|
To applause, she added she had "held back a little".
1. Economic justice
Increase income tax for the top 5% of earners, reverse the Tories’ cuts in corporation tax and clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly of large corporations.
2. Social justice
Abolish Universal Credit and end the Tories’ cruel sanctions regime. Set a national goal for wellbeing to make health as important as GDP; Invest in services that help shift to a preventative approach. Stand up for universal services and defend our NHS. Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.
3. Climate justice
Put the Green New Deal at the heart of everything we do. There is no issue more important to our future than the climate emergency. A Clean Air Act to tackle pollution locally. Demand international action on climate rights.
4. Promote peace and human rights
No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.
5. Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
6. Defend migrants’ rights
Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.
7. Strengthen workers’ rights and trade unions
Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and the weakening of workplace rights.
8. Radical devolution of power, wealth and opportunity
Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.
9. Equality
Pull down obstacles that limit opportunities and talent. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, Sure Start, BAME representation and the abolition of Section 28 – we must build on that for a new decade.
He used to be quite a personable young man. |
and, peeping out of the bookcase behind him, could be seen a book cover bearing the top of his head from healthier days and his name in very large print.
Yes, its Conference Season! Brighton! Hotels! Late Night Drunkenness! Promiscuity! (oops, sorry, networking). Here's mr ishmael on Conference:
WHERE'S THE UNIONS? drafted 9/12/2010
Sometime in my
lifetime, maybe before, trades union leaders, most of them, came to see
themselves as an informal arm of govament; it's true, there was
McGahey and Scargill and Red Robbo, but there was also Len Murray, Lord
Murray, eventually, if you please, slithering in and out of Downing
Street; there was Tom Jackson-Moustache of the Post Office Workers but
there was also the repulsive and incompetent Alan Johnson, currently
doping so well as shadow to wee George Spunkface.
Before the 2005 election something called the Warwick Agreement was struck between union bosses and the Labour Party*.
I remember, once, seeing a letter from Harry Fletcher,* lifetime deputy
boss of NAPO, the probation officers' union, or professional
association, as they prefer it to be styled; it was in response to a
very genuinely urgent grievance felt by a member: I am sorry I have
been unable to get back to you, I have been busy lunching with
ministers; honest, not invent, helping to formulate strategies, or some
such, he would have been, useless little turd. On another occasion, at
a NAPO conference, word went around from the leadership, then the
unpardonably loathsome Judy McKnight, that angry members should not
heckle and barrack the pipsqueak, NewLabour arsehole, Paul Boateng, as
he angrily threatened to draw a ministerial red line through the entire
probation service; we shouldn't heckle him because it would seem
racist, him being a Man of Colour and everything, and probably mess up
hers and little fat Harry's chances of a peerage, or a QUANGO, at the
very least.
Or that we would all be bamboozled by his nauseating, ever so humble
performance at the TUC - which in every previous year he had always
treated with absolute contempt?
A few years ago a speech from the PM would still have generated a
polite ovation. Not any more. For the most part, delegates sat in stony
silence and, as the BBC's Nick Assinder reported, even when promised
that the government would not renege on pledges in 'the Warwick
agreement' made in June, 'they were far from overcome with excitement or
gratitude'.
What seems to have escaped the New Labour policy wonks is that trying
to shift the focus of the debates that are likely to take place in the
run-up to a general election away from the war and onto domestic issues
does not necessarily make anybody feel much better. Most right
thinking punters are every bit as pissed off with privatisation, tuition
fees and government-inspired hysteria over the 'war on terror' as they
have been appalled at the unremitting carnage in Iraq.
Even for a Blair at his smooth talking best, winning the hearts and
minds of a hostile TUC was never going to be easy - the forked tongue
being especially visible given that all the pally chat came at the same
time as 104,000 civil servants face the sack.
But that would be to miss the point. Blair's main purpose was to lend
credibility to the Big Four union leaders whose loyalty to the Labour
Party has been put under enormous stress in the last couple of years
because of their own members' bitterness at New Labour's agenda. This
anger has erupted on the industrial front in the last few weeks with
very successful strikes on the Yorkshire buses and at British Airways.
