" /> Michael Meacher - Labour's Future: February 2007 Archives

« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »

February 23, 2007

Why I want to be prime minister

From cif_header.gif

There are three reasons why there should be an election for a new leader when Tony Blair finally goes. Only an election confers democratic legitimacy on the succession. Second, party members expect to have a choice about who should lead them. They have hardly been listened to for most of the last 13 years, and have every right to demand that their voice be listened to now. And third, there are major differences of view about the government's direction of travel which need to be understood, debated and voted on within the party. There are other, better alternatives.

New Labour has over-centralised power at the top, which has undermined democratic accountability at all levels. Its economy, driven exclusively by market forces, has played down intervention to secure a stronger manufacturing industry, a more balanced regional policy, and a lift out of its low pay, low skill, low productivity base. Its authoritarian civil society has eroded civil liberties across the board. Its deregulatory philosophy plays down environmental standards and labour rights.

Its indifference to, indeed embrace of, inequality -- "New Labour is relaxed about people getting filthy rich", as Peter Mandelson told us so charmingly -- has presided over a sharp increase in the gap between rich and poor. And its obsession with privatisation is leaching away the public service ideals which lie at the heart of a caring and committed society.

Because Labour and Tory policies are now so similar, politics has increasingly focused on personalities. But that is a fundamental misapprehension. A large part of the electorate on the centre-left, perhaps even a majority, has effectively been disenfranchised for the last three decades. Old-style Toryism was discarded by the voters in 1997, and now New Labour -- the continuing moving right show -- has clearly run its course. It's time, not for old Labour , but for a new implementation of core Labour values in a modern progressive politics addressing today's profound problems.

We need a new foreign policy which is based on fundamental British interests, not subservience to the US, particularly over the middle east. If our political status is to rise across the world, it is not sustainable to continue as America's glove puppet. We need a new social policy if the growing divisions within our society are to be healed. It is not sustainable for £9 billion of city bonuses to be doled out last year while 12.5 million people, a fifth of the population, remain in poverty.

We need a new penal policy if we are going to be genuinely as tough on the causes of crime as on crime itself. It is not sustainable to go on banging people up even faster than we can build prisons without trying to deal with the underlying causes of criminality and doing more to reduce recidivism. We need a new climate change and energy policy if we are not to become over-dependent on imported fossil fuels. It is not sustainable, let alone not legal, to go on fighting wars to grab control of the remaining reserves of Middle East oil when anyway the oil will soon run out.

So what should be done? To end the continuing horrendous carnage in Iraq, to complete our troop withdrawal and break the impasse over Palestine, we should use our political clout to initiate a wider international peace conference bringing together all the relevant actors for a joint settlement of the related middle east issues of contention which from experience cannot be resolved singly. That must include not only Iraq and Palestine within such a grand bargain, but above all a negotiated, not a military, settlement over Iran. If the US were to attack Iran, I would not put at risk a single British soldier or a single RAF pilot in support of such a crazed venture.

Domestically, the Unicef report marking Britain bottom of the table for children's experience shows how urgent it is to reverse the growing rich-poor divide. Less inequality leads to less violence, stronger community life, better health, longer life expectancy, lower teenage birth rates, as well as more social mobility and higher educational attainment. We should start by raising the national minimum wage (one of Labour's best achievements) quickly to £6 an hour, and then soon to £7 an hour. And recognising that wealth creation is not an individual but a team effort, we should move towards a system where there is no more than an acceptable ratio between top pay and bottom pay, so that pay rises at the top draw up the lower paid behind them too.

Globally we are at war against climate change. Business as usual, while relying on improved technology as a get-out card, is a fool's game. We need a profound change in every aspect of government and our way of life -- not just energy, but transport, industry, building, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy, in order in every area to give absolute priority to combating climaten change. We need a crash programme, as we have done before in wartime, to develop renewable sources of energy, in which we are very well endowed, plus a massive programme to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation.

Peace, social justice, climate survival - those should be our top priorities. That is why the future lies with a centre-left agenda, and clearly there must be a centre-left candidate to lead this agenda forward who has the necessary nominations in the Parliamentary Labour Party to stand. I am fully confident I do have that necessary level of support, and that is why I am standing.

February 22, 2007

Messages of support

The office has been inundated with messages of support and requests to speak at meetings since announcing that I was standing. I thought the easiest thing was to post a selection of them here.

