Michael Meacher - Labour's Future

The proximate causes of the meltdown for Labour are clear: rising food prices, rising energy prices, the seize-up in the housing market, the 10p tax debacle, and the perceived sense of a loss of Government direction. Unless all of these are dealt with head-on, the slide will not be reversed.

But these are only the immediate causes. Much more significant are the deeper reasons behind the collapse. For the last 11 years under New Labour the governance of society and the economy has been dominated by the neo-liberal agenda, an extension of the Reagan-Thatcher programme of the 1980s. Markets were to be given unfettered freedom and de-regulation pursued to the fullest degree possible. Privatisation was to be pushed, especially for public services, as a panacea to promote efficiency. Corporate control of the economy was maximized, while the role of trade unions and employment rights were severely restricted. Financial markets were subject to the lightest of light touches, and City of London demands for minimum tax and regulation were fostered at the expense of the manufacturing economy. Inequality was allowed to let rip and the wealth of the tiny elite of super-rich ballooned.

Every one of these facets of New Labour’s neo-liberal agenda has now broken down. Markets are now pushing food, energy and housing prices beyond the reach of the poorest and badly squeezing even middle-income budgets. De-regulation has now led to the massive dissemination of near-worthless financial derivatives, credit rating agencies being paid by those they are supposed to assess, and reckless mortgage lending by the banks. Privatisation has bred endless scams like independent treatment centres in the health service being paid even when they didn’t do the work, and the Metronet stitch-up on the London tube of the five big corporates holding the equity parcelling out the contracts among themselves without competition and leaving the taxpayer with a £2bn bill. Suppression of the unions has left the UK workforce working the longest hours, protected by the weakest employment rights, and experiencing the greatest insecurity of any country in the EU. The City of London bonus culture has run riot to the chagrin of even the highly paid middle class, while manufacturing, the life-blood of the nation, has lost a million jobs over the last decade and is slipping into ever deeper trade deficit.

The local election results betoken not merely a hiccup in an otherwise vibrant system, but a systematic breakdown in the economic fundamentals. This requires a major change of policy and direction at four different levels.

Most immediately, the 10p tax fiasco, which crystallises more than anything else Labour discontent at the failure of Labour Government to represent them, must be redressed promptly and comprehensively. Gordon Brown should immediately make a statement that all those disadvantaged will be fully compensated with back-dating to 1st April. Even better would be to re-introduce the 10p tax rate, to the benefit of the low-paid, and pay for it either by ending tax reliefs on pension contributions above the standard rate or by taxing foreign owners of commercial property, requiring declaration of all share dealings on the Stock Exchange for CGT, and assessing all short-term asset-trading for income tax rather than CGT. Other ways by which those currently feeling the biggest pinch could be helped are by raising the national minimum wage from £5.52 to £7 an hour, and by bringing forward the earnings link for pensioners.

Second, raw capitalism has been allowed to run amok and re-regulation is clearly needed to stabilise financial markets. It should be no more than is strictly necessary, but it should include new capital adequacy ratios so that credit creation does not get out of hand, credit rating agencies that are wholly independent, and a requirement that financial derivatives should have to be first approved by the Financial Services Authority.

Third, the only alternative to unfettered capitalism that has led to excessive concentration of both economic and political power is a modern reformulation of social democracy. Clearly there is now a need for intervention in the markets to protect consumers in the public interest against corporate and market excesses. Nor is market intervention unknown to the present Government; it’s just that it has been used this year for the wrong end – to enforce a real terms pay cut on the police, teachers and low-paid civil servants.

When mega profits are currently being made in the food and energy sectors at the same time as a third or more of the population cannot afford their food and fuel bills, intervention should be used instead to make markets work fairly. For as long as soaring food prices last, supermarkets should be required to provide hampers of good-quality food for pensioners and others on benefit at cost price or below. A social tariff should be fixed for pensioners and low-income families so that they can purchase gas and oil at below-market price that they can afford. When home-owners are repossessed through no fault of their own, the State should step in to buy the house so that they can remain in it as rent-paying tenants. When there is such desperate shortage of social, affordable housing, the house-building industry should be required to provide for low-income families at least 10% of the houses they build each year and at below-market prices such families can afford. And when corporate power is today so over-dominant, it should be balanced at least by agency and temporary workers receiving the same rights as full-time workers.

A fourth level at which the anger and despair so manifest in the local elections has to be addressed is by reconnecting Government to electors who feel cast adrift. It is repeatedly said that this Government will be a listening Government, but people need the evidence that they are being listened to when Government actually changes course. The encroachment on civil liberties by a police surveillance state is widely seen as having gone too far, but is the Government prepared to withdraw ID cards, excessive travel checks, or gratuitous storage of personal information on Government data-bases?

Most people think that detention without charge for 42 days will not increase security, but withdrawal of British troops from Iraq would: will the Government listen? Again, it is a commonplace that people want more empowerment. The Government could send out a radical message here by giving ombudsmen or regulators much more power to respond quickly and effectively to public complaints against banks, utilities, police, and private corporations, and to award significant compensation where justified. Accountability in Britain has all but collapsed, and restoring it would be highly popular. But Gordon, are you listening?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It is ironic, with the vision thing now raising its head again as the political parties jostle ever closer together, how much they struggle to find their own distinct visionary USP. The truth is that over the last 30 years an earthquake has reconstructed the contours of political space in Britain, leaving the parties nestling round its epicentre and large tracts of the outer landscape deserted and isolated. A vision that matches the real political needs of contemporary Britain will not be created until that deserted territory is convincingly re-occupied.

Britain today is composed broadly of three distinct classes. The first is those dependent on benefit, numbering some 17 millions, plus the marginally employed scraping by on bottom-level wages, intermittent work, or temporary, part-time or agency jobs, perhaps another 5 million. They are characterised by chronic economic insecurity, with incomes fluctuating below £250 a week. Second are the majority of the population clustered around the national average income of £420 a week, from skilled manual through technical, clerical, administrative grades to lower managerial and professional jobs. They number some 32 million, their employment is generally secure, and their incomes range from £250-800 a week. The third class are the well-off and the rich – senior managers, directors, top professionals, and financiers – who number around 6 millions and whose incomes average over £1,000 a week, with a lifestyle often demonstrating status, power and wealth. Within this small class is the key sub-set of the super-rich representing some 0.1% of the population whose annual incomes range from £ ½ - 10 millions plus. This is where the real power is concentrated.

The rhetoric of all the political parties claims that they are focussed on the ‘centre ground’, sometimes equally bemusingly referred to as Middle England. Yet their actions and policies don’t indicate that at all. Rather they are fixated on the interests and concerns of the dominant class in society, leaving more than half the population effectively disenfranchised and unrepresented.

