I think it's time to think positively about post-election blogging.
In doing so I want to make clear that I am not going to be devoting lots of time to the Labour leadership election campaign.
I want to devote even less time to the machinations of groups who want to discuss anti-semitism, the failings of the media, or Brexit recriminations.
Of course I will be interested in how the political economy develops in this post-election period. And I will continue to note the attacks of Tories on the political paradigm we have known, which indicate how far they have moved outside it. Their latest attack on the BBC is some indication of that and is something the left should, perhaps, muse on.
But most of all I am interested in ideas for the future.
Some of those ideas will be on the issues I am working on, many of which focus on accounting and green issues now, in addition to tax and monetary theory. I will be unashamedly discussing these. Issue politics continue, and can prosper, even when the mainstream political narrative seems hostile. These then are routes to reform in themselves.
But I will also want to think about 2024, presuming that is when the next election is. This seems to be the most useful role for this blog right now. By this I mean the focus needs to be in what the Left needs to do regain political power.
I admit I will take risk in making my suggestions. Precisely because single-issue politics can continue I do not presume all is lost because of an election defeat. Indeed, some of the changes I am interested in may be little impeded by that. But I do, of course, worry that without power the overall emphasis within government will be wrong. The direction of travel will be neoliberal, pro-market, favourable to the dismantling of public services and unfavourable to communities, whatever a supposed outbreak of interest in the North might imply. And I think this matters.
I will get to core ideas fairly quickly. That's because what I am most interested in is core ideas. That is, what it is that really matters. By which I mean what it is that would identify the real benefit of having a left of centre government. In other words, the things that would really suggest that it was making a difference for the people it should be serving.
And then I am interested in how those policies might be delivered, including their funding.
After which I am interested in narrative building.
I suggest all the rest is peripheral for the next five years. Literally, if it doesn't win a lot of votes from those aged 45 and above in lost constituencies, then forget it, because it's not going to make anything happen.
I am interested in suggestion as to what those core policies are. No more than five pleas per person. There will not be more than five of them if the Left is to succeed, I suspect.
And I will offer mine. But I am asking because I am open to persuasion. And that's because I am quite convinced already that this is the only way to win again. My comment will come in a number of blogs over the next few days.
And to be open-minded, I am also seeking negative comment, or in what should be consigned to debating history for now. Here it's easy to start. Nationalisation is one non-starter that is an obstacle to re-election. So too is Remain. HS2 might be, but only if managed well, meaning better alternatives are proposed. And most attacks on the private sector per se are off-limits, because they alienate. Specific issues are worth considering. Attacking the private sector when it employs five out of six people is not. That's just a plan to make sure people think the Left will threaten their job. And that makes no sense at all if power is the aim.
Remember there is just one goal. And that is winning. Which means convincing older people in out of London constituencies that they need to vote progressively again.
What are the policies to do that? That is the question.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
1. Rebuilding and reempowering local democracy
2. Starting, running and nurturing local self governed local services, be that community bus services, local green energy, adult education coops, community run pubs and community centers etc
3. Regional assemblies with real economic power over elected mayor’s with token powers
Thanks
Labour need more votes that support their fine policies. They should have a policy to reach out to non-voters and other parties that attract similar votes. Sorry, but a radical change of approach is needed now.
But what does that mean?
It means altering the Labour Constitution to allow not standing and real cooperation.
It means research, interest and activism directed at non-voters and non-registered electors. Current policy is directed at ‘getting the vote’ out. No one speaks for or to unregistered or non voting people. That’s 23 million people
I agree with that
Out canvassing I found that a lot of the pushback was by people who just didn’t believe that politics could have a positive impact on their lives and I think the only way to get them onside is to get out now and for the next 5 years and actively try to make a positive impact on their lives that gives them real agency in that act.
Is there a way to have people registered to vote that doesn’t leave out large numbers of esp. young people?
Try to encourage a culture where people register to vote on their 18th birthday. Like a coming of age thing. There are computers and iPads in school and everyone has a phone so could be done there and then.
Correction. 11 million non-voters plus (I believe) 9 million not registered, about 20 million people unengaged with Labour or anyone else…
1 More power i.e. money for local authorities to invest in local facilities where people gather e.g. libraries, community hubs, rebranded Sure Start centres
2 Investment in public transport. It can be publicly or communally owned e.g. by arms length Local Authority companies
3 Investment in improving the housing stock through insulation, solar power etc to reduce bills
4 Build more houses- older people worry about their newly adult children
Many thanks
Richard
We have to win over the middle classes. We have to re-assess and re-claim what Blair meant by aspiration; it can’t be a dirty word any more. We have to think about what makes the middle classes insecure, and give them a positive vision.
