There ARE ways in which Labour could avoid catastrophe at the next election. Many are outlined here and here . These are not the policies of what Neal Lawson so charmingly refers to as "the wilderness."
The list below also outlines some of the policies which would get us OUT of the wilderness we are heading for unless Labour changes direction - fast.
If they look familiar, that's because most formed part of John McDonnell's May Manifesto. Which many people signed.
In the light of the latest opinion polls, it needs to be said again. The Labour left does NOT want to see the Tories win at the next election ,But it is only by chaging direction that we stand a cat in hell's of avoiding disaster. As follows
- Nailing the 10p tax mistake by the introduction of a fair tax system removing the low paid from taxation and ensuring the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share
- An increase in the basic state pension, immediately restoring the link with earnings, lifting people off means tested benefits and providing free care for the elderly
- An immediate start on a large scale council house building programme and assistance for those facing repossession
- Immediate end to programme of local Post Office closures and liberalisation of postal services
- An end to the privatisation of our public services
- A new pay deal for public sector workers to protect their living standards and tackle low pay
- Abolishing tuition fees and restoring maintenance grants for all students
- Scrapping ID cards and abandoning 42 days detention
- Introduction of a Trade Union Freedom Bill and measures to protect temporary and agency workers
- Rejecting the proposals to renew Trident
Posts
10 comments:
This is a decent programme and could be an popular rallying point: it is a common sense agenda that covers all the areas of public concern. However, while acknowledging it can't cover everything, it does indicate that how little disabled people, particularly those who can't work have so little political import or a voice, even on the left.
There is nothing on the Welfare Reform Act, despite 36 M.Ps calling for a postponement of its major components. The future for disabled claimants is very bleak indeed: The Welfare Reform Act will see millions facing cuts some at least of 400 pounds a year(this for people facing massive utility bills, etc) and a privatised and coercive welfare system.Once upon a time it would have been axiomatic for a left wing manifesto to reject such an major attack on the vulnerable, its a shame this doesn't and i and others are bloody angry at the major lack of interest across the left about this issue.
people are going to really be up aginst it...
DO not expect the left to worry about the disabled, we are seen as being the cause of all the problems of new Labour.
A new Sign is being made for Remploy, it says you enter here in the spirit of work, but we hope the spirit which leaves has no legs, gas prices at Remploy will increase 75%.
Fertilizer free, any gold teeth please return to Labour to pay off our debts.
frenetic, asyou know John McD is supportive on Welfare reform issues - but yes there are too bloody few
"restoring maintenance grants for all students"
I don't see why taxpayers should have to pay for the maintenance of those students who can maintain themselves... far better are targeted grants.
Must say I think I agree with that. I don't think universal grants are realistic any more with so many people attending University.
Maintenance grants WERE targetted - the less your parents earned, the more you got. This is a story I have repeated often but when the grants system was faur and equitable I went from a council estate to Cambridge University and it cost my parents - nothing. As for me I had a small £50 overdraft when I left...... frankly I find it extraordinary that anyone currently saddled with student debt would dfend the current farrago of student loans and top-up fees. In 28 years of employment I have paid for that education many times in tax. And that is how it should be. You should not penalise young people before they have even had the chance to make a start in life
Susan,
I suspect the LRC is not campaigning/challenging the welfare reforms, (which are some of the biggest changes in policy for sixty years in a high profile way because they think the public is in agreement with them. But surely the role of the left is to challenge injustice, unfairness, now matter how unpopular the cause, etc and to make the case that such a policy is unfair, going with the flow is not overall an option for the left.
Just read Purnell's comments here, in the past the left would have been incandescent about such comments.The other significant thing is that it is now LP councillors who are creating organisations to implement these reforms, its like the 1930's Poor law all over again.
'Latest plans revealed to end welfare culture
By Rob Merrick
Comment | Read Comments (2)
PRIVATE firms will run job centres in a fresh government attempt to end the North-East's "welfare culture" and get benefit claimants back to work.
And drug users will be stripped of their benefit if they refuse to go on treatment courses, in a crackdown to be unveiled next month.
The moves were announced as the region's 'City Strategy' - a local authority-led scheme to get long-term benefit claimants back to work - was awarded about £350,000 to continue until 2011.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2364292.0.latest_plans_revealed_to_end_welfare_culture.php#comments
Oh, the system definitely needs changing, but I read the statement as being a universal flat-fee full grant ('maintenance grants for all students') I was in much the same position as you as a student on a full grant (my father was unemployed for much of my third year at uni). I could never see why public money was being given to Sloanes whose daddy thought nothing of sending up the odd thousand or buying them a house to live in - and this was Lancaster, not Cambridge!
Interestingly, Susan, it's the same at Cambridge today. My parents don't earn much, so I get £3000 a year from the Uni, as well as £2700 grant from the govt. That means I don't need a student loan, and pay nothing up front; all that I need to pay is the £9000 tuition fees when I'm earning sufficient. We should focus on ensuring all universities can do the same, and making sure tuition fees stay reasonable and equitable.
Anonymous, thanks for the info. I'm glad to hear there are bursaries etc but you will still leave Cambridge £9000 in debt.
Merseymike, rich students got NO maintenance grant. The ones inbetween often struggled as their parents wouldn't make up the difference.I remember one girl from a very middle-class background surviving for a whole term on rice and fried onions.
Frentic, the LRC has spoken out many times on the privatisation of job centres and punitive welfare reforms. The reason it's not "high profile" is because we struggle to get any media coverage at all!
Post a Comment