" /> Michael Meacher - Labour's Future: September 2006 Archives

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 27, 2006

The flight from Manchester now departing

Further shenanigans in the conference hall during today's health debate. Dave Prentis, with around 20 seconds to go to complete his speech, had his mike switched off by the chair, MEP Gary Titley. This seemed more than a little unfair as delegates sympathetic to the NEC position (to remit the Unison motion) had had courteous reminders that their allocated time was coming to an end, unlike Prentis. Protests ensued from all over the hall, from unions and CLPs. Jack Dromey got up to make a point of order, protesting at this "disgraceful" treatment. The problem was, what Prentis was saying was going down so well with delegates, their applause was cutting into the time available for his speech. Shortly afterwards, Jeremy Beecham assumed the chair, because Titley had to get on a rather sudden flight to Brussels.

Conference debates the leadership

We've heard plenty of claims that there is no thirst amongst conference delegates or visitors for a debate about the leadership question. Well, I've just come from one of the most packed fringe meetings I've ever attended. Over 250 people squeezed themselves into the UNISON marquee to hear Derek Simpson, Billy Hayes, Tony Woodley and Dave Prentis urge the party to organise an election process with hustings where all candidates can set out their stalls.

It's great that these Labour members are making these demands, but sad that they should have to do so. Almost without exception, each one warned against a beauty or personality contest. I couldn't agree more.

We've lost millions of voters and around 1/4 million party members. Without candidates declaring that they are in favour of a more independent foreign policy; trade union freedom and employment rigths from day one; a reduction in inequality and a NMW of about £7/hour; support for UK manufacturing and much more emphatic action on climate change, we will not reconnect with disillusioned voters.

And we won't reconnect with party members if we don't have a more democratic party that listens to and respect their views. It is great that the unions all worked together to organise this debate, tragic that conference was not given the same opportunity to do so.

Don't exclude the centre-left

[The Guardian, 27 September 2006]

The debate over Labour's new direction must go beyond the Brownite right and the Blairite far-right.

As Gordon Brown moves this week further to the right, arm in arm with Tony Blair - on foreign policy especially - it is increasingly clear that the Labour party and the public deserve an open contest for the leadership, between candidates representing all the main wings of the party - not just the Brownite right and the Blairite far-right. They want a debate on policies, not a parade of personalities.

The single overarching issue is: do the party and public want another decade of New Labour? If not, there must be a candidate with the necessary number of nominations who represents mainstream Labour aspirations; and we should be settling now - not later - the programme for a change of direction that can win us the next general election, when carrying on as we are will certainly lose it.

The most pressing requirement is that we pull our forces out of Iraq by the middle of next year. The presence of occupation troops is not preventing violence and a slide into civil war; it is fuelling them as well as exposing us to retaliation in Britain. We should also make it clear that we will not support any military attack by the US or Israel against Iran. The way to reduce tension both in the Middle East and at home is not a US-style war on terror, but through pressure on Israel - after its Lebanese debacle - to negotiate a two-state solution in Palestine, and through a much more even-handed western policy towards Israel and the Muslim states. Nor is replacing Trident at a cost of £25bn (revised upwards, if maintenance costs are included - as they must be - to £75bn) a relevant or value-for-money proposal when world security is threatened not by nuclear states but by regional conflicts and international terrorism.

Domestically, we should end the obsession with privatisation as a panacea, not only in health and education, but also in housing, pensions, probation, rail and local government. We need a new leadership that will genuinely listen to the party and the public, with mechanisms in place so that it can be held to account. Conference should have a decision-making role, not merely act as an opportunity for the leader to grandstand, and nominations each year for leader and deputy leader would allow sentiment within the party to be channelled towards change. Parliament should take back much of the patronage and decision-making that No 10 has appropriated to itself.

We cannot any more have an economy which is driven purely by letting market forces rip. Inequalities in wealth and income have reached grotesque proportions, with average City earnings now 400 times the average pension and 160 times the minimum wage - which should be increased to £7 an hour. We need a much more determined break with the low-pay, low-skills, low-productivity economy. Employment rights need to be strengthened to create justice in the workplace and to balance the undue power of some employers.

Last, but not least, a more radical approach to climate change is sorely needed. The government should be pressing to bring air travel into line with the Kyoto protocol, requiring the industry to measure and report on its environmental impact, and to introduce a carbon credits system for individual households. Above all, we should be leading the world in energy conservation and switching from fossil fuels to renewables, rather than reverting to nuclear power with all its risks and downsides.

A centre-left programme of this kind would, I believe, transform Labour's election prospects. If enough people vote for a candidate with those values in the forthcoming leadership election, we can make it a reality.