– Pensions – all but the very richest are insecure about this. give people with the means a secure pension fund to invest in; use the funds for infrastructure development. it could either be a state-run scheme or closely regulated and directed private one.
– Housing – when even people earning over 100k are struggling to buy a decent home in London, it is a crisis for the middle classes. Give back the security of home ownership to those who can’t afford it. Housing corporations to build and sell subsidised, below-market-priced homes for those on ordinary incomes. Houses can only be sold back to the housing corporation, so that they remain affordable forever.
– Investment – housing market reform will be portrayed as an attack on investors and aspiration. so where you take away, give back and refocus. Focus tax reliefs into investment into government set-priorities (green investment bank, infrastructure projects etc). Saving should not be a dirty word. Invoke patriotism – you’re investing in the country’s future (whilst also getting a fair return)
– Care – more benefits for people wanting to look after their children or elderly relatives. empower people to take strain off the care system. give them more freedoms to balance work and family life to suit them, as their lives and priorities adapt.
– Regeneration – this was one of New Labour’s big successes. And since the Tories came in, it’s been forgotten about (outside of London). Not sure what the policies are needed, but it should be a focus.
Benzo – you and I are on a wavelength
1. Greater local democracy: no doubt large areas of the UK feel voiceless. Gov far too centralised.
2. NHS: integration of social care – here in Scotland the integration of social care – though complex – has brought some early success, particularly for remote communities
3. Housing policy: Homlessness/affordable housing/energy efficiency/first-time buyers/sub-standard accommodation. A coherent policy on housing is a must. Solve these issues and you address many of the country’s ills.
4. Green Deal: I’m guessing nothing will be done in the next five years so the need should be much more obvious to the population.
Thanks
I myself am glad to see all nationalisation off the table. I’m going to enjoy continuing to give a quarter of my salary to the train company, who I admire for tirelessly improving services.
I sense some irony…..
On a serious note, I would like to see them finally embrace PR (STV, please). But it isn’t a vote winner – only the already politically engaged care about it. And as others have said, people have lost faith in the ability of politics to improve their lives (hell, after this election, I have lost faith in the ability of politics to improve people’s lives, because I have lost faith in the ability of anyone who actually wants to do anything significantly positive to get into power). So why should people care if their votes count, when they don’t believe it makes any difference who is in power?
The whole purpose of discussion now is to remind ourselves that with the right organisation winning is possible
The left and in particular Labour Party membership In no why reflects large swathes of traditional labour voters. This to me has been obvious for a long time coming from Carlisle and having worked in industry all my life so having friends / colleagues who are are shotblasters, scaffolders, electricians, pipe fitters, tiffys, engineers etc. It covers a broad sprectrum.. to the academic left this is the working class. Well this group of society earn well (I know pipe fitters contracting in the Middle East who earn £1500 day rates!!) have built pensions and savings. The point I make is we/ they are aspirational and what to improve their lives and give their family chances they never had. The momentum intelligentsia type just doesn’t see that. And to throw anti neoliberal dogma their way (as you have to me in the past when I have mentioned this) widens this gap and breeds resentment. I know this result was coming and unless the the Labour Party rids itself of Lansman and the momentum type academics ( non of whome have ever worked in industry) the Party is finished as an electoral force.
See what Benzo wrote
I am seriously sympathetic to what he had to say
Yes benzo says the correct things.. from you Richard you need to shake off the “tax at every opportunity” mantra. Sure in equality is a problem but not the 5% Corbyn tried to hang out to dry. Many of theses are tradesman who have worked from the age of 16 and created “wealth” the hard way. Whether you like it or not much of us believe in the Thatcherite doctrine of work hard and earn well. The hard left need to understand this or they can protest in oblivion.
YTou need to read what I have written – not what you have made up about what I have written
Jason h. I’m a youngish person (early 30s) and I find all this talk of “aspiration” ignores the fact that young people who overwhelmingly support labour DO HAVE ASPIRATIONS. THATS WHY WE VOTE LABOUR. Because many of us can’t see any way that we can get the things that we have been told to aspire to (houses, middle class income, enough money and security to be able to responsibly start a family) without public policy changes. I’m not intelligentsia. I’m averagely educated for my generation (which happens to be a lot more educated than previous generations, not that it has helped us). We’re a generation that, what ever the stereotypes, worked hard in school, worked hard in university, are working hard now, and it is not paying off for most of us. The way the “aspiration” narrative gets used fundamentally and strategically denies this reality. Cry me a river for 60 year old pipe fitters with good earnings and their mortgages paid off.