This lop-sided political framework is directly responsible for the meagreness of the vision that is so depressing an aspect of the political culture today. The dominant ideology is the neo-liberal economic agenda of current Western capitalism – privatisation, de-regulation, globalisation, so-called flexible labour markets, and unabashed inequality. These are the emblems and instruments of the super-rich class, and so long as all the political parties assiduously court this basic philosophy and do not prioritise instead the interests of the majority, there will be no vision.

A vision will only resonate if it reflects the unmet needs and unrealised aspirations of major classes in society. In Britain today that means championing causes that have either become taboo subjects or marginalised extras.

The first is the distribution of power. Power is now held more unequally than at any time since the 1930s. Britain is now run essentially by private deals secretly undertaken between No.10 and business leaders in industry, finance and the media, with the security services playing a much larger role behind the scenes than is commonly recognised. The last thirty years particularly have seen power draining upwards to the largest corporations and to Downing Street, leaving Parliament and even the Cabinet increasingly sidelined. The biggest businesses, so far from being closely regulated in the public interest, have increasingly harnessed State power for their own commercial ends against the interests of the wider community. The loosening of controls over major power station, airport and incinerator developments, the failure to regulate unhealthy food advertising despite the dangerous growth of obesity, the withdrawal of the SFO investigation into corruption allegations against BAE, and the relaxation of the gaming laws to permit a flood of gambling casinos are just a few recent examples.

The checks and balances against the arbitrary use of power have all but collapsed. Civil liberties have been drastically eroded, and the introduction of ID cards and 3-month detention without charge are still being mooted. Workers who have been in their job less than two years can be arbitrarily dismissed without any rights, and temporary and agency workers remain an exploited underclass. Accountability, or indeed any redress, against alleged misdemeanours by police, judges, banks, private utilities or big corporations generally is almost non-existent. Today powerlessness is widely felt to be endemic throughout society, and it will require an awful lot more than focus groups or citizens’ juries to overcome it.

The second scandal that cries out to be dealt with is inequality which has now reached grotesque levels. A worker on the minimum wage is now paid £200 a week whilst his boss, if he works for one of the top 100 FTSE companies, is now paid £55,290 a week, 276 times more. With private equity excesses, capital and business taxation the lowest for a century, and both direct and indirect taxes highly regressive, we are back to the income-polarised class system of the Edwardian era.

There will be no vision to excite political action unless this unfettered greed of private power is brought to heel. This might involve a Pay Commission established to set down guidelines, backed up by tax sanctions, for what is a reasonable range of pay from top to bottom, with incentives applied consistently and fairly across the range. Equally, people should be asked if they think it right that in all large and medium-sized organisations representatives of all the main grades from the boardroom to the cleaners should, at an annual meeting, have to justify the pay claims they are making at the expense of potential pay increases for all other grades. And if people do think that right, implementing it would inspire a vision of real fairness unmatched by all the rhetoric today.

A third component for a vision to redress the slide into privatised power and money must be the restoration of the high ideal of public service. Currently, putting some of the largest US healthcare corporations in charge of commissioning the bulk of NHS services and spreading privately sponsored academies throughout the education system has, on all the empirical evidence, much more to do with market dogma and business lobbying than with improving performance on the ground. Equally, cutting Council house-building to just 200 a year (it was 14,000 in Thatcher’s last year), insisting on owner occupation as the keystone for government action when a quarter of the population can never afford it, privatising the probation service and other parts of the criminal justice system, and outsourcing local government to private Strategic Services Development Partnerships are undermining the whole ideal of public service – its accountability, equity, universality, professionalism, and altruism – which underpins the best of British society. The time for a counter-revolution here is now.

Class is everywhere redolent throughout Britain today, and these three goals would address it. But a fourth – making a world that is safe and sustainable for our children – is overriding and would inspire all classes. Yet government clearly does not accord it the centrality it deserves. Once again the power of the old vested interests obtrudes, which explains why preference is given to tripling airport capacity, promoting a third runway at Heathrow, undermining EU renewable energy targets, cancelling a requirement on the top thousand companies to report annually on their carbon emissions, and deferring household carbon allowances. This is so short-sighted. The fight against engulfing climate change is so imperative that it must rapidly transform the global economy towards a non-fossil fuels civilisation. A government that genuinely displayed world leadership here, in action not just in rhetoric, could arouse a positive political appeal that would be overwhelming. Are we ready?

This article appeared in Tribune on 15 December 2007.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:27 PM | Permalink

Some useful proposals – though the devil may lie in the detail, not yet revealed – but disappointing on the vision and no razzmatazz of new ideas for a new leader, largely because Gordon Brown has already been leading on the domestic policy agenda for the past ten years and now has nothing much new to say.

It’s good that after two decades of neglect of social housing amidst the triumphalist ideology of private ownership, the national scandal of housing need is now at least being noticed. Council waiting lists are now above 1 ½ million and there are over 100,000 homeless, yet only 100 Council homes were built last year (down from 13,000 a year at the end of the Thatcher era). The housing stock is only growing by some 185,000 a year at present, yet the number of new households being formed each year is about 220,000. We are still going backwards. Building an extra 40,000 homes a year, as the Government proposes, is clearly nowhere near enough to meet the yawning gap of housing need. And how many of the 40,000 will be social housing anyway? And why are local authorities still not being allowed to build more Council houses themselves if they wish, borrowing against the security of their own existing housing stock?

Changes to the planning system, as is proposed, might seem sensible when some planning decisions have clearly taken far too long. The 8 years spent on the Heathrow Terminal 5 decision is usually quoted here (though much of that was accounted for by the time spent on Ministers’ desks after the planning report was submitted). But today’s proposals are motivated by very different criteria. National Policy Statements will be drawn up which will enable an array of major developments – nuclear power and nuclear waste facilities, coal-fired power stations, airport expansions, major road schemes, and large waste incinerators – to be put through without the public having a say on whether they are needed or safe, or where they are to be located. This rather conflicts with Brown’s stated wish to bring more democracy into public decisions.

A Climate Change Bill is very welcome, but again its contents leave a lot to be desired. It promises a review of progress in cutting carbon emissions every 5 years which is far too lax when the UK is way off track to meet the Government’s objectives. Clearly annual targets, published and enforceable, are urgently needed. Moreover, air travel and shipping emissions are omitted, even though they are the fastest rising sources of emissions. Nor are mere targets sufficient anyway when other Government policies, notably a tripling of airport capacity by 2030, are diametrically opposed.

Democratisation has also been one of Gordon’s ostensible goals, which is also desperately needed. But it has to stretch a great deal further than simply giving Parliament a vote before the country goes to war – a concession which after the Iraq debacle would probably be inevitable anyway. Parliament needs real new power on a much broader front – electing Select Committee members rather than letting the Whips use the patronage to gain a wider acquiescence, ratifying (or not) Cabinet nominations made by the PM, approving (or not) the membership and terms of reference of Committees of Inquiry proposed by the PM, and setting up their own Parliamentary Commissions to investigate controversial issues (e.g. extraordinary rendition) when the Government refuses to do so. Nor can the idea of greater democracy cut much ice when the Government is still intending to pursue the ID cards folly and, even worse, extend the 28-days detention without charge in defiance of the 800 year old habeas corpus.

