Michael Meacher - Labour's Future

God moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform, as the hymn once put it. Obviously today’s upending of the Government’s best-laid plans to begin a nuclear renaissance by waving through a French takeover of the nuclear holding company British Energy must rank as one of his more momentous interventions, even by his standards.

The whole saga is brim full with irony. The Government was desperate to push through this deal (and to get £4bn from the sale to reduce the colossal deficit on the public accounts), but in effect scuppered their own deal when DBERR sold off part of its British Energy stake last year. John Hutton is now reaping the whirlwind of his own obsession with privatisation and allowing market forces (i.e. private profit maximization) to determine public policy.

Another ironic twist is that the British Government is so anxious to sell off a key part of Britain’s infrastructure to a foreign State-controlled company (EDF is 85% owned by the French Government), yet rejects any idea that it should be controlled by the British State itself.

Ironically again the British Government may in the event be saved from itself. There would have been a lot wrong with this deal if it had gone through:

Since British Energy generates about 20% of the UK’s electricity, an EDF takeover would have given a foreign company a massive concentration of power in Britain’s crucial electricity sector. The quasi-monopolistic elements of this deal were always alarming.

The so-called nuclear renaissance was always based on sand. No satisfactory answer has yet been found to the fundamental problem of where to store tens of thousands of highly toxic and dangerous waste over the next millennia. Huge public subsidies would undoubtedly have been required (the cost of waste management and decommissioning the last time round has now, on official figures, reached a staggering £83bn). The risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorist attack, catastrophic accident, and cancer and leukaemia clusters have never been removed.

Even the flagship of the supposed renaissance, the nuclear plant being built at Olkiluoto in Finland, is 2 years behind schedule and costing double the estimated budget.

Maybe this nuclear collapse is a blessing in disguise. The EU has recently set down a mandatory requirement on the UK to generate at least 15% of all its energy from renewable resources by 2020. Since renewables make virtually no contribution to transport fuels and very little to space heating, this means that over 40% of the UK’s electricity generation must now come from renewables. At present it is a pathetic 4%. If the UK were to build 8-10 nuclear power stations, as the British Government and EDF intend, we would not get even remotely near our mandatory EU renewables target because it would be completely crowded out in the rush to nuclear.

However it is that the Government has been pulled back from the disaster-in-waiting of their own nuclear plans, a ray of light has now opened up for a full-scale review of what offers a long-term sustainable energy policy for the UK. And on any objective assessment nuclear is not part of it.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

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

I think there are four key challenges now facing the EU. First, Europe's economic problems cannot be solved with supply side reforms alone. Weak domestic demand in many cases, made worse by the constriction of the Stability and Growth Pact, should be tackled by setting up a counter cyclical European Recovery Fund and by developing ECOFIN as a real political counterpart to the European Central Bank.

Second, the EU's response to the global economy should be smarter than simply posing a choice between liberalisation and protectionism. It should seek to stabilise exchange rates and prevent speculative capital flows from destabilising healthy economies through a Tobin tax. It should press for an international clearing union to smooth trade imbalances by requiring countries to recycle their surpluses to maintain global demand. And it should take the lead in benchmarking social and environmental standards into world trade rules.

Third, the EU should give its social model a more distinctive European form. To deal with collapsing corporate provision, it should set up a European social fund into which companies should contribute a proportion of their profits to meet at least some of the spending needed to guarantee security in retirement as well as providing at least minimum standards for a European childcare guarantee.

Fourth, it must democratise EU politics so as to enable Europeans to feel involved in a common political debate about their future. Maybe a new Preseident of the European Council should lead on Europe-wide elections so that electors voted more as Europeans.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:54 PM | Permalink

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:24 AM | 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

(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

It is essential that House of Lords reform, being debated today and tomorrow in the Commons, ends with a clear decision to have a fully elected second chamber. Any extension of Prime Ministerial patronage, which is already far too pervasive and corrupting, over admissions to the Lords would reinforce the gross over centralisation of power which is one of the most damaging trends in Britain today. The power of the Prime Minister has grown, is still growing, and needs to be cut sharply back.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

The debate last week on Iraq and the wider Middle East was covered fairly extensively in the media but a crucial issue went mostly unremarked: it was an adjournment debate put forward by MPs, not a full debate of the House. It’s not surprising that it happened in that way, given the immense reluctance of the government to have the decision to go to war in Iraq and that the consequences of that decision formally examined in a Parliamentary debate.