Richard, the last article of yours I read was titled “Why Labour’s right to be talking nationalisation”. What made you change your mind?
Because it did not work
And there, in a nutshell, is the left’s problem. Too many people suggesting too many solutions that are just abandoned as soon as they are subject to any scrutiny. The voters are neither stupid, nor gullible
Nonsense….
The whole point is to plan now to deliver in five years
Now hang on Richard, you either believe in the policies you suggest or you do not. How are we to take your comments seriously if you are willing to flip flop so readily ?
I do believe in what I recommend
I also know that wise people change their minds when the facts change
The facts changed last week, in case you did not notice
Yet polling consistently showed nationalisation of Rail, to take just one example, to be overwhelmingly popular – somewhere around 86% approval, IIRC? That was true even among Conservative voters.
I’m rather conflicted on this: whilst the current model is deeply unsatisfactory, there is no doubt that many of the very worst outcomes that we suffer originate directly from government decisions, and not the private operating companies (who, ironically, enjoy far less commercial freedom than British Rail ever did.) Hardly a great advert for the government running more of it…
Yet, here in Scotland, whilst not properly nationalised, we’re far closer to that, and the results are tangibly better: not necessarily in day-to-day performance, where Abellio has been at times very poor, but in terms of overall strategy and the benefits of treating it as one system, with coherent policies and long term visions like ongoing rolling electrification, which, despite the DfT’s obsession with ‘alternative’ power sources (‘bionic duckweed’ as the splendidly acerbic technology editor of Modern Railways magazine, Roger Ford, calls it,) is still the only sensible option for the medium future mixed railway. If you read the railway press, they speak of Scotland as almost a Shangri-La when it comes to management of the railways.
There must be some way of replicating that which doesn’t leave a national rail system at the mercy of the treasury (which was always the biggest problem by far for BR) but does reinvent the wheel when it comes to the advantages of running it as an integrated system.
Similarly, there’s widespread support for increasing the number of rail services in the South-East run by transport for London, considered to offer the prospect of far better services than franchised private companies.
Public ownership of water is both successful and popular here in Scotland too. I’m not convinced that nationalisation per se is unpopular. My personal hunch is that our old bugbear ‘how are you going to afford it?’ is what really did for it in terms of attracting votes.
Which brings us back to:
education!
It was popular amongst rail users
Not many people are rail users
The rest did not want to pay for it is the feedback
I’m afraid our perspectives on this seem to be clashing. Can you please explain what facts have changed in the last 2 weeks ? Either nationalisation was a good idea or it wasn’t ? Are you really saying that because nationalisation wasn’t well received by voters, your view of it has changed ? Surely that can’t be the case because then you would simply be looking to propose things that people want to hear, rather than things you actually believed in ? I hope you can see my point ?
I am saying there were a lot of things in the Labour manifesto that’s might be good ideas but do not meet the criteria of priorities to focus on
If that’s hard for you to understand it clearly is not for others
YouGov polling suggests that nationalisation enjoyed fairly wide support beyond just the users: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view
The Green New Deal needs to be at the heart of every project, international, national, and local. To begin with locally, start leafleting information to show what is needed, how it could be achieved, and why it’s a matter of urgency. Three things – take them from the last forward, which could be the shortest.
This will be costly if the leaflets are to be of good quality. Perhaps crowd-funding?
I’ve little to add apart from *economics*.
I am tired of explaining to people that money invested by the state (most noticeably in the NHS) does *not* disappear into a big black hole never to be seen again, That in fact, it is hugely beneficial to the private sector because the State ‘produces *nothing*, it buys everything from the private sector. And wages paid to public employees are spent in the private sector. And more money in the economy will actually increase the tax take.
So, an attempt to somehow re-educate voters about the absolute benefits of a mixed economy and state spending.
(Of course, the party itself might need a bit of re-education on this score, too)
I’m also very taken with Maria Mazzucato’s thesis that state investment drives innovation.
Thanks
Wholly appropriate
Instead of Nationalisation how about an enTrust system? I admittedly wobbled at the thought of the ‘old style of nationalisation’. Maybe take the badly run and expensive rail services and turn them into Trusts, run by the people and for the people. Those who sit on the Board are those who sit on the trains. All profits go back to the service. Success of this idea could be extended to water, power etc. No centralisation required and all the negativity that comes with that.