September 26, 2006

NEC muscle flexers

The NEC meeting yesterday morning was interesting for two reasons - first a door blocking demo by “loyal party members” demanding the NEC support Tony Blair in the interests of unity. Rather than manhandling them out of the way and interrogating them under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, they were allowed to generally mill about as long as they wanted. It’s good to see that the party machine has learnt from last year’s mistakes and is so tolerant of such actions. I’m sure the rules will be applied equally to all such protests.

Of more substantial import, however, was the result of the NEC meeting itself, at which members were presented with four draft NEC statements for approval. Rights at Work, Pensions, Corporate Liability and Health. The effect of agreeing these statements would have been to ask the movers of conference resolutions on these topics to remit. If they declined, then the NEC would recommend Conference vote against.

Trouble was, the NEC drafts had not been agreed with the CLPs or unions moving the motions and there was considerable anger at the way this had happened. A suggestion was put that the NEC should not put the draft statements until they had consulted with the CLPs and unions concerned to seek a consensus – a suggestion which was carried by 18 votes to 13.

Update 27 Sept
Yet more evidence of the NEC/CAC learning from previous year's mistakes. Having permitted a rowdy "protest" on Monday, we of course had the "spontaneous" placard waving during Blair's entry to the hall yesterday. Bit of a problem, in that security would normally preclude any such materials being taken into the hall in the first place. Actually, the general consensus is that they would have got away with it except some over-enthusiastic party worker added the "safer streets" slogan. Who writes that on a placard?

It didn't end there. Despite party rules forbidding distribution of leaflets in the hall, an unsigned A4 sheet was being distributed during Wednesday's health debate, calling on delegates to support the NEC against the Unison backed Composite 8. Again, looking to persuade people that this was a spontaneous process, the sheet had handwriting on the back, calling for backing for the NEC. Except that even the handwriting was photocopied. Who has access to double sided photocopying facilities at conference, and how come no-one stopped the sheets being circulated anyway?

When will they learn? You just don't over egg the pudding or gild the lily.

Blogging gaps

A mixture of internet access and technical problems meant that the blog has not been updated as promptly as intended, so apologies to anyone who has been waiting for a comment to be published or a new entry to be posted. Glad to say, the problems have now been sorted out and new entries will appear as quickly as I can put them up - including one from Sunday. They'll be posted in the order they were written, for the sake of chronological clarity.

September 24, 2006

Past the post is past its sell-by date

It’s only Sunday night and the fringe is buzzing merrily away. This may be day one of the conference but I’ve spoken at several fringe meetings already. Tonight’s was a first for me – the Make Votes Count rally alongside Patricia Hewitt, Charles Clarke and John Denham. I’m a later convert than some to the need for electoral reform and the introduction of proportional representation, but FPTP produces results out of all proportion to the views of the electorate. It is intellectually unsustainable and does not give the winner of a general election a mandate that is acceptable for any political party.

The gap between the share of the popular vote and the size of a parliamentary majority has always been out of kilter, but in the last 20 years the effect has been magnified in way it has never done before. Government swung from blue to red, but with huge parliamentary majorities.

Concentrating campaigning on ever decreasing number of seats is an inherent function of the way in which electoral politics is conducted these days. The consequence? A situation where the government of the country is effectively decided by voters in about 5% of the seats.

Just to be partisan for a minute, there’s another reason why proportional representation is good for Labour, as swell as in principle. Soon to be published research from Unlock Democracy (a joint venture of Charter 88 and the New Politics Network) shows that Conservative membership of local party associations is extremely volatile - basically according to whether the seat is winnable.

OK, so intuition might lead one to such an assumption anyway – except that the same research shows Labour membership spread far more evenly across all constituencies, whether target seats or not. Thus Labour is best placed to take advantage of a PR system, with activists spread all over the UK in a way that both the Tories (basically an English party now) and the Lib Dems (with patches of strong support but very unevenly spread) cannot match. In this respect, only Labour is a national party – something that would become especially important under PR

So much for the “what is good for us argument”. We absolutely have to go out and make the case, in the Labour Party, for PR on its merits too. Then of course we need the referendum on electoral reform that we were promised but which has not materialized – another demonstration of the current unaccountability of power in the UK. Yet it should be the public that decides both on the need for electoral reform and if so, what kind of system should be introduced.

I personally favour a system similar to that used in German elections, which has proportionality, sets reasonable electoral hurdles for smaller parties and retains a constituency link. But if we choose an additional member system, then we must also make it clear that the additional members must be selected by party members – not by officials or leaders. There’s a considerable variety of views within Labour that is all too often swept aside and which alienates both members – all those who did not campaign for us in May, for example – and the public too.

