survey a few months back had John on 5%. This has now doubled to 10% and John is ahead of Meacher who is in last place.
My mind also regresses back to the Tory leadership contest back in 2005 when David Davis initially had the support of around three quarters of Tories polled. Just one televised speech at the Tory conference by Cameron turned things around radically.
Once the contest begins the amount of publicity generated in the national media will boost the campaign. Furthermore, the affiliate unions have recently had a below inflation pay increase imposed on them by the Treasury. Any candidate publicly opposing this is bound to gain votes in that section of the college.
Yes, John is still the outsider at present but this may be an advantage come the contest. A fresh face with fresh ideas can easily sway hearts and minds once the full spotlight of the national media is on us.
I agree with Cllr Brown. Last July, McDonnell was a completely unknown backbencher. In the context of near no media coverage, this is nothing for the left to cry about. His campaign has clearly established a solid base of activists - in an actual contest with some actual media exposure, then we'll be able to judge McDonnell's popularity.
Meacher has no such excuse - he's been prominent in Labour politics for about three decades; he was a minister under Wilson, Callaghan and Blair; he was a key figure on the left in the first part of the 80s - and yet he's only got 3% support among party members. In other words, everyone knows who he is and no-one likes him.
But yeah - nothing to get upset about. Unless people have visited this website, seen a leaflet, or seen a rare clip of McDonnell on TV - how will they know anything about him at the moment?!?!?!
Here's the link for the telegraph poll http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/05/nlab105.xml
I agree with Matthew, it's not that gloomy...
...even though the online graphic of the results (you need to click on it to enlarge it on the telegraph site) has McDonnell and Meacher both on 6% in an unlikely hypothetical 4 way contest with Brown and Miliband.
Here's that part of the poll result:
"In any contest for the labour leadership, who would you vote for if the following candidates were nominated?
Brown 52%
Miliband 14%
Meacher 6%
McDonnell 6%
Not sure 18%
Would not vote 5%"
Meacher and McDonnell are not going to be on the same ballot (in my view it should be McDonnell, on the merits of the campaign and platform outlined on this blog) - so on this poll there is a 12% left vote and a 14% right/ultra Blairite.
One important question is: what about the 18% not sure and the 5% who say they would not vote for any pf these? Large numbers of don't knows/won't says are often indicative of shifting ground.
(I couldn't see a result showing McDonnell 10%, with Meacher behind on ?% - can anyone post a link or a copy of that result?)
However, the most interesting part of the poll for me was this:
"To go on winning elections, Labour needs to govern from the Centre, not to adopt more Left-wing policies
Agree 55%
Disagree 35%
Don't know 10%"
Implication being that even after ten years of members leaving because they are disillusioned with Blairism, there is still over a third who wish policy was more left wing than it is, with a further 10% undecided. The "Centre ground" (Blair/Brown/Mandelson-speak for right wing!) strategy commands a majority, but it is not overwhelming - far from it.
Indeed, this corresponds with our own view that there is a much broader base of support for sensible (even democratically agreed, and socialist) policy than is often supposed or spun.
That is why Brown doesn't want a credible left candidate. That is why there appears to be almost visible pressure being brought to bear on MPs who might otherwise support or even nominate McDonnell (I don't really think Brown fears Meacher).
John's campaign is clearly designed to articulate the views of that large minority of party members.
It is based solidly on democratically agreed policies of the Labour party and its trade union affiliates, and has touched grassroots parts of the party other candidates find it difficult to reach.
Personally I think that if John McDonnell can get on the ballot paper, the pundits would be surprised at the high level of support he will get in the party (ie amongst constituency and union members).
Getting on the ballot paper depends to a large extent now on getting on the telly, on the radio, in the papers and in the blogs.
More exposure for McDonnell in the media! It can only be of benefit to ordinary, loyal and sensible Labour Party and trade union members like myself, and the majority of ordinary working people who out party should represent but has been so sadly failing in so many ways through the Blair years.
Go on yoursel' John!
Hi,
Without being too much of an anorack about this kind of nonsense there is a poll on the YOUGOV website which excludes the don't knows/won't vote in the contest.
Has John on 10% with party members and 8% (9% average) with trade unionists. Meacher has 3% party members and 13% (8% average) trade unionists. Brown is obviously high around the 60& mark.