This last election seems to indicate that people want power back in the country, so devolve power as far down as possible. Give people their voices back. All the way back to Parishes, if needed.
MPs need to be held up to performance standards by their parties. I lived for a short while in the north-east Labour heartlands. Those MPs in ‘safe seats’ were not obviously doing much for their constituents, in any meaningful way. The conversations I had with people suggested that they had seriously started to notice. Daily accountability.
NHS. I agree with the person who notes the required integration of health care and social care. I worked for a time in a hospital, which took patients from multiple constituencies. The effort the social workers from one area went to, to keep elderly people in hospital, and thus off their books, still boggles my mind. Other areas with less financial stress were a great deal more accommodating. These issues will only get worse as the elderly population grows. Lots of fine detail here can be added. Healthcare costs, so just fund it.
Education. Well, like the NHS, one gets what one pays for. Ask various MP’s who send their children to private schools and not their local ones. Children know when they are getting a crap deal from a system that does not give a tuppence about them. They behave accordingly.
Sometimes just acknowledging that good things cost money. The aspirational classes are more than aware of that. If you are going to tax people, they have to have confidence in where the money is going. A lot more transparency at all levels about how each and every pound is being spent would help. We have the technology to do this now.
Until brexit is a few years out of the way, there would seem little point.
Unless a way can be found to stop/limit the massive amount of lies, there would seem little point.
By all means build on pensions, and healthcare. But consider that the largest proportion of over-65s voted for the tories, nearly two-thirds of them. This would seem to have been the selfish election, where people voted for themselves in the higher-age groups (and probably in the lower-age groups too).
Labours manifesto was too “busy”, they tried to bribe several groups, and got stung because of it. In the end, brexit and “how are they going to pay for it” sunk them.
Funnily enough, in the women most affected by the pension age changes, most of those that I know voted libdem….
In the “selfish election” theme….
Green is nice, but few vote for it.
Nationalisation of rail and utilities; nice, but lots have investments in in both. Those that don’t, wonder how much extra tax they’ll have to pay to fund it.
In my wanderings on twittter and facebook, many didn’t believe the invest-in-the-NHS either, citing that “labour starved the NHS of funds last time and piled PFI debt on it”….obviously, they believed the press/media/tory PR.
You can try as many “good” things as you like, unless the lies can be countered somehow, you’ll (Labour) will lose every time.
And I got banned from twitter for a few weeks, and my account limited after my return, to not being able to reply to blue-tick accounts for an indeterminate timespan!
You were quite naughty then!
A reply to Lord Mann on his decision to investigate the new left-leaning online media for antisemitic leanings….
Health, Environment, Education, Housing.
Health – the BEST, available free at point of need.
The middle classes (property owning /savings) benefit most from that – currently Care costs if you made a success of your life & screws up the children’s inheritances and forces them to become uncared for carers.
Environment – that is also part of Health and Housing.
The kids of the ‘middle classes’ are also breathing toxic gases in their £200 buggies and eating poisons because of pesticides and plastics.
And it takes advantage of all the XR middleclass school strikers who will be voting within 5 years.
Education & careers – The middleclass ambition to educate is loading their kids with unimaginable debt and short changing them with rubbish education that doesn’t lead into good careers – the ‘milk round’ needs upgrading with employers and paid apprenticeships need to be put into place so that these young middleclasses are never left without easy options.
Housing – These middleclass kids can’t afford housing of their own because people like their parents have all become not just homeowners but rentiers with their investments in buy to let, bricks & mortar, so they don’t really want affordable social housing widely available threatening their entrepreneurship.
But they may relent if their properties were made more secure and valuable at the governments expense
They may even approve of rent – rebates from government to make housing affordable for their young and Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Police and Emergency professionals that their kids may become, heck throw in solicitors , dentists and Accountants and they will flock to it.
Maybe some actual ‘poor’ may be smuggled in there as estates for cleaners, cooks and other serfs.
Does that help?
Yes!
Thanks
1. Electoral reform; not a particularly inspiring issue and will receive a huge amount of push-back from the Cons, but a message of delivering a much needed, more truly democratic system should appeal to many if sold appropriately.
2. Economic security; again, not something that is going to engage voters on the face of it, but it is highly possible that we are heading towards “GFC2” (global financial crisis two). Among other factors, the path of interest rates (worldwide) is further downwards which is causing some very undesirable distortions. A number of huge asset bubbles exist created by investors increasing risk in search of yield; this will eventually need to be resolved (aka bailing out pensions funds and numerous financial corporations) which is not a desirable outcome. If this government is seen to be further propping up the banks et al, all its new support could quickly evaporate and any opposing party needs to be able to say ‘we did warn you this would happen!’ and proffer a solution. Even a few cursory articles addressing this now could pay dividends in the future. This does not necessarily translate to a policy and requires a certain path for it to gain any traction, but is certainly one of many issues that could be leveraged to the benefit of the opposition.