And this is where the inherent virtues of PR meld with real party advantage. We’re going to fight the next general election with a new party leader. We need to win back the trust of the electorate that has vanished in a puff of unaccountability. I cannot think of a policy change that indicates our openness better than a commitment to change the voting system and to change the way power is distributed in this country.

September 23, 2006

Gordon and the machine

I have just heard, from what I regard as an unimpeachable source that Gordon Brown has told junior ministers that if they do not vote for him in the forthcoming leadership contest, they’ll be out.

I must say, the machine politics doesn’t surprise me. But clearly Gordon is more worried about his vote than we thought!

September 21, 2006

Joy in Heaven?

It’s all very well for Tony Blair at this stage, within sight of his departure, suddenly breaking the habit of a lifetime and announcing a consensual, inclusive review of the whole range of party policy before he goes

But it’s a bit rich to have a conversion to this new style of policy making at the end when for 12 years we have had policy settled exclusively in Labour HQ or No. 10 and election manifestos handed down from on high without so much as a flicker of Party consultation. Still, there’s more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth …

But it is not as though this latest exercise is going to be that inclusive after all. First, it’s confined to the Cabinet. What about the PLP, the NEC, the trade unions and the party as a whole?

Second, for a comprehensive review of policy, it is remarkably selective. Why doesn’t today’s obscene degree of income and wealth inequality have a place in all this? Why is there no mention of the need to have a genuinely accountable Government and Prime Minister who actually listens to Party and public opinion and what mechanisms are necessary to ensure this? Why is there no reference to the need for a radical environmental policy which will seriously tackle climate change as the biggest threat confronting the planet? And why aren’t women’s issues put centre stage and every policy - not just pensions, child care and work life balance - checked to make them more women friendly?

Come on, if we’re going to have a genuine policy review, let’s get real.

September 15, 2006

Questions for Gordon Brown

It's real brass neck for Gordon Brown to say he wants no debate on policies and only a token leadership election. If we're not permitted to ask questions and discuss policies now, what would it be like if he ever did become PM? Attempting to shut down debate at this stage is not good news.

So here are some questions for Mr Brown to start the ball rolling:

1 Would he pull British troops out of Iraq by the middle of next year and make it clear now he will not support any military attack on Iran?

2 Will he reverse the accelerating privatisation of the NHS and the growing incoporation of the private sector into education, housing, pensions and probation?

3 Does he support the introduction of new measures to hold the leadership of the Party to account and to strengthen Parliamentary accountability of the government?

4 Does he not think that top city incomes 400 times greater than the low-paid is an unacceptable degree of inequality in Britain today and if so, what will he do to reduce it?

5 Will he reject both a new round of building of nuclear power stations in Britain as well as spending £25bn on replacing Trident?

The Centre-Left majority answers 'Yes' to all these questions and wants all these policies changed in a new direction for Government pollicy.

Will Brown deliver?

September 08, 2006

Taking the Party and public into account

Good to hear that Tony Blair is now saying the leadership, in all this ruckus, should be thinking about the Party and the public. So that means, I take it, an early leadership election so as not to scupper Labour's chances in the Scottish, Welsh and local elections. It means the innovative idea, does it, of actually discussing what the direction of policy should be under the new government?- not shutting down all debate on policy before it's even begun, as Gordon Brown wants, leaving him (he hopes) with a free hand. And it means, I assume, having candidates representing all the main wings of the Party, not just the Brownite Right and the Blairite far Right, but the Centre-Left, which has been disenfranchised for a decade or more.

So, it's good the PM is now on side, or have I missed something?

September 05, 2006

The oil wars have already begun

Whilst the world’s attention is locked on the Israel-Hizbullah war, more far-reaching and potentially dangerous threats to global security are growing dramatically, though almost unnoticed. Last month the US Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman, let the cat out of the bag: “At least at the present time and for the foreseeable future, we’re going to see oil demand exceeding supply” – a potentially explosive development that the world has never faced before.

The month before ex-President Clinton raised the alarm that the world could be out of ‘recoverable oil’ in 35-50 years, elevating the risk of ‘resource-based wars of all kinds’. And last November Joe Lieberman, a former Vice-Presidential candidate, warned that efforts by the US and China to use imports to meet growing demand may escalate competition to something ‘as hot and dangerous’ as the nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union. Yet all this passes almost without mention in Britain.