And what is not in the Queen’s Speech is perhaps even more important than what is. There’s nothing about redressing the centralisation of power which is such an indictment of the current state of Britain. There’s nothing about redressing the grotesque inequality of income and wealth – nor was there is in the Pre-Budget Report a month ago. And there’s nothing about restoring the ethos of public service which has taken such a battering under Blair – indeed it’s taking a further hit currently with the huge cutbacks in BBC funding which threaten public service broadcasting. Et tu, Gordon?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 11:22 AM | Permalink

There’s still time for the Government to turn the tables on the Tories over the inheritance tax debacle, but only if before the Finance Bill is published they take the radical line they should have taken at the outset.

Instead of ignominiously caving in to Osborne’s stunt, they should have used the opportunity to create a newer and fairer inheritance tax, whilst strenuously arguing the case that this is a tax confined to the very rich and that to relax it means that more taxes have to be raised from poorer households. At present only the richest 6% pay it (approx. those with incomes over £70,000 a year) which is less than in most other countries, much less than was paid in Britain even 25 years ago, and (as a matter of interest) much less than was paid in feudal England centuries ago.

A much more attractive alternative than Osborne’s would:

commit the Treasury to raise the threshold regularly so as to ensure that nobody except the richest would ever be liable,

freeze exemption levels above the threshold and close the loopholes, and introduce sharply progressive rates on the most valuable estates,

then hypothecate the proceeds, not to swell the Treasury’s coffers, but to redistribute it to finance long-term care for the elderly.

This would, at one go, resolve a very serious current problem about the funding of long-term care in old age and at the same time achieve a fair and generous redistribution from rich to poor which would prove extremely popular.

If that were then combined with a proper tax on the so-called non-domiciled rich – not Osborne’s footling £25,000 which would be a fleabite to billionaire tycoons like Philip Green – Labour might begin to regain its reputation for social justice and tackling inequality, which has spiralled out of control to grotesque levels in the last ten years and is now the no.1 domestic issue in Britain today.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:29 PM | Permalink

Gordon’s Conference speech and yesterday’s Q&A session revealed next to nothing of his real intentions. As is often the case with him, what he left out is far more significant than what he included. He declared he will “take action” on private equity – but not what that action would be. Let’s hope it won’t be the same kind of action as on affordable housing, where instead of increasing the rental sector, most of the homes will be aimed at first time buyers.

In a wide-ranging but rather disjointed speech without any obvious logical thread, he devoted much of it to a defence of his own economic and social record without indicating any noticeable departures from well-rehearsed New Labour programmes. The specifics which got the most applause – dealing with teenage binge drinking by banning the sale of alcohol in trouble spots, banging up those guilty of gun crimes for at least 5 year sentences, and throwing out immigrants found to be using guns or selling drugs – could all have been taken (and perhaps were taken) from a Michael Howard speech before the 2005 election.

He made clear his commitment to the NHS focused on providing a personalised service to patients and harnessing science and technology to pioneer new cures – but nothing about a slowdown in privatisation or a major switch to healthier life-styles. He reiterated the pledge to cut child poverty, but said nothing about redressing sharply rising inequality or unfairly low taxation on the rich. He banged the drum again about globalisation, but said nothing about protecting employment rights. He referred, rather skimpily, to keeping on good terms with Europe, but ignored the far more important issue of relations with the US and Iran. He touched on democracy and holding Government to account, but seemed not to notice that the results of Government consultations on Trident, nuclear energy, GM foods, and planning law had been studiously ignored, while calls for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty were being strenuously suppressed.

More intriguingly, he breathed not a word about his long-term intentions in so assiduously courting the Party’s enemies – Tory MPs, LibDem peers, assorted hate figures like Digby Jones, and now Thatcher. Apart from assuring us he is a Thatcherite at heart and that the New Labour neo-liberal agenda is safe with him (indeed he is the main architect of it and, with his move to abandon motions at conference has gone further than Blair ever did), what is his purpose? Is it that, having won the next election (which looks increasingly likely) and the Tories having lost their fourth election in a row, he is driving at a re-alignment of British politics in which the Tory Party, which only ever existed purely for the purposes of keeping the ruling class in power and is increasingly seen as having lost its raison d’etre, disintegrates and a majority of Centre and Left Tory MPs cross the floor to where the real power now is – a big-tent, centre-ground party of national government, low on ideology, but strongly supported by the real power-brokers in industry, finance and the media?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:54 PM | Permalink

See also The Guardian

Party democracy is the single most important issue at this Conference because it underpins everything else by giving reality to Party opinion on every other issue.

I was encouraged when Gordon made his first statement to the Commons on democratising Parliament, and then when he issued his consultation on Extending and Renewing Party Democracy. It was like a breath of fresh air.

But removing Contemporary Motions and votes on important policy issues is a huge step backwards, not an advance towards Party democracy. The bottom line is this: what is the point of Conference at all if it’s just a talk shop, and there’s no way you can influence the Party Leadership and Government to change course? The Labour Party isn’t a discussion organisation, it’s about power. That’s why people joined it, and that’s why people are committed to it.

Ever since the Labour Party was formed a hundred years ago and the Labour Party Rule Book was drawn up in 1918, we have been a democratic party where the ultimate authority lay with our annual delegate Conference. Now of course we want to support a Leadership we ourselves have elected, but that Leadership is accountable to Conference, and if that accountability is removed, then we become just another organisation where the real power is exercised behind the scenes in backroom deals with the business interests who run industry, finance and the media.

I know that the deal is that we try out this new arrangement for 2 years and then review it. But let’s get real – once this change is made, it’s not going to be changed back again in 2 years.

I say Enough is enough. If we let this go through in today’s vote, then the Labour Party as a power organisation is reduced virtually to impotence.

But before we do vote on this, let’s be clear this was a consultation document, and the consultation ended a week ago. So what were the full results? Are we going to see all the results before we vote? Surely this should be remitted until we’ve all had a chance to digest the whole range of opinions in every section of the Party on an issue like this, which is not just another issue, but fundamental to the entire policy-making process.

This proposal would remove a key pillar of Party democracy. We should reject it because the Labour Party was born a democratic party, it has flourished as a democratic party, and for all our sakes it should remain a democratic party.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:54 PM | Permalink

The most important issue at this year’s Annual Conference is the future of Party democracy. The hopes raised by some of the welcome proposals in Gordon Brown’s consultation document ‘Extending and Renewing Party Democracy’ will be dashed and the whole process thrown into reverse if the leadership gets its way on one other proposal which outweighs all the rest, namely that in future delegates will no longer be allowed to vote on and pass resolutions on any policy questions.