I was so pleased when I saw on the news you are running for the Labour Leadership. I sincerely hope you are successful. As a Labour supporter for 35 years I have been completely disillusioned over the past 10 years to a point where I had decided never to vote Labour again with the possibility of voting Tory just to get Tony Blair and Gordon Brown out. Never thought I would say that! If you win I will certainly vote Labour once again.

Good Luck!
Robert Smart, Ilford South CLP


I welcome your statement that you intend to stand for the leadership of the party. It will generate a democratic debate about the future direction of the party, something I believe that Members of the party will welcome. I wish you well in your campaign and hope that you may find the time to speak at one of our party meetings in the near future.

Councillor Bill Horslen, Labour Group, Chelmsford Borough Council


I admire the principled stand Michael Meacher has taken on a wide range of issues, especially those which affect our quality of life and moral standing in the world. He has been an outstanding advocate of enlightened environmental policies and the rejection of nuclear weapons. He reflects a powerful body of Labour thinking. Just as importantly, he has shown an active commitment to policy development and consultation within the Party. There are many in the Labour Party looking for leadership qualities which Michael can bring.

David Slinger, Forest of Dean CLP


I am delighted to endorse Michael Meacher as a candidate for the party leader's post. I have no doubt that his constructive and honest approach will be of benefit not only to the policy development process but to the credibility of the election process in both the eyes of party members and the wider electorate.

George McManus, NPF Rep Yorkshire & The Humber, Chair East Riding of Yorkshire Labour Party


I will be supporting Michael Meacher because this is the leadership election where climate change comes first. As Environment Minister, Michael set the standard on this issue. If we want to expose David Cameron as vacuous we need a leader with the experience and passion to deliver radical change. There is no one better at this task than Michael Meacher.

Daniel Blaney, South Basildon & East Thurrock CLP, Treasurer, Labour CND


I would like to commend Michael Meacher as a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party. I have had many dealings with Michael on various issues, he has been helpful and honest. We very much need to return to our socialist values, many of which have been pushed aside in trying to reform our services and modernise our society. I believe he will look after the hard-working middle class voter who has been ignored so much by this Government and who were always the core of Labour support. Maybe this would again allow our membership to recover.
DB Bracknell CLP


I was delighted to hear today that you are going to stand for the > leadership of the Labour Party. Could we possibly persuade you to come and speak to our local Fabian Society?
Liz Vincent, Bath CLP


I put off joining the Labour Party due to the Iraq War and arguments for renewal of Trident pushed me further away. A candidacy from Michael Meacher for the leader of the Labour Party is an ideal way of getting these issues debated in the public domain. I feel it is important that there is no automaticity in the selection of Gordon Brown as the next leader of the Labour Party. The decision by Michael Meacher to stand has led me to join the Labour Party and cast my vote in this vital leadership battle.

Phil Honour, London


I have been a Labour supporter since 15 years old. I would not want Gordon Brown as leader now if he was the last man standing.... Thank you so much for standing up for the leadership.

Lynn Grounds, Hitchin, Herts


I am so pleased that you have decided to be a candidate for the leadership election. I have not been so excited for a long time! Absolutely right that you have so that an alternative to 'New Labour' is heard and right that democracy is enacted. I am particularly pleased that you are calling for independence from America.

With best wishes and lots of support for the coming contest

Lindis Percy
CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES
www.caab.org.uk


Good luck in your challenge to Gordon Brown. I have become so upset with so many New Labour faces and their behaviour (especially regarding Iraq and their unquestioning loyalty to Tony Blair who I consider quite mad!).

But I would vote for you in heartbeat! Your stand over Blair's totally insane foreign policy is to be commended and never forgotten...

Very good luck Sir!

Chris Kyle, Brighton


I was amazed but absolutely delighted when I read this morning that you were going to stand for the Labour Leadership. I admire you greatly for having the courage to stand up and challenge the status quo in British politics. It was quite shocking to see the Blair Broadcasting Corporations' attempt to de-rail his efforts before he even got started! I suppose the good news is that if they’re trying to discredit Michael, he must be a threat... I hope that enough MP's have the sense to turn to you and to recognise that there is a great need for a change in direction, which you clearly represent. Good man.

Tony Roberts, Poole, Dorset


After following your progress over the years I am delighted that you have decided to stand in the leadership election. I shed tears of joy when Labour was returned to power ten years ago but have gradually lost my faith in the party. I was weaned on Nye Bevan, Michael Foot and true Socialists but left the Party when I thought that Neil Kinnock was taking our Party too far to the right (that was a laugh wasn't it?)