3. Green new deal – as has been covered this is self explanatory, but should also encompass education, training and R&D to create a pioneering vision of a better future for everyone. Almost every other party should be capable of creating a more appealing solution than the vague lip service produced by the incumbent government.
4. Housing – as raised in point 2, property is one of the markets which is suffering abnormal distortions; successive rounds of market stimulus (help to buy etc) have done little to sort out the housing problem, but have fueled price increases and funneled funds into the pockets of property developers large and small. This is unlikely to change, as the default position of the Tory party is to direct investment towards private companies, who have a different set of priorities to the people actually in need of housing.
The multi trillion pound UK property market is somewhat of a golden goose for the Conservatives and anything will be done to prop it up; apart from a slight correction around 2008 we have had nearly 25 years of house price growth. I expect to see an acceleration of this over the next couple of years with a potentially much more significant correction to follow. If the catalyst for this is identified and highlighted, then the opposition can take the upper hand in resolving the issues more effectively.
5. Show appreciation for the Arctic Tern, it is a pleasure to watch. 😉
All terns do it for me….
I watched a common tern over the river in Ely yesterday
And thanks for the rest – appreciated
In a perverse way the election result can be used to positive effect. Firstly, the Conservatives now own the political agenda at least for the next 5 years so can be held unequivocally to account. No excuses. No blaming previous administrations for bad policies, etc. Johnson must now deliver on domestic issues in order to retain his new found supporters.
Like you, Richard, I’m not a member of the Labour Party. And I’m happy to maintain my membership of the Green Party which, for decades, has been (IMO) the only party with policies that realistically meet the socio-economic-environmental challenges facing the country & the world at large. Not perfect but a helluva lot better than anything else on offer. End of commercial.
However, because the Labour Party is still the 2nd largest, we have more than a passing interest in its future ability to wrest power from the new Conservative hegemony. So, firstly, it needs effective leadership – and I’m not at all optimistic on that score. Can’t see any of the apparent contenders having sufficient popular appeal to enable the party to reach out beyond its current support base. But that’s entirely a domestic LP issue over which outsiders have no influence at all.
Just a few notes before I commit to print. Specific suggestions should all be seen within the general context of a GND, which any responsible political party should sign up to as a matter of principle. I’ve tried to prioritise policies that might resonate positively with a wider electorate. And I’ve intentionally not got into the ‘how do we pay for it’ debate. But, at some point all progressive parties will have to find a way to debunk the household budget analogy – climbing Everest might be easier. Maybe start with the acronym TIAA – There Is An Alternative. But that’s a topic for another day.
Finally I add the caveat that because I’m a generalist with no particular expertise in any one sector, the finer details will be missing!
So, here goes, 5 policies in no particular order of priority:
1) HOUSING
a) To end homelessness and create a sustainable base of affordable, eco-friendly homes with a
Finnish-style ‘Housing First’ plan – https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-
solved-homelessness.
b) Stronger regulation of the private rental sector and maybe, controversially, introducing rent
controls as in Germany (perhaps limited to major cities esp. London) –
https://www.thelocal.de/20180214/controversial-rent-control-law-does-work-after-all
2) DEVOLVE more political power to the regions and immediately restore local authority funding to pre-crash levels (I believe that’s an increase of about 26%)
3) INCREASE minimum income standards in line with recommendations from the Rowntree Foundation – https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/minimum-income-standard-uk-2019.
4) CREATE a national development bank / fund to encourage & facilitate new business start-ups that meet minimum environmental criteria.
5) EDUCATION – Whatever it takes to improve our education standards to compete better globally – involving more regional investment, taxing the private sector out of existence and adopting an overall Finnish-style strategy – https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/no-standardized-tests-no-private-schools-no-stress-10-reasons-why-finlands-education-system-in-the-best-in-the-world.
Yes I’m a big fan of Finland – a small country that seems to get a lot right for the 21st century. Why try to re-invent the wheel?
Et voilà !
Tres bien
Oops. For some inexplicable reason the Finnish homeless link didn’t work. Hopefully this will, for those interested : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/how-finland-solved-homelessness/
I am not a Labour member or even a Labour voter — I live in Glasgow so vote SNP in UK elections and Green in Scottish local and national elections — but a failing Labour Party should be a serious concern for all those who share progressive thinking.