And the political expression has been evident in the sensational
results for Respect candidates in Stepney and Millwall.
Despite all the assertions of still being completely in charge and
raring to go, Blair is actually up to his eyeballs in the brown stuff
and that is the real reason why, as one commentator put it, 'he
presented delegates in the Brighton conference centre with a notably
different prime minister from the one they have come to expect... there
was no lecturing, threatening or casting aside. And there was
absolutely no reference to the "forces of conservatism" or "wreckers". Calculated, deliberate and utterly self-serving as usual, the distinct
shift of tone adopted by Blair actually marks the culmination of a
long spell of backdoor scheming all designed to bring leaders of the
four biggest unions - Amicus, Unison, the TGWU and GMB - back on board
in the run-up to an election. Those with any sense inside the New
Labour machine realise that the support of the Big Four is absolutely
essential. Like it or not, the party still relies heavily on union cash
to survive. If the recent disaffiliations of the RMT and FBU were to
spread to the GMB, Labour HQ would be driven to panic stations. The Big
Four are every bit as important when it comes to the Labour Party
conference because of the block voting system. Yet according to one
'senior union figure' quoted in the Guardian, 'The new generation
of union leaders don't have any personal loyalty to Tony Blair... they
may not have moved against him over Iraq, but the war legitimised
their thinking that they owe him nothing and they don't have to be
deferential towards him.'
But rather than press home their advantage and blow Blair out of the
water, leaders of the Big Four - and Brendan Barber of the TUC - have
settled for a bit of pretty shabby horse trading. Tony Woodley of the
TGWU made this clear in the Morning Star on the same day as
Blair's speech to the TUC: 'The disappointments the movement has with
the government's record - and there are many - will be tempered by the
realisation that we have to work for a Labour victory at that election,
whenever it comes.'
In the weeks since the Warwick agreement leaders of all the main unions
have gone out of their way to talk up the concessions which they said
had been made by the government. Woodley claimed that ministers had
made 'several significant concessions'. Similar claims have been
repeated by Prentis, who states categorically that the net result of the
concessions made at Warwick is that 'it will be harder for PFI to be
carried out at the expense of the workforce and that it will be easier
to invest in public services without using PFI'.
Yet the Warwick agreement is not really an agreement at all. It is more
a shopping list of demands put in front of the Labour Party chairman,
Ian McCartney: issues from skills training to rights of migrant
workers, action to tackle workplace violence and uprating of
redundancy. All very laudable aspirations in their own right (56 of them
in all) but you will have a job finding a copy of an actual agreement
anywhere, least of all from the Labour Party.
One or two very minor concessions have been made on employment rights
at Labour's conference and some of these might even find their way into
the manifesto, but what happens after that is anybody's guess. It
certainly doesn't seem to fall into the category of 'major
concessions', let alone herald the death knell of New Labour's
market-driven manifesto. Away from the national policy forum, every
other indicator points to the fact that both Number 10 and Number 11
Downing Street have not the slightest intention of budging from their
'reform agenda' for public services. Why bring Milburn and Mandelson
back and why line up 104,000 civil servants for the sack if what you
have in mind is to head for what Derek Simpson dreamily informs us is
going to be a 'historic, radical and progressive third term'?
Warwick actually provides a very dangerous smokescreen for the
government to neutralise the Big Four, all the better to leave Mark
Serwotka and the Public and Commercial Services' Union out on a limb. This would be a disaster for every
other union. It would put the government's privatisation plans right
back on track. Rather than spending hours listening to Wee Ian
McCartney, the Big Four would be much better employed getting round a
table with all the other unions in the TUC and making joint plans for
mass demonstrations and strike action in defence of the PCS.
Too late, now, of course
Fairness at work
Pensions
Public services
Manufacturing
Other commitment
Baron Boateng |
mr ishmael's essay today is:
WHERE'S THE UNIONS? drafted 9/12/2010
"Why don't you write a book, my friend said to me, for forty years. There's enough books, don't need any more fucking books, books're the last thing we need more of. The last time he asked, a couple of years back, I wanted to say Well, in a sense, I have, it's called stanislav, a young Polish plumber."