I wish you all of the best in your endeavours and will myself continue to spread support for your the Gospel of your crusade in any way that I can.

Geoffrey Marple, Wolverhampton


Was delighted that you will be taking on Mr Brown for the Labour Party Leadership. It would have been tragic for any one candidate just to slip into the top job with a bit of forelock tugging and a nod and a wink! Great that all Labour Party members will now have a say!

Best news of the year so far...

John France


I am very pleased you have decided to stand for the Labour Leadership. I truly believe the people of the UK do not want Gordon Brown to be the next Prime Minister, and wish you well.

Susan Lange


Good on you! I suspect you'll be in line for some pretty heavy fire from certain quarters, but I guess you're used to that. There are plenty of people outside Westminster who have long been thinking what you've now had the gumption to say. All the very best for the coming months.

Steve Roberts-Mee


Pleased that someone has the balls to raise his head above the parapet. Mixed metaphors I know. But I need GB to be challenged. He is saying nothing. You argue well and you could show well in a good race. I wish you all success.

Neil Woodcock


I have just heard the news on BBC Radio 4 that you will stand for the leadership of the Labour Party. This is most wonderful news! You are exactly the man this country needs to take us forwards on climate change, GM foods, Iraq... No one else could do that difficult job better than you, and I whole-heartedly wish you success!

Eva Novotny


Peace. Social Justice. Climate Survival

Things have been hectic today, so much so that a planned video interview that was going to appear here has had to be put off until next week. As has been well documented, both on televison and radio as well as on a number of blogs, I declared today that I am standing for the leadership fo the Labour Party.

We need an election. We cannot stumble on without the issues being debated. We have seen inequality grow to levels higher than at any time since the 1930s. The world has become a less safe place in which to live. We are simply strolling without the necessary urgency along the path to controlling carbon emissions and dealing with climate change.

Elections have their own dynamic and the ballot could be 3-4 months away. Some of the coverage has predictably focused upon the issue of MP nominations. I am confident that I have the required supoport to be on the ballot. That's not an issue that can be settled until the nominations are actually made. Until then I intend to spend that time campainging hard to make sure the arguments - the alternatives to New Labour - are heard.

The BBC's James Landale seemed to be the only journalist who picked up on the real issues when he said on News 24 that the point of the campaign was to pick up the banner of the Labour left and wave it as loudly and visibly as possible. That's why taking the railways back into public ownership, rejecting renewal of Trident and the gross discrepancies between the highest paid and the lowest were issues I raised at the press conference this morning.

Crucially, he also said the interesting thing will be to see how these policies resonate with party members over the coming months.
Do they want to see Trident renewed? Most polls suggest otherwise, that people know there is no enemy against which they can be used, not terorrists, not rogue states.

Do they want to see the wage packets of the lowest pay to also rise when city bonuses are handed out? I think the answer is yes.

Do they want to see a massive investment in renewable energy technologies, cutting carbon emisisons and providing jobs in manufacturing and in research and development? Addressing global warming does not require wearing a hairshirt, it requires committment and innovation - and the rewards are huge.

If, as I believe, the centre-left is actually the mainstream, then these arguments should resonate loud and very clear. Only by putting them to the party can we see if that is the case. I think I have the policies, experience and expertise required for the job - now I want the party to have the opportunity to decide.

February 12, 2007

(Another) step on the path…

GardenPath.jpg


The US (and the UK) doesn’t have an exactly unblemished record when it comes to providing evidence to back its claims regarding military action in the Middle East. A forged signature to “prove” that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger. Meteorological trucks portrayed as chemical weapons labs. Claiming that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. And, of course, the now infamous 45-minutes-to- deploy-WMDs claim.

The latest “briefing” given by US military officials in Bagdad on high level Iranian involvement in Iraq is another case in point.

Three unidentified men described only as US defence officials and speaking on condition of anonymity showed weapons parts to journalists in a packed room where all recording devices – TV cameras, voice recorders, even mobile phones were banned. The official photos of the weapons were released later

Can you blame people for being sceptical? There is good reason to be so. Though coverage has included reference to doubts about the claims, only the BBC World Service (you'll need to click on the yellow 'podcast' button to hear the programme, from 12 February) has spoken to independent military analyst, ex RAF and former MoD adviser, Simon Pearson.