The bare facts behind the gathering geopolitical oil race are stark. The world is currently consuming about 84 million barrels a day, but because of rapidly increasing demand from accelerating economic growth in China, India and some other fast-industrialising countries, the US Energy Information Administration recently forecast demand at 121 million barrels a day by 2025. Yet there is no way that a near-50% increase in demand could remotely be met within 20 years. As the Head of Exploration at Total recently put it: “Numbers like 120 million barrels per day will never be reached, never”.
First, the oil isn’t there. For the last decade the world has used some 24 billion barrels a year, but has found on average less than 10 billion barrels of new oil annually. Second, even if the oil were available, the cost implications are prohibitive. The World Energy Outlook 2005 estimated that investment of $17 trillion would be required to bring the oil to consumers – that is one half again more than total current US GDP. Third, even if the oil were there and the cost was not prohibitive, the infrastructure does not exist to deliver it without unmanageable price spikes. Global spare production capacity is virtually gone, and global spare refining capacity has in the last 6 years all but disappeared. Global spare production and refining capacity is virtually gone. The politics of this rapidly approaching peak oil are equally devastating.

Within the next 20 years the West’s dependence on the 5 key Gulf producers – Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE – will almost double, as their share of world oil production rises from a quarter to almost half. With the addition of Russia and Venezuela, they are expected to be responsible for over 60% of world oil production by 2025. Already non-OPEC production is near its peak and subsequent decline, and then when by 2010 it cannot meet incremental demand, OPEC itself will steadily become less and less able to accommodate short-term fluctuations. At that point abrupt and volatile price hikes will become inevitable, and demand growth will have to be curtailed.

There are only three ways out of this looming crisis. One is ‘demand destruction’, as it is called, which falling supply will to some extent enforce, but almost certainly too little, too late. A second route is to diversify swiftly out of fossil fuels and into renewable sources of energy and energy conservation. There are no signs that this is being pursued worldwide on the scale necessary to avert either energy shortage or climate change chaos. The third route, both short-sighted and counter-productive, but the one being overwhelmingly pursued at present, is oil wars to grab the lion’s share of the ever-dwindling oil repositories that remain.

The power play related to oil is unmistakeable. General Abizaid, Commander US Central Command, told the US House Appropriations Committee in March that US forces may need to stay in Iraq indefinitely because of the oil, even though the eventual cost of the war and its aftermath might cost over $1 trillion. In opposition, over the last year China, India, Russia and Iran have signed energy deals valued at some $500 billion with one another and have begun creating a Central Asian ‘energy club’ that would have its own pipeline network and energy market. This is taking shape as the deceptively named Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which includes not only China and Russia, but is about to invite Iran, India and Pakistan to become full members. The economic end-game is clearly to dilute US efforts to dominate the Caspian Sea’s energy reserves.

The SCO is not a NATO clone – though clearly founded in the face of the militarised and unilateral foreign policy of the Bush Administration. It has brought together Iran – a country with less oil than Saudi Arabia and less gas than Russia, but more of both than any other country in the world, yet lacking the refining capacity with which Russia and China can assist – with Russia, positioned now to use its new oil bourse to challenge dollar hegemony and rebuild its armed forces on the doorstep of a US military presence trapped by the Iraq war on the strategic spur of Eurasia. Indeed Vice-President Cheney’s recent foray into Central Asia was designed to counter such moves and in particular to woo Kazakhstan, the richest oil and natural gas state in the region. But it quickly led to Russian retaliation with the Kremlin threatening to block US participation in the Shtokman project in the Barents Sea, the world’s biggest undeveloped gas resource, if America continued to oppose Russia’s admission to the WTO. The SCO is well on track to become an organisation that directly challenges the geopolitical reach of the US. Not without reason it has indeed been described as ‘OPEC with bombs’.

The situation over gas is, if anything, even more threatening. Deepening ties between Russia and Algeria are already causing concerns that the recent talks between Gazprom and Sonatrach, the Algerian state energy company, could be the first step to the formation of a natural gas cartel. Clearly the dwindling number of supplier nations could encourage the formation of an OPEC of gas, and an alliance between the top 3 or 4 gas exporters which would be much more effective than the oil OPEC remains a looming nightmare for international markets.

The Age of Energy Insecurity is already here, but it is set to intensify sharply. This is a turning point in history of unprecedented magnitude, for never before has a resource as fundamental as oil faced rapid decline without an adequate or better substitute in sight. The Oil Age from the mid-nineteenth century allowed the world population to explode 6-fold, exactly in line with the economic productivity it generated. Unless the present self-destructive strategy of using military pressure and war to corner diminishing global oil and gas supplies is urgently switched towards building a new world energy order based on a renewables and hydrogen economy combined with huge demand reduction through energy conservation, then it is no exaggeration to say we are risking a second Great Depression as well as sharply rising military tensions and a real prospect of major wars.