The consultation, which ended on 14 September, recognised that the Partnership in Power arrangements put into operation in 1997 have long faced a crisis of credibility. The original aim of the Blair leadership at the time had been to remove CLP and union motions from Conference altogether, but after intense pressure a last-minute limited concession was made that Contemporary Issue Motions could be submitted and four could be chosen for debate by ballot. However, once Conference began to pass some motions that the platform didn’t want – like restoring the earnings link to pensions, opposing NHS privatisation, and supporting the Gate Gourmet workers – strenuous efforts were made to rule out such motions and many were at last year’s Conference. Now it is proposed that even this very limited concession, which is already being clawed back by one procedural device or another, should be swept away altogether.

This would render Conference utterly toothless, which of course is what some in the leadership may well want. Conference would become, even more than it is already, a piece of theatre, a glorified photo-opportunity for platform speeches. Any serious discussion of real issues, which is what democratic politics is all about, would disappear. The accountability of the leadership to Conference, which the Party’s Rule Book has always envisaged, would simply vanish.

For all these reasons, if Conference is not to become merely a showpiece television spectacle, it is essential that this latest proposal be roundly rejected. But stopping it is not enough; there are several positive reforms that urgently need to be made to Party procedures.

We need a Labour Party Charter of Members’ Rights drawn up and agreed by Conference, which would then be monitored and enforced by a Party Ombudsman.

The Party Chair should be elected by the Party, not appointed by the Leader, and should have the role to speak for the Party in Cabinet.

The control of Party finances should be seen to lie clearly with the elected Party Treasurer and the NEC, and all fund-raising activities and major expenditures should have to be approved by the NEC.

All Parliamentary and local selections of Party candidates should be transparently managed in accordance with a Code of Conduct which treated all candidates equally and precluded pressure on Party officials to support favoured candidates.

The issue of holding the leadership to account is clearly a sensitive and difficult one, but in view of recent experience a Commission should be drawn up by the NEC, with membership and terms of reference agreed by Conference, to prepare proposals to be considered and voted on by Conference.

The lack of accountability has now become one of the most serious issues in British politics today, not only in respect of political parties, but also of Parliament and the wider society. Conference 2007 is where we should make a start in turning round the drift to autocracy which is now marring so much of British public life.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:27 AM | Permalink

The carefully choreographed distancing of UK foreign policy from the US – first announced, then denied, coded message now clearly received – will be received with palpable relief by the Labour Party and the overwhelming majority of British people. The umbilical cord by which Blair insisted on embedding himself in Bush was humiliating, demeaning and ultimately fruitless because it never produced a shred of reciprocity.

However, once again we should look very carefully at what actually happens, not just at a gesture waved in our direction. Two issues immediately stand out.

One is, what would happen if, in the 18 months left to Bush, the neocons in a last fling launched their long-planned strike against Iran, almost certainly bombing raids whether by the US itself or possibly Israel? Would Gordon Brown the next morning come down in favour of Bush or would he repudiate such madness and back the British people? At the one leadership hustings that took place in May, I asked him this question. He evaded it with several minutes of waffle – it won’t happen, diplomacy is winning through, multilateral alliance are being forged, etc. etc. Since he hadn’t answered the question, I immediately asked it again. I was treated to a repetition of the same waffle. It’s worrying he won’t tell us.

The second key issue is, will Brown withdraw British troops from Iraq when the British commander on the spot, Sir Richard Dannatt, says, as he has, that the presence of occupation troops is actually exacerbating, not helping, the security situation, or will he keep them there as long as the Americans insist on having a diplomatic fig-leaf to cover their own occupation? Clearly Bush, success or no success with his surge, is not intending any significant reduction in US forces in the year and a half before the end of his Presidency. It is all too likely that American troops will remain in Iraq, albeit with some limited cuts in numbers, far beyond that. After all, the reason they invaded Iraq has nothing to do with stopping Saddam’s brutalities or replacing him with democracy; they’re there because of the oil. As peak oil rapidly approaches and competition with China intensifies over the remaining repositories of oil left in the world, the US is not going to give up any time soon its priceless economic, political and military prize astride the three countries – Saudi, Iran and Iraq – with far and away the biggest global concentration of oilfields left.

So if Bush clicks his fingers and says No to a full British withdrawal within a 6-12 month period at most, will Gordon Brown defy him, or will our poodledom continue? We are entitled to know.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:49 PM | Permalink

The inestimable Ann Black has thoughtfully provided a guide (see below) for members wanting to respond to the current proposals for the reorganisation of annual conference and policy making. It's not as straightforward as you might expect. For a start, submissions are to come from individuals, not branches, CLPs or affiliated societies, as they are to be sent via individual members' MpURLs - which party units do not have. Presumably they can stilll write directly to Peter Watt, Labour Party General Secretary (39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0HA) but the consultation document does not make that clear. The second issue is that of internet access. It's about 60%, as the ONS report from last year shows - but it is not universal and it is heavily weighted away from areas and incomes where one might expect Labour members and support to reside.

Ann's email:

[A motion proposing a contemporary resolution on] this will not be accepted as a contemporary motion because it does not relate to events after 1 August, and the subject will be covered in the NEC report to conference. So it will not be printed and no-one will see it.

Can I suggest that branches collectively and members individually make these points in the response form on the party website on their MpURLs? - see sequence below. I will of course ask for what responses have been received, and if possible read them, and if the majority think that abolishing conference, or for that matter the NEC, it will be hard to oppose.

I also understand that the unions - though not constituency representatives - had sight of the proposals some time in advance of the NEC, and removing contemporary resolutions was not a deal-breaker for them. So there are questions to be asked there as well.

Ann

Go to http://www.labour.org.uk/labour_membersnet

and click where it says "if you are already a member of the Labour Party etc"

If you have already used your MpURL this will take you to

http://members.labour.org.uk/

If not, it may ask you for a username and password. Some people have had problems getting in - if so, or for any other problems with access), ring Computing for Labour on 0207-783-1291 If OK so far, scroll down to Gordon Brown, leader of the Labour Party under this, click where it says "to read Gordon Brown's message etc", which takes you to

http://members.labour.org.uk/Survey2007

from where you can see the document and also complete a response form.

Continue reading "Everybody join in..." »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 11:39 AM | Permalink

What a week! First we have Gordon Brown’s constitutional reforms strengthening Parliament’s powers to hold the Executive to account – though we have yet to see the small print about how they would operate and there are several important gaps which need to be plugged in the consultation period and many new powers added. Now we have the DCLG proposals to give local people power to determine, or at least influence, how some of their tax revenues are spent – to enforce their own priorities, not the Council’s. There’s also talk of giving people the right to petition Councils, which Councillors would then be obliged to consider. Excellent, and it should be piloted quickly.