He has pointed out that the most sophisticated weapons - such as the RPG-29 - come from Russia and were supplied by them to Syria. What’s more, the Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP), the ones the US says are responsible for most of their military casualties were actually developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon - possibly with help from Iranian technicians. Hardly the same as high level Iranian involvement in Iraqi violence, presumably the excuse the US is looking for to authorise military action against Iran.

When pressed as to how the US can draw the wrong conclusions – particularly after taking much longer than expected to reveal this evidence, Pearson’s answer was hugely instructive.

He said that the US administration is sometimes blinded to reality - their view is that “Iran is to blame, therefore we must find a way of blaming Iran.”

February 07, 2007

Consultation and “consultation”

Update 19February 2007: links to NPF reports added.

According to these reports from last weekend’s NPF, Des Browne was less than complimentary about the efforts of NPF members to consult with Labour Party members on the issue of renewing Trident.

Lest you assume that this indicates a reluctance to hear the views of Labour Party members, you might be relieved to hear that the party has produced a consultation process of its own, for MPs to poll their constituents. When you read the questions, you’ll probably be disappointed again.

The questionnaire opens with this neutrally phrased gem:

Do you agree that in an increasingly uncertain world the Government should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent?
and ends with this one:
It takes a very long time to build a submarine and with the current fleet of subs reaching its expiry date do you think that the Government needs to make this tough decision now?

In both cases, the questionnaire asks for a ‘yes/no’ response. This follows a long letter from the MP which sets out the MP’s position as being in favour of Trident renewal and that not renewing it will “be to take a gamble with the nation’s security”. It also makes the claim that not taking the decision now means “We would effectively be abandoning our deterrent.”

This is plainly not true. As the evidence of Dr Richard Garwin to the Defence Select Committee showed, building new submarines now is premature, as the life of Vanguard submarines (which carry the missiles) could be extended until the 2030s. Renewal of such systems is not unusual - B-52 bombers are still flying today, more than 30 years beyond their projected life span.

It seems that the Party apparatchiks have not learned from the fiasco of the questionnaire on 90 days detention, which was so unbalanced, the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke had to apologise. Labour activists across the country are agreed on the need to renew the Labour Party. Fake or biased consultations like this are not going to help.

February 02, 2007

Two major problems of the NPF

There’s a National Policy Forum this on Saturday. It may or may not vote on Trident. That vote may or may not be used to show there has been a democratic consultation and – depending on how the vote goes – a decision taken to renew Trident.

The first question is this: If you have an opinion on Trident, how will you make it known to the NPF members?

Question 2: If the NPF votes against Trident renewal, will that decision be respected?

In terms of democratic accountability the make up of the NPF is quite odd. Members do not represent CLPs, which, along with wards or branches, are the basic unit of Labour Party organisation. Nor are they elected from the regions. The NPF has ten divisions, including CLPs, Trade Unions, Regional conferences and policy forums (although regional provision is also written into the CLP section), Local Government (also with regional provision) , Socialist Societies, Labour Party Black Socialist Society, the EPLP, Labour Students, the House of Lords and eight frontbench representatives. All members of the NEC are ex-officio members.

It may look like an attempt to represent all units of the party but the relation between NPF members and party members is muddy to say the least. Here’s one easy test: do you, if you are a member of the Labour Party, know who your NPF representative is? How would you get in touch with them? Some of the better NPF rep and members of the NEC (who are ex-officio NPF members) have actively sought the opinions of Labour activists on what is clearly a controversial issue.

But the fact that a few have made the effort on this question begs the question of why this does not happen as a matter of course.

The second problem with the NPF is the process itself. The idea of a more deliberative policy making process is one worth preserving, particularly if it means ideas can be debated without hysterical tabloid headlines skewing the debate. But the problem comes with turning decisions from the NPF into party policy and – crucially – the party programme.

Every year since 2004, conference has debated and agreed to a motion backing the fourth option in regard to council housing. It is party policy. But it is not part of the party programme. In 2004, Conference voted in favour of restoring the railways to public ownership - a vote winning policy. That too is not part of the Labour programme. The same is true for motions passed by conference on foundation hospitals, pensions, marketisation of the NHS.

It is the NPF process which enables this. Whenever a minister or party official is questioned on such a topic, the response comes that the decision of conference will be referred to the relevant policy commission of the NPF. Er, isn’t that where we started?