Meacher also said in the indie today that whoever between himself and McDonnell had the more nominations should step down. Obviously the votes there would be distributed to the left candidate making close to 20% if the don't knows/won't says are not included.
Not a bad platform to build on. Again, hard work is here is the key. We must keep at it..
Yes Matthew - agreed again. Here's the Yougov link (its a pdf)
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL070101005_1.pdf
The part of the poll I already found interesting is perhaps even more so...
"To go on winning elections, Labour needs to govern from the Centre, not to adopt more Left-wing policies
Agree
Lab members 61% TU members 51%
Disagree
Lab members 30% TU members 38%
Don't know
Lab members 9% TU members 11%"
I am sure John McDonnell will gain support from a large number trade union members - as long as this campaign gets plenty of media coverage.
Professor Anthony King of Essex University said in The Telegraph that John McDonnell has "no grassroots support" - I think he needs to do a BIT more research...
New blog for the left.
Action-without-theory.
Click on name to check it out.
Read about Alan "16 percent support" Johnson and the union buster.
Click on the name.
Does JM's campaign team have a rapid response unit, (don't like the term rapid rebuttal, too blairite) or should supporters politley email professor king/telegraph?
'Professor Anthony King of Essex University said in The Telegraph that John McDonnell has "no grassroots support" - I think he needs to do a BIT more research...
I think JMcD should definitely comment on the poll. If anything, it's an opportunity for a bit more press. Bit late now though I suppose.
I don't think McDonnell should comment - it's too much of a flawed poll:
a) It's based on a self-selected panellist;
b) Only those with access to the internet are polled;
c) How did they weigh it as is done with national polls? Do they actually know the gender/race/regional/class balance etc in the Labour party and trade union movement - because they'd need to know that in order for such a poll to be even remotely accurate. If they weighted it according to national figures, then the poll has no relevance to anything and should be ignored/discarded.
Andy,
Couldn't have said it better myself, comrade!!!
Furthermore, I would like to refer readers of this blog to the comment previoulsy published on this thread, providing a link to another YouGov poll with quite a different outcome (i.e. showing a greater percentage of support for John among Party and T.U. members). It seems as if the Torygraph chooses which facts to publish rather subjectively, though I agree with you that these YouGov polls cannot, and certainly should not, be regarded as being any greater authority when it comes to reporting on the "mood" within the Party ahead of the Leadership elections. In fact, the increasing amount of Party grassroots organisations and T.U. broad lefts supporting John's campaign - not to mention ASLEF - show a great support for John's bid at rank-and-file level (unlike Meacher, who appears to be perfectly happy wityh simply courting Labour MP - important though they are.).
Saw Milliband interviewed on the Channel 4 news defending carbon credits trading. He wasn't convincing (how could he be with a policy that ensures any reduction in first world CO2 emmissions results in an increase in developing and former communist ones?). Hope the Blairites do get him to stand - he's not very effective but it'd help split the right wing vote.
Current voter i like that 'privateers' slogan idea - we need to emphasise the fact that it's the right that are driven by ideology rather than reality - their ideology being that the private sector always does things better and cheaper - the reality being they accept taxpayer handouts and do it worse at greater expense (at least when you have a PFI /PPPP set-up or our current model of rail privatisation)
correct me if I'm wrong anyone but I think Yougov is supported by Tories or soemthing right wing and so those who vote in it's polls tend to be that way politcally though not necessarily I've done them myself but the last couple they wanted me to do were about which coffee brand I would drink (well fair trade/organic of course!) and no tvery political!1 You get paid 50p a survey but don't get excited you can't collect teh money till youhave earnt £50 worth!! I don't know if they have a left backed rival now - I thought maybe it was going to be epolitix.com surveys but they don't seem to eb around anymore so the tv media and The Torygraph etc seem to be reliant on this possibly rather unrepresentative source.
The danger of Milliband standing (or, even worse, Reid) is that it will drive some of the potential McDonnell vote into the arms of Brown as the supposed "lesser of two evils". The total 'right' vote will be substantially greater if both New Labourites stood.