But why limit it to Councils? Why shouldn’t both these proposals be considered for application to Parliament as well? The Treasury always wisely keeps a precautionary contingency fund in reserve of about 10%, amounting to some £50bn a year. If as little as 5% of this were set aside for allocation by the citizenry in accordance with their own priorities, it would allow some £2.5bn a year to be devoted to national projects which the people themselves wanted, not just a tiny conclave of Departmental negotiators carving up the national cake in secret discussions with the Treasury. It would revive interest in national politics more than any number of Ministerial press notices spinning the good news about their latest expenditure plans.

And if Councils can be petitioned, why not Parliament too? In fact there’s already of course a precedent via the No.10 website. When 1.8million people recently supported a call opposing road pricing on this website, the cognoscenti thought this was an own goal by giving the opposition a platform to have a go at the government on a very sensitive and difficult issue (on which the Government are obviously right). Of course there are always plenty within the Westminster –Whitehall bubble who want to keep out the people at all costs and get on with governing as only they know best, but they never believed in democracy in the first place.

MPs should set up our own Parliamentary website, and where petitions or proposals attracted overwhelming interest and support, Parliament should consider, perhaps via its Liaison Committee composed of all its Select Committee chairs, whether some might be tabled for debate and vote on the floor of the House. That might at last inject some real excitement into the parliamentary process which is now largely moribund.

However, despite all these plaudits, I have one major criticism. If the Government is opening up the channels of democracy at last which have been so long blocked, why is the Party leadership going in the opposite direction when it comes to Party Conference? The latter has already been largely neutered by the leadership’s refusal to acknowledge or accept any resolution where it is defeated. Now it is being proposed that there won’t even be a vote at all at the end of debates, in other words Conference is treated as a glorified talkshop around the only event in the week that matters – the Leader’s speech. And maybe this is the precursor to getting rid of Conference altogether, as we are moved steadily down the road towards American-style rallies without the inconvenience of a Party impertinent enough to want to have a say.

When it’s the electorate, some attempt is being made at last to give them a teeny-weeny taste of power, but when it comes to the Party, even that tiny pretence of influence that the Party liked to think it might have is now, it seems, to be flattened.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:50 PM | Permalink

Rob Wall, a Labour member in Bedford has put together this remarkable website, which should be an invaluable resource for all of us concerned about the halving - or more - of membership and the 4m votes lost since 1997. It provides invaluable data that illustrates exactly why it is that Labour members are disillusioned and, in many cases, reluctant to go out campaigning.

It's a work in progres and Rob Wall wants feedback from others to fill in the blanks. I don't think such assiduous compiling of data should be taken for granted and urge people to use the site to add information and use it in arguments with the 'carry-on-as-before' crowd.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:01 PM | Permalink

From today's Times:

Politics is in a curiously disorientated state in Britain today. On one side, old-style Toryism was voted out in 1997, and has now been replaced by a soft veneer of environmentalism and family-centredness that contrasts sharply with the excesses of private equity capitalism. On the other, the persistent shifting to the right under new Labour has now blown itself out, as the polls indicate, leaving a large segment of political space occupied by mainstream Labour opinion and probably a majority of the electorate as a whole largely disenfranchised.

This key part of the spectrum urgently needs representation to give it fresh direction — not old Labour either, but a modern progressive politics addressing the big issues now being ducked and championing key groups now being marginalised.

First, we need a change of direction to heal the divisions that are increasingly straining the fabric of our society. The Government has made some progress in reducing poverty, but not nearly enough. Inequalities are actually increasing. The average pay of the chief executives of the top FTSE 100 companies is now £46,150 a week, 250 times the minimum wage and 500 times the state pension, while at the same time there are still 12.5 million people, including more than 2 million children, living in households below the Government’s poverty line. This matters because reducing inequality leads to less violence, better health, longer life expectancy, lower teenage birth rates and higher educational attainment.

We need a new approach to cutting crime if we genuinely believe in being as tough on the causes of crime as on crime itself. It’s not sensible to go on banging people up even faster than we can build new prisons without tackling much harder the causes of criminality, and putting much more emphasis on reducing recidivism. Despite unprecedented increase in the use of custody, reconviction rates have soared. The hardline policy isn’t working.

We must drastically reduce the prison population, confining it to violent and dangerous offenders. We should provide instead secure units in the community where lesser offenders are required to attend compulsory courses on anger control, money management and parenting, and also to receive education and skills training and treatment for drug addiction and mental health needs, and are made to do unpaid work to repay the community.

Probably the best crime reduction value for money comes from parenting programmes and youth inclusion panels, bringing together local services to focus support on 8 to 13-year-olds at highest risk. Of course there are increased costs involved in intensive rehabilitation, but if prison places and reoffending costs can be significantly reduced, there should be a substantial net saving in public expenditure.

We need too to arrest the overcentralisation of power in this country. Key decisions, such as the replacement of Trident and the restoration of nuclear energy, should not be taken without consultation of the Cabinet, Parliament and public opinion.

Indeed, the most direct way to win back public trust and reconnect with the electorate is for the Government to be seen as genuinely accountable, listening and being prepared to adjust in the face of strong public demand.

It also means Parliament reasserting its authority by taking the right to ratify (or not) nominations to the Cabinet made by the Prime Minister, by appointing committees of inquiry where the Government refuses to do so (as over rendition flights), by ending the Royal Prerogative whereby the Prime Minister can unilaterally declare war and authorise military action, and through its select committees tabling its own motions for debate and voting on the floor of the Commons. Giving the public the right to initiate legislation through referendums is another issue to explore.

We also need much more vigorously to tackle the greatest threat facing the world today: climate change. It must permeate every policy area of Government — not just energy, but transport, industry, building, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy. It is not enough merely to talk of the end of oil dependence when our electricity generation from renewable energy is, at just 4 per cent, by far the lowest in Europe.

We need an overall plan to meet the scientists’ target of reducing carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050. It is a colossal challenge, but a win-win-win-win scenario. It will increase energy efficiency hugely, create large savings for industry and some of our poorest households, protect our economy against sudden destabilising external shocks and safeguard us from climate catastrophe.

Finally, we must stop being subservient to the US. We can’t go on being America’s glove puppet, as we have been over Iraq and Lebanon, and, most worryingly, Iran. We need a foreign policy that robustly reasserts our own essential British interests and our commitment to the UN. The first demonstration of that should be strong opposition to any potential US or Israeli attack on Iran, and insistence that the nuclear impasse must be resolved by negotiation or by UN sanctions, not by violence.

We should take the advice not of the US but of British military commanders on the spot in speeding up our troop withdrawal from Iraq. And we should push for a wider international peace conference for a joint settlement of interconnected Middle East issues that cannot be solved one by one. The latest reports of a US change of heart about talking to Iran and Syria make this now a serious possibility.

