Sunday, 20 July 2008

THE WAY TO VICTORY

A win in Glasgow East on Thursday will cheer Labour supporters currently staring into the electoral abyss. But what is happening two days afterwards will be even more important for the future fortunes of the Party.
The National Policy Forum meeting in Warwick has far more sway now than the Party Conference in a couple of months' time . And, yes, that's appalling.
For now, let's concentrate on the sheer commonsense of the demands which trade union leaders will make at the weekend. Rumour has it that Gordon Brown will oppose many of these demands. Minister Pat McFadden has already appeared on Newsnight to quash hopes the unions' collective wisdom will be taken on board at the NPF. Why? They are all mainstream , commonsense ideas which could take the Party out of the centre-right quagmire it has fallen into - with the ensuing meltdown at the polls.
The list, outlined in the Guardian the other day, includes the right to take supportive strike action, scrapping NHS prescription charges, bringing all hospital cleaning back in-house, and a new agreement on public sector pay.
Nearly 200 constituency parties have also submitted 4,000 amendments, about half them motions submitted by activists in the LRC and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy.They include withdrawal from Iraq, a new council house building programme, and a 50p income tax rate on those earning more than £100,000.
Other union proposals include extending the adult minimum wage to 18- to 21-year-olds and apprentices, and legal changes that would allow councils to negotiate procurement contracts that include fair employment clauses.
On education, they want staff in city academies to be paid at the same rates as other school staff, the right to five days a year paid educational leave for all workers, free school meals for all children in primary schools, and mandatory time off to retrain.
On the environment, the unions want to extend the "not-for-profit model" to passenger train operators as franchises expire, and to break up the dominance of the six major energy companies.
On union rights, they want the right to strike, internet balloting, tax deductions for union membership subscriptions, and an extension of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to construction.
On equality, the unions propose extending a duty to promote equality to the voluntary and private sectors, reducing the lower earnings threshold to £30 a week to allow low-paid workers access to sick pay, a tightening of the equal pay laws, and a new right for unions to collectively bargain on equality issues. On parental leave, they want an extension of the child's age limit from six to 16.
What's extraordinary, of course, is that in days gone by these would all have been mainstream Labour policy. New Labour detractors are trying to say this list is some sort of hard left backtrack to the 1980's. What utter nonsense. Measures such as these are the only way we will defeat David Cameron's Tories at the next election.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Susan, why isn't there anything at Warwick 2 challenging the Gov'ts welfare reforms including tomorrow's very very nasty welfare green paper, which brings in 'working for your dole' In Germany, when the Harz laws were brought in and the 'one euro jobs', there were weekly mass protests for many months with Union support and even now they are continually contested

why the silence here with our unions, even self interest must tell them this will put many council manual workers, etc, out of work, drive down wages.

Merseymike said...

As someone whgo doesn't consider themselves to be on the left of the party, there's nothing much there which would frighten the horses. I'm honestly not sure about the free school dinners for everyone - there are public health justifications for this but I think the quality would have to improve dramatically first, and evidence seems to be that once you remove the chips with everything menus, take-up goes down.

I think I agree that the current minimum wage rate is certainly not something anyone should be paid less than, but again I wouldn't want to see this used as a way of keeping the figure artificially low

On the welfare reforms - very much agree with the first commentator. What Purnell, the slimy little creep, hasn't as yet explained is : if these are jobs which need doing, then why aren't they being created as proper jobs and ringfenced for unemployed people??