The process is clearly not irrevocably broken – otherwise the motions would never have been debated at conference, because they were presented as minority reports from NPF meetings that became the majority position of the party.

But we cannot continue with a situation where these decisions are rebuffed and referred to a policy commission of the NPF in an endless circle. If a policy has gone through exhaustive analysis, been debated at conference and adopted as party policy, it should not be permissible to exclude it from the party’s programme. Either it should be accepted, or a committee consisting of proposers of the motion and NPF or NEC members (both those in favour and those against) need to produce a compromise.

People don’t join political parties to go round in circles, they want to influence policy.

February 01, 2007

The jaw-jaw before the war-war

(from Comment is Free)

Freedonia's going to war.jpg

It is astonishing that the decision to go to war, the gravest decision ever facing a nation, is still taken in this country by one person alone, the prime minister, and there is no requirement to seek parliamentary approval. What is even more astonishing is that even where the prime minister of the day does allow a parliamentary vote, and that vote is opposed to war, the prime minister still has the absolute power to ignore the result of the vote and to commit the nation to war.

This applies both where the vote is taken after the declaration of war, as in the case of the Attlee government over the Korean war and the Major government over the 1991 Gulf War, and where the vote is taken shortly before the start of a war, as was the case of the Blair government with Iraq. In any case, the prime minister would be within his or her constitutional rights to override a parliamentary vote.

It is equally true that there is, at present, no requirement at all to have a parliamentary vote on a substantive motion to take the country to war. That was the case when Britain went to war in the Balkans in the 1990s and there was lengthy fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is also true that even where a vote is called, it can be arranged at such a time - for example, at the last minute when British troops are fully deployed just before the outbreak of hostilities - that parliament is in a very difficult position to abort the build-up to war. This happened over the Iraq war on March 18 2003.

This is not an argument that it was wrong to take Britain to war in Iraq and therefore the decision-making procedures should be changed to prevent such a result in future. The issue is a much wider one - that irrespective of the rights or wrongs of particular wars, the decision to go to war is so paramount to the life of the nation that it should be taken, and only taken, by an elected parliament on a substantive vote, and well before events had moved to such a point that parliament had little or no alternative but to ratify a decision already reached.

This issue, perhaps more than any other single issue, raises the question of democratic accountability in Britain, which has withered away in the face of a marked centralisation of power over the last 30 years. Many of the previous checks and balances have been eroded, and some of the pre-existing autocratic prerogatives in the hands of successive prime ministers have been consolidated further. The right to take the country to war irrespective of parliamentary or public opinion is the clearest example of the latter.

Under the royal prerogative which dates back centuries, the powers of the Crown exercised by the prime minister, without consultation of cabinet or parliament, include the rights to declare war or make peace, sign or ratify treaties, confer honours, make appointments, establish commissions, and grant pardons. The democratisation of these prerogative rights is now being increasingly challenged by all the political parties. In opposition, Labour stated that it would ensure "all actions of government are subject to political and parliamentary control, including those actions now governed by the arbitrary use of the royal prerogative", and emphasised in particular going to war and the ratification of treaties as central areas of concern.

But in addition to the democratic dimension, there is also the strong constitutional argument that the evidence cited to justify such a momentous decision as going to war should be full and transparent, subject to the strict dictates of national security. In the case of the Iraq war, that would mean that the full advice of the attorney general on the legality of the war, the evidence on the existence and threat of weapons of mass destruction, and the proper reporting of the key French position on possible use of the veto in the security council would be laid before parliament. All of these matters would then be much more thoroughly scrutinised, and any manipulation of the evidence would become much more problematic.

For all these reasons, therefore, I am introducing a bill into the Commons tomorrow (2 February) which requires that the approval of parliament must be sought before British armed forces can be deployed in military action. For this purpose it also requires the prime minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the objectives, legal basis and likely duration of the military action proposed. The bill does allow for situations where the prime minister determines that deployment is urgently necessary before approval of the House of Commons can be achieved. But in such circumstances, which would be rare, it requires that the prime minister must still lay the report before parliament within seven days after troop deployment has begun.

Nor are the demands of this bill out of step with constitutional practice elsewhere. In the US for example the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that if the approval of Congress for waging war is not secured within 60 days, the president must withdraw US forces within a further 30 days. But in the UK the bill is a crucial change whose implementation is long overdue.

incontempt comic.gif