It is because I believe that radical new policies of this kind would reenergise politics in this country that I am standing for the leadership of the Labour Party.

www.michaelmeacher.info

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:04 PM | Permalink

(From Tribune.)

When Sir Hayden Phillips was appointed in the wake of the cash for honours episode, a lot more was at stake than simply new arrangements for party funding. In the background was a long-laid plan for the Americanisation of British politics

Sir Hayden’s key recommendation – a £50,000 cap on donations, with some restrictions on national or local spending – would, if accepted, lead inexorably towards ever greater dependence of all the political parties on rich donors, whether companies or individuals, as in the US. Apart from reproducing in Britain the cancer at the heart of the American plutocracy, it would emasculate even further the sense of shared involvement which has always been at the heart of British political democracy.

The essence of the US political model is that parties exist for fund-raising and vote-getting purposes at elections, not for political education or for participation in the political process through lobbying of leaders or ministers. Political leaders, who are dependent for their election on a war-chest drawn from rich donors, overwhelmingly big business, owe no allegiance to operating political parties or to any particularly distinctive political or class ideology. American politics is thus driven by this alliance of convenience between a narrowly drawn political elite and the business plutocracy that sustains it on condition of rewards and kickbacks from whichever party wins.

British politics is still a long way from reaching this point. But the signs of seismic change in this direction in the last days of the Blair era are all too apparent. A donation cap of £50,000 would virtually cripple the mass financing of the Labour Party via the trade unions whilst still allowing the Conservative Party to draw in full on its traditional source of funding from wealthy corporate and individual donors, only spread more widely than before. Though some of the finance gap, probably only a small part because of public distaste, may be met by State funding, the dependence of British politics on rich donors would be remorselessly increased.

There are several ironies in this situation. A scandal that arose from the demand to clean up British politics from the alleged corruption of selling peerages in exchange for huge cash contributions has now been turned on its head by efforts to suppress the one element in the current system that is genuinely democratic – the contribution by millions of union members to a political fund legitimised by a regular vote. By contrast, large-scale contributions by companies are not subject to any vote of either shareholders or employees.

Another irony is that the Hayden Phillips proposals seem to be targeted at reducing or eliminating trade union influence when the real corrosive power behind the scenes is wielded by business funding. The Phillips review proposes “individualisation” whereby each union member opts in or out each year of contributing to political parties. Collective trade union funding would largely come to an end. Yet all the evidence suggests that union monies have had no influence whatever in subverting the political process over the last two decades, while corporate monies exert very considerable power in overriding democratic channels and due legal process. The Ecclestone affair, the kow-towing to Murdoch, Blair’s over-close relationship with BP and BAE Systems (and those are just the ones we know about), the alleged cash for peerages episode itself, together with the policy of keeping employee workplace rights firmly under the thumb of the employers, all point in this direction.

But radically increasing dependence on business and other wealthy donors is only part of the present landscape that is moving. Several other proposals currently floated are coming together like pieces in a broader jigsaw. There is already talk of introducing primaries for the election of party leaders. No.10 has been strongly pressing for a loose “supporters’ network” as an addition to, and perhaps eventual substitute for, party membership. The advantage for the proponents of this political model is that ‘supporters’ could be readily targeted by email while bothersome members continually demanding a participatory role in policy-making could be dispensed with. Already Labour Party Annual Conference has been reduced to a grandstanding for the Leader’s speech, and now the idea of it being held less frequently, say biennially, is being talked about. Party subscriptions have been raised to £36 a year – a further discouragement to low-paid members when ‘supporters’ are not charged anything at all.

Again there is a bitter irony here. All of these measures will conspire to increase power in the hands of the political leadership. Yet the single biggest failure of the British political system today is the over-centralisation of power within a narrow, unelected clique around the Prime Minister which excludes the Cabinet and the elected Parliament, together with the almost total breakdown in the democratic checks and balances for holding the Executive and particularly the Prime Minister to account.

Britain now has in effect a President without the counter-balances of the Presidential system in the US where a separately elected Congress can act as an effective check against arbitrary Presidential rule. In Britain, by contrast, the unitary hierarchy of power from Prime Minister downwards undermines the constitutional necessity of a separation of powers, as the current questions over the independence of the Attorney-General’s advice about the legal case for the Iraq War and the closing down of the SFO investigation into suspected corruption in the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia make only too clear. There is no case whatever for changing party funding arrangements in a manner which will consolidate yet further Prime Ministerial power linked to private deals with big business – quite the reverse.

For several decades, the power of the Prime Minister has grown. It is still growing, and now needs to be cut back as a matter of urgency. The current proposals however for restructuring party funding do not represent the modernisation of politics in Britain. They reflect rather the emasculation of the existing balance of power which will lead inexorably towards the Americanised system where corporate coffers buy political parties. That’s not democracy, but plutocracy.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:51 AM | Permalink

In yesterday's Budget, Gordon Brown pre-empted the Tories by, in effect, doing their work for them - cutting corporation Tax and cutting the basic income tax rate. What he has not done is produce a real Labour Budget which would dramatically cut growing inequality by ending glaring tax loopholes that favour the rich. (E.g. non domicile tax status for the super rich and the taper relief exemption for private equity investors) while at the same time raising the basic State pension to pensioner credit level as of right for all pensioners and linking all future increases in the pension to earnings.

He has not tackled environmental issues adequately. His policy of bringing the airlines into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in several years time will not deter the fastest rising cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Bringing in a carbon entitlement for individual households in 2012 is far too late. He has done nothing to increase the pathetically low level of electricity generation in UK from renewable sources of energy, still stuck at 4% when the rest of the EU level is 20-25%. Building standards and energy efficiency still remain disappointingly low and he has refused, wrongly, to earmark all green taxes for expenditure on better green alternatives (e.g. bus rail and smaller engine cars).

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:41 PM | Permalink

Michael's speech to the People's Assembly against the War, yesterday evening in Westminster.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 07:14 AM | Permalink

This piece on the outcome and effects of last night's vote appears on the New Statesman website, as does an article from a Trident supporter, Tom Watson MP.

Whatever the arguments over the wisdom of retaining nuclear weapons, he and I both seem to agree that the way in which the matter was handled within the PLP and indeed the Labour Party as a whole needs to change drastically if we are to see Labour regain electoral support.

Continue reading "Closing down options for disarmament" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:11 PM | Permalink

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:24 AM | Permalink

The consultation on Trident has been a sham. By fixing a vote in the House of Commons for next Wednesday, No 10 is bouncing us into a momentous decision years before expert opinion says it is necessary.