I think Labour need to shift away from “Big State” thinking and start to reformulate its ideas around the concept of the state as a facilitator — the “facilitative state”. I think that John Harris has made some important observations in his piece in The Observer on December 15th: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/labour-revival-change-community-activists-plymouth
I have been involved in a couple of community “self help” projects over the last 6 years. It is a constant frustration to get funding for community projects….the process is tiresomely bureaucratic and the funding landscape fragmented. What I think is needed is a “one stop shop” — perhaps a “National Community Development Fund” separate from or a subsidiary of a National Investment Bank. Local Authority pension funds should be required to invest a portion of their funds in the bonds issued by such a bank/fund.
I also believe that every Labour Party member, election candidate, councillor and MP needs to understand the whole issue of money, tax and debt, and John Week’s excellent book “The Debt Delusion” should be compulsory reading……the same applies to the SNP and the Greens too. All progressive parties need to be able to answer the ubiquitous question “where’s the money coming from?”
Thanks
Apologies, apologies. I omitted a crucial item under ‘education’ that surprisingly I’ve not noticed anyone posting. All education to be 100% FREE right through to post-graduate stage. And a debt jubilee for current student loans – with some help for older ones.
– A GND is essential. Under that I would put housing/local transport.
– Healthcare. What use is anything else beyond that if people do not have their health.
– *If* we are to continue as a united kingdom (arguable, I know), and even if we are not, federalisation of the UK (or whatever is left) to devolve powers away from Westminster. Westminster to become either a museum or govern only on pan-UK regulation.
– proportional representation. Get the “minority” views out there. Make every vote count. As an aside, even without PR, I seriously do not think I can give my vote to Labour again in the next few elections. Their assumption that all left voters should vote for them is a serious turn-off.
– I’ve been musing over the past couple of days what the big uniting idea could be, and how that can be conveyed to the public. I would points 1 & 3 above under “regulation”. As Richard has mentioned multiple times recently, if regulation is used correctly, many services may fall back under national ownership anyway, but without the “far-left” connotations which have been shown to be such an issue.
I thought phrasing the use of regulation as “levelling the playing field” might be a good place to start.
Thanks
1. Mental health – increased funding and review how it is spent to ensure that it is does actually make a difference and improve lives
2. Change the voting system to proportional representation
3. Social care – increased funding and ensure that no one has to sell their home to fund their care
4. Green New Deal – ensure the funding is sufficient to deliver it
5. Collaboration amongst those parties on the left with the common aim of removing the Tories from power whenever the next general election takes place
Thanks
I can only think of 2.
1. An investment plan for the UK to produce and innovate technologies to create a greener planet and to combat the current and future effects of industries which destroy our planet. This must be presented in layman’s terms something a teenager can understand.
2. A policy which shows clear support for unions and also the creation of new unions especially for workers who under contracts with international corporations. Working hours and pay are horrendous and the only answer we had in the past was working tax credits which were/are a subsidy for the oligarchs.
I’ve probably not worded these correctly.
TLDR – To see policies for
1. Green technology innovation
2. A job market with a strong labour structure i.e. unions
Thanks
1. Reinvention of local government, free of the control of Westminster. Central funding to be legislated as guaranteed for minimum 10 years, based on population + deprivation. Each region to determine its own constitution after local consultation.
2. GND with bells on after potentially 5 wasted years.
3. A regional climate change compensation/relocation fund. Flooding in the North (eg Sheffield city centre is currently under water and has been for the last few winters). has been largely ignored by both government and media. It will only get worse as winters become warmer and wetter. Homes which are regularly flooded lose their value and become impossible to insure, the fund could buy homes or provide alternative housing or low cost insurance and should be administered locally to create jobs. Would have to help small businesses too. [This years floods seem to be getting more media coverage, but still nothing like on the scale of flooding in Oxfordshire or Surrey.]
4. A guaranteed jobs scheme. Unemployment among over 50s is rising and the “Brexit bonus” will ensure lots more lose their jobs, with little to no prospect of new employment without government backing. If not under the GND, then mending pot holes, social care, town centre refurbishment, running community projects. Has to be locally administered for local needs and to ensure its not competing with existing business.
5. Will need a stronger agricultural sector after Brexit and effects of climate change. Small is beautiful/back to the land. A smallholding/allotment fund to purchase small parcels of land for anyone interested in self-employment/small business and provide a marketing service to bridge between grower and consumer. Would be self-financing after initial land purchase. Needs also to be a replacement for the Basic Payment Scheme under CAP.