Or...
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/ishmael-smith/honest-not-invent/hardcover/product-njr7vg.html
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/ishmael-smith/honest-not-invent/paperback/product-wq2kpg.html
Birmingham Pride 2021. Shame I missed it. |
8 comments:
This is the eternal weakness. The critical flaw in the plan. A long time ago, the 1990s, I think, I was listening to R4 Today as I brushed my teeth and a Labour MP said that all Tories were [something]. (Scum, vermin, whatever. I forget the epithet used.) The interviewer asked doubtfully, "Even Churchil?" "Yes!"
The point being that the Left hates the Right and thinks itself morally superior merely by force of existence. Yet the Right does not hate the Left. The Right just thinks that the Left is mistaken. This is the tribal slight that isn't that makes the likes of Ms Rayner spit her silliness.
In America, the left's stealing of elections because they are allowed to because their cause is just is now plain to everyone. In Rotherham, white children with cervixes are still hawked about by subcontinent adults without cervixes and the while, the police are painting their faces in rainbows and talking bollocks that would have had their parents kicking their arses up and down their terraced streets.
What is Labour for? I have been asking this question here for more than a decade. Still no answer comes.
It's the class rage, mr mongoose. Emotion, not logic. The huge inequalities of wealth and power in this country trigger a visceral response to the suits, haircuts, vowel sounds, confidence, air of entitlement, the ability to put together a cohesive sentence. As we saw with our Angela. God bless her, she won't apologise.
I read one article protesting that the human capital of Eton should not be discriminated against because their elitist education was not their fault. Small children of eight years old were and are abandoned by Mummy to the care of a boarding Prep. school. The child doesn't know or care about the financial commitment from the household's finite resources (all resources are finite)to ensuring those pudgy little bare legs are placed on the Success ladder. A Prep school, for our foreign friends, is so-called because it prepares the child to enter one of the great Public Schools, and then take up the burden of running the country. Of men now in their forties and fifties, seven in ten are senior judges, six in ten are senior officers in the Armed Forces; they comprise more than half of the permanent secretaries, senior diplomats, leading media figures, bishops, ministers of state, lord lieutenants and the England cricket team. (figures derived from the Sutton Trust and Social Mobility Commission report Elitist Britain 2019 and quoted by Richard Beard)
All that sounds like a caste system, in which a minority rules the majority of the population, with a casual sense of entitlement. Is it surprising that this evokes the howl of rage voiced by Angela Rayner?
Removing charitable status from the Public Schools would do nothing to level up the disadvantaged. The tax income yielded would be frittered away on other concerns of state, the great Public Schools would weather the set back by inviting donations from their alumni, the minor (and cheaper) Public Schools would go bankrupt, bursaries and scholarships would be removed, and the impact would be to remove what little upwards social mobility there is in the system. The Beeb would be against it. Here's a radical solution: remove all the children from state education and place them in Public Schools, without allowing the current teaching and management staff to leave, and transfer the Public School children to the state schools nearest to their homes. Their parents would either very quickly set about endowing the state schools lavishly to improve the education and opportunities of their children, or send the kids to elitist schools in America. I understand that is happening in Higher Education - because Oxbridge operates quotas weighted against Public School applicants, those gilded young people are now gracing the Ivy League Universities of the Eastern United States. One can only hope that they stay there.
Its a long time, certainly including when I was living in England, but also now Down Here, that I voted positively for someone I respected as a person and with policies I respected. Voting now for me is entirely defensive; ie voting to ensure a particular person or policy is defeated. Fortunately, Down Here we have elections every 3 years and we have some weird form of counting which after 27 years I still don't understand. The good news is that the outcome is that nothing really dangerous happens.
I know, mr mike, there isn't a party that would represent my political views - these days it all has to be strategic voting to keep the worst options out of power.
The Labour Conference is getting exciting: Andy McNab (oops, McDonald) has launched his SAS grenades in an effort to sabotage Keir Starmer. Gave him the opportunity for walking about on the seafront hand in hand with his wife and brief against Starmer and his 10 pledge pact to win over the left to gain the leadership of the party
As mr mongoose says, what is the point of Labour anymore? Too factionalised to be a credible cohesive government in waiting, and too removed from their supposed working class constituency, with their wokery preoccupations. Embarassing, really.