As leader, I would re-open this decision. I would arrange a full and proper consultation lasting at least six months, embracing all the relevant options and making sure public opinion is properly heard, followed by at least a two day debate in Parliament, ending with a fresh and much more authoritative vote.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Meacher: why Spectator readers should vote for me

A leadership election opens up, uniquely, the opportunity to debate and decide on the future course of a government. I am standing because I believe there are several areas of policy where a fundamental change of direction is now needed. And though Spectator readers may initially be sceptical about the relevance of my policies to them, I believe that if they read on with an open mind, they'll find much that they agree with. I'm sure they'll agree, for instance, that New Labour and Tory policies have become similar, almost overlapping, which means that politics has become increasingly fixated on personalities, as though a blanket consensus on policy had been achieved. This is ridiculous. Old-style Toryism was rejected in 1997, and now New Labour - the continuing moving-right show - has clearly faded. It's time, not for Old Labour either, but for a mainstream Labour approach - which may well represent majority opinion within the electorate but has been suppressed for over a decade - to be reasserted as a modern progressive politics with new solutions to today's profound problems.

Continue reading "From the Spectator (3 March 2007)" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:09 AM | Permalink

Tonight's vote today in favour of having an all elected chamber represents a huge step forward. It was good to see all the options where there would have been a majority appointed element being rejected so decisively.

Now we must have legislation to act on the will of the Commons – because we voted as we did to reflect the weight of public opinion, which wants a 21st century bicameral parliament, not a 19th century one. We have to see the government commit itself to a bill that will turn tonight's vote into law and give us a properly elected second chamber, where the elections are run on an open list system and places on that list are decided by party members, not by party apparatchiks and the leadership.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 07:36 PM | Permalink

(From the Independent)

Labour leadership contender answers your questions, such as 'Why not sell your flats to help fight against poverty?' & 'What's your guilty pleasure?'
Published: 05 March 2007

Are you a socialist? What does that mean today? MIKE WOODBRIDGE, Brighton

Yes, I am. A socialist believes that while the market has its proper place, the fundamental principles underpinning society should be equity, social justice, equality of opportunity, and democratic accountability. Even where the market is a dominant force, socialists believe it should be regulated to ensure high environmental, social and labour standards.

Why, as a socialist, do you own so many houses? GARY BROWNE, Glasgow

As I have regularly stated in the register of Members' interests, I own four flats. I have saved throughout my life, and put my savings into property. I don't think [that] is contrary to socialism.

Given your views on poverty, why not sell some of your houses and give the money to charity? Or are you just another hypocritical politician? V AHMAD, Birmingham

I already give a significant amount to charity . I agree there is an urgent need to build much more social, affordable housing but selling my flats which are already occupied would not contribute one iota to that.

Isn't it delusional of you to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership? MAURICE BURKE, Birmingham

No. There should be a contest because only an election enables us to debate the real policy issues. I also believe that members of the Labour Party should have the right to choose their own leaders. I believe, too, that as New Labour, of which Gordon Brown is perhaps the main architect, has moved continually ever further to the right, the mainstream majority of the party has been left disenfranchised and without a voice. It is not sensible to assume the results of any election before the electors have had a chance to deliver their opinion which may sometimes come as rather a shock to the chattering classes. Not too many people I guess expected David Cameron to come from behind and win the Tory Party leadership.

Don't you think Gordon offers Labour the best hope of winning the next election? VALERIE EVANS, Cardiff

Have you seen the last two polls? Both put the Tories 11 per cent ahead, and one poll found that if Gordon was leader, the Tories would be 13 per cent ahead.

I am a Labour supporter, but I despair that Gordon Brown has been such a coward over the war, talks nonsense on 'Britishness' and seems so in love with Rupert Murdoch that he will hand the next election to Cameron. Do you agree - and if not, which bits do you disagree with and why? DAVE FISCHER, Sheffield

Cameron has certainly, at this stage at least, improved the Tories' poll ratings, but not, I think, for the reasons you give.

A majority on the Labour left support John McDonnell and see your campaign as a spoiler which will only split the vote and stop a contest. Will you stand down if John has more nominations when Blair resigns? SUSAN PRESS, Calder Valley

There is no evidence whatever that a majority of people on the Labour Party left and the affiliated trade union movement support John McDonnell for leader. I have a great deal of respect for John, but I don't believe he can get the necessary 45 nominations, whereas I believe I can. I am not splitting the vote, but rather giving the centre-left the chance, to run a candidate who can pass the nominations threshold. But I do agree that whichever of the two of us has the larger number of nominations, the other should stand down when Tony Blair resigns.

Why not use that photo of you on Blackpool beach (very Daniel Craig) for your campaign posters? CONOR MURPHY, Reading

Good try. At least it shows I'm healthy.

Do you think Blair should stand down now?STEVE HARRISON, Bolton

The sooner he stands down, the better.

Why did you vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq?DEAN PALMER, Norwich

I made the biggest mistake of my political life when I supported the war, on the grounds that the Prime Minister repeatedly gave chapter and verse about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and assured us that if only we knew all the intelligence available to him, we would have no doubts about the necessity for this action. I still find it deeply disturbing for democracy that a prime minister can so massage and fabricate the evidence in order to push through a preconceived war plan.

Do you think Blair lied to his MPs and lied to the country over Iraq?JEFF TERRY, Dundee

I think the highly selective manipulation of such evidence as there was, together with the highly prejudicial use to which it was put, was deeply dishonest.

You claim you were misled that Saddam had a WMD programme. Yet you say the West has no right to tell Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't you being rather inconsistent over Iraq and Iran?JIM ROLAND, London NW11

No, these are two quite separate arguments. Yes, we were certainly misled over Saddam's alleged WMD programme. While we should try to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons by negotiation and UN sanctions, we cannot say that nuclear weapons are indispensable for our own security, and then say Iran does not need them for their own security, especially when Iran (unlike the West) is surrounded by seven states which are nuclear-armed and some very hostile.

Do you truly believe that the US government knew about 9/11 but failed to prevent it?CHRIS QUIGLEY, by email

Clearly the US government did not know the precise time and location of the al-Qa'ida attack, but equally clearly there was a great deal of intelligence beforehand which, for whatever reason, it seems that they did not follow up.

You have suggested that the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks (which is pretty obvious I reckon, but fair play to you nonetheless). How complicit do you believe the UK Government was in 7/7? PAUL HUGHES, by email

Not at all.

Do you also believe that the FBI shot John F Kennedy, that Princess Diana was murdered and the US government has covered up the landing of aliens?BEN TROTTER, Cirencester

No. Such allegations are cheap and rather silly.

What steps will you propose to counter global warming? DR GEORGE BLAIR, by email

We should rapidly increase our use of renewable sources of energy (windpower, solar, and micro-generation in people's homes). We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year. We should increase vehicle excise duty sharply for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, and smaller-engine cars. We should give each family a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year.