Thanks
Noted, but (1) is dismantling the state and the macroeconomy and that’s not within the reit, I think
1 Climate change strategy which is linked to
2 integrated transport strategy, and
3 integrated energy strategy
4 Social benefit strategy to take the profit motive out of health care, social care, education and prison system
5 corporate governance strategy which will prevent short term speculation driving company decisions and make financial services the servant not the master of the productive economy.
All of these need underpinning by a rejection of neoclassical economics and educating everyone in the reality of the monetary system
A well known economist gave me a list not wholly dissimilar to that today
I can promise you it was not a copy paste but if I knew who it was I would be happy to confirm if it was someone I follow or have read the literature of
I was talking to them! And I agreed a ‘no names’ basis
Wealth and its concentration in so few hands. This isn’t going to be easy since our opponents will misrepresent it as the politics of envy. But as others have pointed out vast resources are being locked up in property bubbles when they could be used much more productively. Even now the world is starting to wake up to the notion that it can’t afford all these billionaires; by 2024 that message will have spread further. The other linked message in need of wider understanding (and basic O Level economics) is the magic of the multiplier. Every pound unlocked by redistribution will circulate through many hands making (say) 10 people a pound better off in terms of cash and then of utility.
I question whether the title of the article predilects a preferred answer (if you ignore the tautology in this sentence…) and also whether there is an element of top down thinking in it.
I for a while believe that neither of the two largest parties are fit for purpose and that a new ‘centrist’ party would be able to succeed at an election in 5 years time. Both XR and the Brexit Party have shown what critical mass you can get quite quickly. Where both will struggle is maintaining their initial message and support over a longer timeframe.
The question therefore becomes ‘What are the policies that will deliver success for the country?’ as opposed as for the Left. It also doesn’t help that the ‘Left’ and what is meant by the ‘Left’ is currently undefined.
And in terms of what the priorities are, I also think that you can only assume that the key items in the future will be those that were important in this election (bar Brexit and a greater importance for the Environment) unless WW3 or another significant event happens.
Therefore, I think you will end up with the usual stooges of:
Taxation – Covered to a large degree already but should be built on the idea of a simple, fair system on both sides ie EIS/VCT, Entrepreneurs Relief should go but so should the removal of Child Benefit or 60%+ effective rates. I also wonder how much the electorate actually care about the rate of corporation tax and are only focused on income tax ie money in pocket.
Environment – Covered, keep up the good work.
Education – The election was eerily silent on education. Due to population growth and the movement beyond traditional learning this feels an area which has not yet been tested.
Health – Obvious.
Local services – People care about what’s on their doorstep, when their bins are being emptied as opposed to arguably more important issues.
The ‘local services’ is the weakest emotive area and may be the hardest to fix and change. I was tempted to put ‘Democracy’ there as I believe we will see constitutional freedoms slowly eroded but I struggle to see how this will come across well in a message unless a major faux pas is made by the government.
Fundamentally we need 5 things, warmth, safety, food, knowledge and community support. So prioritise
1. Security
2. Health including NHS plus access to healthy sustainable food i.e. farming
3. Energy including sustainable warm housing, sustainable domestic heating and sustainable transport.
4. Education.
Focus on the small stuff that makes a difference, local schools, local bus services local hospitals, community care, especially in left behind towns and rural.
Then the big stuff like energy independence and transport infrastructure and security.
Interesting
By no means everyone gets this
I would add financial security
That’s textbook Amartya Sen in his Development as Freedom – strongly recommended for anyone who follows this blog. I’d add following AS, the ability to earn an adequate income.
Back to basics for me.
I’m not convinced much of the electorate understand that when the Tories are in power Labour constituencies are starved of money, preventing them from providing services and other local investment. I think the South East receives something like £55/head and the North East £5/head from government. Education and a solid but simple narrative on how the system works, please.
Let’s also not throw out the really good bits of the 2019 manifesto, I agree Nationalisation was a none starter but the Green Deal, free broadband, Local decentralised power and quite a few others are certainly worth building upon.
Keeping the message simple, as John remarked on another post KISS should be central, the Tories always get that right, Labour rarely do.
I agree with BenzO’s contribution too. But there are some good suggestions on this post.
Great idea Richard and the right time to start.
Thanks
Lots of excellent suggestions here, but pretty much all ignoring the elephant in the room – the lies and deception propogated by the Tories and their allies in the media. How are any of the excellent policies and strategies outlined in the posts above going to be effective in the teeth of the gales of opposition they will be forced to endure from pretty much all sides of the media.