Not to worry - they will all be going down with covid, as there is not the slightest evidence that any of the delegates or their hangers-on, spads and supporters exercise even a shred of infection control. Here's a clip of Conference enjoying itself at Dawn Butler's Jamaica Night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz9uejXdexk
£5 per head and a free glass of rum punch. Sadiq Khan showed up. I'm surprised Michael Gove didn't gate crash - he likes dancing.
But Angela is just positioning herself, isn't she, mrs i? She is the stroppy, disappointed, single parent Mum. "Uv bin on benefits, me. I know wot itz loik to 'ave the fucking Tories spit on ya." A one-trick pony.
Normal ordinary Labour people think that the UK is a rich enough country to look after folk who need a hand-up. Angela pretends - if she is pretending - that she wants to fight a class war against the scum of the Tories. Unfortunately the normal ordinary Conservative just thinks that the institutions and habits of the past have lessons to teach us that are valuable still. You know, like families bringing up kids and not nicking grannies' pensions outside Post Offices.
There is nothing coherent about Angela. There is nowhere for her to go that Comrade Corbyn hasn't already been. And look how well that went. That the dalek Starmer is hopeless as a political leader is true. His whole life has been about finding two or three critical inconsistencies in a position and hammering away at them until they are visible to all. That works against a penniless, inarticulate NED who has been found halfway up or down a drainpipe at the dead of night with a telly under his arm but it isn't going to work against an Eton charmer who can make jokes in Latin.
We had this conversation, mr i and I, a few years back when the Coalition was repealing civilisation. There was the window to work out what the Left can be for, how it can be reunited with the sane members of the 'Shooters and the non-balaclava-wearing Greens. Well, there is a window here again. Labour failed to take their chance then. It seems that they want to fail to take it again.
It goes down very well with the Class Warriors, mr mongoose - Angela has a following and she seems strong enough to have defeated Starmer when he tried to move against her. But she is not leadership material, even if she can do a good stand up routine at PMQ.
I don't think that Labour wants to win an election. They certainly don't conduct themselves as if they want to.They are too preoccupied with their problems - a question of first we'll sort ourselves out and then we'll make a bid for the country. By then, of course, it will be too late. The last time they gained power it was by removing many of those inconvenient Old Labour principles. I remember being given a thorough telling off by a New Labourite during a conference back in the very early Nineties, who, with great conviction and assertion bordering on aggression, informed me that the only important thing was to be in power, because you can't change anything from the Opposition benches. If the old Clause IV is preventing Labour getting elected - ditch it and adopt a new one, written by Blair.
The current Labour Party doesn't have that determination, that "eyes on the prize" drive. And Keir, in his attempts to hold it all together, to pull the teeth of the left, to placate the wokery faction, to distance the Party from anti-semitism, to keep the Unions on side and to tolerate Angela, by trying to upset nobody, upsets everybody. Seems a decent enough bloke, Keir - but he doesn't have the terrier tenacity to keep his Party in order and all facing in the same direction. Gnasher could do it, if she gave up her Scottish ambitions and went to play with the big kids.
Just resign yourself to another hundred or so years of Conservatism.
in its modern neo-imperialist war-mongering configuration, the british labour party has become decadently divorced from its traditional left-wing values...
and whilst the weltanschau of this new world ordered neo-liberal labour party might not yet quite be defined by the popular view that "wogs begin at calais", i certainly believe the core philosophy of its champagne-socialist members could now neatly be condensed into the notion that "socialism ends at dover" - or even hampstead heath.
dear mr ultrapox,
i run my hospital ward in wild west wales with an iron-fucking-fist, and i can assure you that foreign patients - including the english ones - are never allowed to dilly-dally and take up valuable bed-space here - however for strictly operational reasons, i'm still open to the internationalist ideal of cheap foreign labour being granted entry into the uk in order to keep the nhs from sinking in a sargasso sea of seething capitalist corruption.
Post a Comment