How often have you flown in the past 12 months? FIONA MILLS, Edinburgh

Not at all.

You criticise the 'Westminster bubble' but said you spent the last two months talking to MPs about your campaign. Does this not show you have the same disrespect for people's views as the rest of the Westminster bubble? MARSHA JANE THOMPSON, by email

I said that when people around the country come to vote, they may well take a quite different view of things from the inward-looking Westminster scene, and should be listened to. But I also extensively canvassed my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party because they alone are the ones who make the nominations.

Why did it take you so long to announce your intention to stand for the Labour leadership when John McDonnell has been campaigning up and down the country for months?MAX MITCHELL, by email

I have been told that John McDonnell announced his candidature without consulting his colleagues. I thought it right first to consult extensively to confirm that my candidature would have the necessary range of support.

What are your guilty pleasures (apart from homeowning)?ALICE SHERWOOD, Tadworth

Wouldn't you like to know! Dropping childish comments in the waste paper basket is one of them.

You always look a bit boring. Are you? ROB JACKSON, by email

No. Why? Are you?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:28 PM | Permalink

(Tribune, 2 March 2007)

Perhaps if we continue as we are, we can still win the next election, although the latest Guardian opinion poll putting labour at 29% and the Tories at 42% suggests otherwise. What is incontrovertible is that we are hugely more likely to win if we now make the big changes necessary to win back the four million votes and half our membership that we have lost since 1997. That is why I am standing for the Labour Party leadership.

If elected, I would first speed up our withdrawal from Iraq, taking the advice of our own military commanders in Basra, not of the Bush Administration in Washington. We have been America’s puppet for too long; we need an independent foreign policy dictated by our own interests, not the US. We should be using whatever political clout remains to us to initiate a multilateral peace conference of all the main actors in the Middle East to negotiate a joint settlement of all the main outstanding issues together which from experience cannot be resolved one by one. That must include the future of Iraq, a Palestinian State, an international guarantee of Israel’s security along roughly its 1967 borders and a negotiated settlement with Iran not a military one . I would strongly reject, and give no support whatever to a US or Israeli attack on Iran.

Domestically, I would reverse the “new” Labour obsessions of replacing the public service ethos by the market. Equity, equal rights according to need, public accountability, a professional standard of care and integrity are being replaced by targets, cost cutting, PFI top slicing of public expenditure, a service fragmentation by private interests. This is the case of health and education housing, pensions, probation, rail, the Post Office and local government. There are even threats against public service broadcasting. Privatisation of our public services should be stopped and reversed.

Britain is now a more unequal society than under Margaret Thatcher. The average pay of chief executives of the FTSE top 100 companies, at over £46,000 a week is now 250 times the minimum wage – 500 times the state pension. Such grotesque divisions between rich and poor are known to generate much of the social pathology currently afflicting Britain –violence, worse health among poorer families, lower life expectancy, and higher teenage birth rates. I would raise the national minimum wage quickly to £6 an hour and then soon to £7 an hour. I would also establish a pay commission to advise what would be a fair ratio between top and bottom pay, bearing in mind that wealth creation is not an individual achievement but a team effort, so that any further increases in pay at the top would draw up the pay of those beneath.

I also want a government which listens to the party and the electorate, consults and does not disregard the results when they are inconvenient and respects conference decisions - or at least, if it loses the vote, sets up a joint body made up of members of the National Executive Committee and the sponsors of the resolution to flesh out a compromise. I want to see the Party chair elected by the party, not appointed by the PM and accountable exclusively to the party in conveying the opinion of the membership within the Cabinet.

I want a Government that genuinely treats planet survival as the greatest threat to human survival and the biggest challenge facing the world. That means making tackling climate change an absolute priority not only in energy policy, but in transport, industry, agriculture, building standards, public expenditure and foreign policy. Industry and power generation should be required annually to lower their greenhouse gas emissions while individual households should be allocated, according to their size and structure, an equal carbon allowance for all their activities including air and car travel.

Civil employment rights need to be strengthened. The balance of power in industry is very unfairly tilted against working people. I would want workers to have employment rights from the start of their job, to have rights in smaller companies below the current threshold of 20 employees to have a right of reinstatement where a tribunal rules for them in a dispute, to have equal rights where they are part time or agency workers, to be able to gain union recognition rights on the basis of a 50% vote, not on the basis of having also to win 40% of the eligible vote (on which criteria no post war government would ever have been elected).

There are so many other issues too where I would change the Government’s present course. But none is more important immediately than Trident. This would cost some £65 billion when even the MOD admits there is no foreseeable enemy against whom it might be needed. It is not an independent British nuclear deterrent. Getting the kit from the US would make us politically subservient to them again for the next 30-40 years, a price I would not pay. Replacing Trident would breach the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and act as a trigger to nuclear proliferation among the 40 countries (not just Iran) now technologically capable of producing nuclear weapons.

Peace, social justice, climate survival – these are the issues I am determined to put centre stage for the left.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:56 AM | Permalink

The public sector pay increase announced yesterday is unduly harsh pay settlement for the million public sector pay workers who are being told they can only have a 1.9% increase when inflation is now running at 4.2% - in other words, they are getting a 2.3% pay cut.

The reasons given are, firstly the state of the public finances, which is of course the Chancellor’s responsibility, but I don’t see why nurses should have to bail him out. If there are to be stringencies I don’t think nurses should only get an increase of less than 10 pounds a week, when junior doctors are getting nearly 20 pounds a week, senior civil servants 40 pounds a week extra and judges 80 pounds a week extra.

The second reason given is the need to keep inflation under control. But the Treasury itself said the inflation increase has been a blip and inflation will fall this year anyway. I don’t see why a temporary blip should be used as an excuse to impose a real terms pay cut on some of the poorest and most needed workers in our society.

This is bound to play badly on the chancellors standing with the unions. They expect him to be fair and equitable in the way he settles public sector pay and I don’t think this increase meets that criterion. This pretty miserable settlement should be reconsidered.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:10 PM | Permalink

We learnt today that the Trident renewal vote will take place on March 14th. There is no way a genuine consultation can take place under such an unwisely truncated timescale. Taking a decision to buikld a new generation of nuclear missile capable submarines now is, in the words of nuclear weapons expert Dr Richard Garwin, “premature ... I see no reason why they should not last 45 years.”

Dr Garwin was speaking to the Defence Select Committee in January. Forcing us into an unnecessary vote now will undermine the important work of the committee in considering the arguments and informing the public and MPs. The government is bouncing us into taking an expensive £65bn decision - to take the MOD estimate - by deliberately preventing a real debate in the country.

UPDATE: CND have called an emergency lobby of Parliament on that day - download and forward the flyer to build the lobby.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:24 PM | Permalink

From

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.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:39 PM | Permalink

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

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:09 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 08:03 PM | Permalink

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?

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