We want Brown versus McDonnell. Clear, obvious choice, no excuses. Bring it on
also Duncan M is right about carbon credits and if the product emitting teh carbon is made from unethical sources such as dyes used in clothing etc can be full of pesticides, tested on animals there are dioxins in non-ecological disposable nappies and so on and if the company making the car or hoover or whatever the product is invests in dodgy regimes where trade unions are banned or banks with a bank that invests in unethical things the aggregate environmental impact of a product can be much worse than jsut the carbon it uses; I think carbon offsetting is a bit too convenien, it's like an excuse to carry on making everything in China and flying to the second home in the sun every five minutes and so on.
This sort of false info is everywhere though as the right are so prominent at the mo and at the end of the day they will do anythign to protect their own greeedy interests, even pretend to be green or fairtrade in the case of a company like Coke or Nestle (see www.babymilkaction.org.uk for Nestle boycott). Recently there was a survey that falsely claimed that disposable naapies were jsut as green as re-usables which wa complete rubbish but the Enviroment Dept was complicit in it which would never have happened under Meacher I know as I've lobbied him on this.
Another way we can support the McDonnell campaign is simply by word of mouth for I've read that if you moan to a friend about something that person then tells others so that nine people end up knowing and it mushrooms from there and while explaining who John is I've certainly moaned to enough people that we've been suffering from a media blackout caused by the Blairites and so that is why they haven't seen John on tv etc so I think they will remember that next time they do see the leadership contest on telly or in the paper and it will stick in their minds.People do tend to support a perceived "underdog" as well don't they...We just must make sure that no MP, trade unionist or Labour party member throws their vote away by thinking the contest is a foregone conclusion because that is believing the hype that the Blairites want us to believe so that they can be like the Tories and win by default because you can rest assured they will get their vote out; we musn't give it to them by dithering or abstaining. They're probabaly reading this website and plotting their tactics right now.....!
Good point h - there are a lot of harmful chemicals and pollutants other than CO2 (radioactive waste from nuclear too)
I hear Meacher has said that he thinks whoever gets less nominations from MPs between him and john should stand down and back the other - could be positive if John can get more MPs (as i'm sure he can). There is the risk ,as others have pointed out, that some of Brown's camp back Meacher to try to get an easier opponent.
If those nominating Meacher arent Brownites though it sounds like a deal worth considering maybe?
The below inflation minimum wage increase of 3% is an absolute disgrace - see what John has to say at: http://tradeunionists4john.blogspot.com/
Meacher stated publicly in Monday's Indy that he would stand down if he got less nominations. I asked him the question in their Q&A so am pleased at a result! I have kept the cutting......
good job Susan
Photoshop CS4
Windows XP
cheap jordan shoes
Microsoft Office
Metallic UGG Boots
Mini UGG Boots
First of all, we should love links of london charms our motherland. Let’s take a great links of london charm interest in the development of our links of london Sweetie Bracelets hometowns and take an active part in our school and activities.
Secondly, let’s fill the world links london Sweetie Braceletwith love. We should show our respect links london Bracelet for old people, our parents and our teachers. We should also care for each links of london Bracelets other and help those in need. More importantly, all links of london Necklaces of us must be faithful and honest in our daily life.
Finally, let’s links london Necklace work together to save energy and protect our natural environment, including animals, trees, flowers and grass.
As for myself, I will study links of london friendship bracelets even harder and try my best to do all the above.
Dear fellow students, let’s start links london friendship bracelet fight now and spare no effort/efforts to do a links of london Sweetie Watches little bit every day, every hour, and every minute!
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
ugg australia
uggs
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks.
Paragraph star UGG boots, many shops Amoy’s that some people go online to buy or Shopping Service, in a word, they are
very good look, take a look at the stars with their own, become a star is a small case! This the reason why
ugg boots sale are so popular now!Put on cotton boots is also moving up and
quiet,such as the ugg boots uk match with the pants.there is also a good dress with Miu leather. At the same time, necessary are gloves, ear muffs, snow ugg boots, sunglasses, scarf and so on, which you can pick the beautiful pieces of dress, no matter how technology, let us heavily armed first.so
now ugg boots sale in many shoes shop.there are many ugg boots you can choose in the
ugg boots uk shop!
More and more people began to collect jordan shoes. If you are Michael Jordan fans, you must have collection air jordans . If you want to buy the cheap jordan shoes,you can search the internet.Jordan is the hero of every individual mind. Of course, we are also very like the air jordan shoes .So you will like the air jordans,you will found the shoes make you become more and more beautiful.
Post a Comment
<< Home