At a time when public trust in politicians is at a low ebb, refusing to take part in the debate and hiding from it (as well as Tony Blair’s absence from the chamber, the government did not appoint tellers, so there could be no vote and presumably, to their way of thinking, no awkward headlines) is a poor tactic to pursue.

All this underlines the thinking behind my decision to propose a Waging War (Parliament's Role and Responsibility) Bill when I found that – for the first time in 30 years – I had actually got a place in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. I don’t expect my Bill to become law – I came 18th in the ballot and the chances of such a bill getting through the required stages would be slim even if a government were supportive. But if we are to restore some belief in the political system, this wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

Image: © Parliamentary copyright.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 08:59 PM | Permalink

So Tony Blair, to judge by his latest speech, is worried that the leadership/deputy leadership elections are prompting a drift back to a left wing agenda. Even before any real debate has actually begun, he’s terrified that, given half a chance, we might just jettison the New Labour mantra foisted on us since 1997. He obviously can’t bring himself to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Movement never wanted New Labour – as it has developed – and now want to drop New Labour if we’re to have the best chance of winning the next election.

Nobody is remotely suggesting going back to the 1980s. But New Labour is just one variant of modern Labour politics, and a distinctly unprogressive one at that. What we should be doing is promoting a real progressive Labour model that genuinely champions Labour values in today’s current setting, not using the Labour name to cover over what are often virtually identikit Tory policies. Labour, real Labour, does not stand for privatisation, deregulation, growing inequality, lack of democratic accountability, poodle-dom to Washington, undermining of civil rights and liberties, abandonment of the Labour trade union link or extension of means testing. We stand for the opposite.

Tony Blair is bewildered. “I’ve yet to work out how,” he said, “if the public wants more traditional left wing policies, they vote right.” Tony, they didn’t vote right. In 1997, they voted left, to get rid of the Tories at any cost, not for any ideological understanding of, or commitment to, New Labour. In 2001, they voted left again because they were determined not to let the Tories back in again, not for any enthusiasm for New Labour. In 2005, yes, we did win – but only at the cost of losing four million voters since 1997, plus losing over half of our party membership – hardly a clarion call to man the barricades for Blairism.

This party of ours has never needed a debate about our fundamental values and the direction of travel as we need now. I say, let the debate proceed, let our people speak.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:05 PM | Permalink

So where's the choice at the next general election? Cameron in effect offers more of the same, but more slickly delivered. Cameron says he will protect the NHS against cuts (though he doesn't say where the extra expenditure will come from). Cameron says he's committed to social responsibilty and devolving power from the state. What's the difference between Cameron and New Labour? Where's the choice?

Britain needs a real choice, not (as with Gordon Brown) another decade of New Labour but with a different face at the top, not (as with David Cameron) the heir to Blair, apeing the same policies but with the smooth touch he presumably learnt from his PR days.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:08 PM | Permalink

The biggest single underlying issue in British politics this summer is: how can the Government be made at least to take serious account of strongly held public opinion? Nearly 2 million people marched against the Iraq War, but the Prime Minister was not moved. We have had a national consultation on GM involving 675 meetings across the country with 37,000 questionnaires returned, 4-1 against GM, yet the Government decided to go ahead with GM crops in the UK. In the last two years the Labour Party Conference passed 2-1 majorities against PFI and foundation hospitals, but the Government immediately said it would ignore them.

With a majority in the Commons of 161, the Government won the top-up fees vote by only 5, yet immediately made clear it would disregard the depth of opposition. And now, in the face of the appalling local and Euro election results, the Prime Minister shows not a scintilla of readiness to change course over public sector reform, Europe or Iraq, or on any other issue for that matter. It is this malaise of powerlessness and resentment which is driving Labour’s misfortunes.

In the US, Government accountability is dealt with through checks and balances in the separation of powers between President and Congress. In the UK, where the Prime Minister’s writ runs from top to bottom of the Parliamentary system through strict whipping controls and patronage over appointments, can Parliamentary democracy be reinvigorated by amendment to existing powers? Clearly it can be, but it will require a sustained assertion of political will by Parliament to restore its traditional rights of accountability.

First it should assert its right to ratify top appointments. Senior Ministers, ambassadors, advisory committee chairmen, service regulators, and top policemen and military are currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and senior judges by the Lord Chancellor. Parliament should insist that all such appointees, as with Congressional hearings in the US, cannot take up office until their proposed appointment has been ratified by the appropriate Select Committee of the Commons. That would demonstrate their joint accountability, not only to the Executive, but also to the legislature. Equally, all such top appointees should be subject to the option of recall, cross-examination and report by the Select Committee where their performance and track record was seriously called into question.

That then raises how the Select Committees are constituted. At present the members are nominated by the party managers, who will want to ensure that the Government’s position is as well protected as possible. A more balanced spread of membership would be secured by applicants being voted on by secret ballot of the whole parliamentary party. There are precedents for the use of the secret ballot by the PLP in elections for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe, as well as for the Shadow Cabinet in Opposition.

Parliament also needs Select Committees with stronger powers and much increased expert research support. They should be empowered to subpoena Ministers and top officials, and to require disclosure of all necessary documents – the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the justification for the Iraq war being a recent case in point – subject to genuine national security requirements as independently assessed by the Information Commissioner. At present Parliament itself has no Legal Counsel nor the right to commission its own legal opinion That should be changed.

As the whole recent row over the use of intelligence has indicated, Parliament also needs to set up its own oversight committee on the intelligence services, reporting back direct to Parliament. And major decisions about holding the Government to account over issues of overriding national importance – for example whether to set up an independent judicial committee on the Iraq war, its membership and terms of reference – should be taken by a High-Level Parliamentary Committee selected by secret ballot of both the Commons and the Lords and perhaps including senior members of the judiciary. That should avoid any future whitewashings by the likes of Hutton or (we await to see) Butler.

Should political parties, now reduced to little more than vote-gathering and money-donating machines, have a role in policy-making? Should they, and members of the public, be able to participate between elections? I believe they unquestionably should, because the idea that democracy constitutes a single vote every 4 or 5 years, in elections where the politicians themselves try to control the agenda and where many key issues emerge for urgent decision between elections, is patently absurd. Nor is parliamentary democracy, in its present form at least, an adequate substitute when it is so dominated by patronage and whips’ discipline. Filling that void is the role for referenda.

That opens up several difficult, but manageable, questions. Who would decide when a referendum should be held? Would it be binding? What if you got an answer you didn’t like (on capital punishment, say)? What would be the interval before another referendum could be called to reverse it? Clearly the criteria for holding a referendum would have to be tightly drawn so that they were relatively rare, dependent perhaps on a petition demanding it from a given percentage of the electorate. The result would not automatically be binding, but a Government (or Prime Minister) that lost a major referendum would unquestionably have to change course to survive.

For all these reasons we now urgently need a high-powered Commission on Democracy to make detailed recommendations to open up our stifled political culture to the winds of reform and rescue it from its current asphyxiation.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This article originally appeared in The Guardian

Do we have any influence over those who govern us? After two million marched against the war, the issue that has brought this to a head is of course Iraq. But it is far more pervasive than that. When Britain's sovereignty vis-à-vis Europe may be affected by the new EU constitution, should we be denied a vote on whether we assent to a potentially fundamental change? When there is overwhelming hostility among the public (and probably, on a free vote, in Parliament too) to top-up fees and foundation hospitals, how can the Government be made to re-think major policies so widely opposed?

How can the Government be prevented from going ahead with commercialisation of GM crops even though the Government's own consultation has shown public opinion decisively opposed and scientific tests have shown it would be environmentally harmful? If the Hutton Inquiry report leaves several unanswered questions about how Britain was led into the Iraq War in defiance of the available evidence, should the Prime Minister be entitled to block a wider judicial inquiry when it is his own actions that are under scrutiny? And there are many more such questions.

All these have become issues of contention because of one central fact. The centralisation of power, which has been gradually gathering pace for decades, is now more concentrated at the top than at any time for a century or more. Richard Crossman famously said 40 years ago that “the power of the prime minister has been increasing, is still increasing, and should be cut back”. It wasn't, and the process has now steadily been taken further, to the point where the big issue in Britain now is a widely held and deeply resented sense of powerlessness.

Continue reading "Why we need a new political governance" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:43 AM | Permalink