The GE campaign was characterised by two main journalistic tropes:
1. There was a deliberate policy from the BBC and other broadcast media to try and prevent politicians from all sides from criticising their opponents directly. How many times did we hear an interviewer say “I’m here to challenge your policies not your opponents” or some such construction? This disallows the interviewee from explaining their opponents lies and deception.
2. An inability to actually hold the Tories to account for their record. I’m not subscribing to the wildest conspiracy theories of the left with regard to out and out bias, but when the Tory campaign was entirely built around a series of gigantic lies (Corbyn is an anti-semite, he’s a marxist, getting Brexit done, 50,000 nurses etc, etc, etc) and the media couldn’t lay a glove on them – there’s something wrong in the third estate.
Until this changes, there will be no left of centre government in this country ever again as no matter who you put in place as leader, what policies you put forward and how cogent your arguments are, you will always be unable to find any space to have them heard.
As Herman & Chomsky put it in Maufacturing Consent: “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace.[…] In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.
I’ve been through all this before
But as far as I could tell the real problem on not challenging opponents came from Corbyn
He either couldn’t or wouldn’t attack
It was horribly frustrating
Five policies:
1) Minimum income floor (could be done via basic income but there are other ways – e.g. raise benefit levels to minimum income standard).
2) Social objectives rather than profit maximisation for a whole range of public services including public transport, utilities, banking, broadband, health and social care, education and housing construction. This *could* be done via nationalisation but doesn’t have to be – mutual ownership or some form of regulated private ownership is an alternative. In some cases (maybe all cases) it may make most sense to make the services free at point of use. I’m more pro-nationalisation than Richard is, because regulation of private sector companies has its own problems and at the end of the day nationalisation may be a more effective form of regulation than keeping things privately owned. But I’m open-minded on what the best solution is.
3) Green New Deal – absolutely essential.
4) Fundamental constitutional reform with PR and a written constitution. No longer can we afford to be held hostage by gangster Tory politicians whose objective is to rig the rules of the game.
5) Media reform to spread ownership and prevent oligarchic media control.
best
Howard
Thanks Howard
Now I am going to have to plot this lot! I was not expecting so many replies 🙂
As a PS to my earlier posting…..on the theme of a “facilitative state” as distinct from a “big state” – this would involve less of a focus on public ownership through nationalisation and more of a focus on community ownership. Scotland already has its Land Reform and Community Empowerment legislation – although the processes are too complex and cumbersome and need refinement and simplification – but the direction of travel is right.
“Asset transfer” is central to this and in Scotland we have a government funded Land Fund to support the process. Labour would do well to adopt this approach and extend it UK wide. Asset transfer could also include supporter takeovers of football clubs (and other types of sports clubs) where the supporters want to do that. Land reform in England and Wales seems to be a neglected issue.
Please, a policy of co-operation with other left leaning parties, a divided electorate is not going to elect anyone. If bits of the left keep splitting off to form new groups we might as well go home.
Spot on.
But lets be honest, this is Labour’s doing. The leadership should hang their heads in shame for not embracing PR and forming a ‘progressive alliance’.
“Remember there is just one goal. And that is winning.”
Which means all ‘progressive’ parties MUST:
1. Unite against the Tories under ONE banner:
The “PRoper Democracy Party”
2. With ONE item on the manifesto:
Change the system to Proportional Representation
3. For ONE election only:
Which will be the LAST ever UK election under FPTP
4. Once in power, change the voting system to PR5. Hold the UK’s FIRST ever PRoperly Democratic election asap – Running again as individual parties
Of course, there has to actually be another election first. Given that the fixed-term parliament act is going to be removed as law, and the electoral boundaries are going to be redrawn with 50 less constituencies….and the law relating to racism is going to include making derogatory remarks about Israel….things could get interesting.
“Now I am going to have to plot this lot! I was not expecting so many replies ”
What good is this? Is it the same noise from the same community and labour had a disaster.
It is about changing the leading personality in the Labour Party. Non of the candidates in the leadership election will suffice. It is about changing the attitude of the Unions (McCluskey is toxic) and ridding the movement of being governed by deluded idealism. Lansman, Milne are destructive. In a nutshell the Labour Party has to be centre left as measured by current day politics. This “overthrow neoliberalism” nonsense has to stop on Labour remain on the periphery. There is nothing more patronising than a middle class student from Birkbeck or where ever telling a 45yr old brickie from Grimsby how they can change things for the better. End of rant.
And the bricky from Grimsby wants neoliberalism?
Professor I listed 4 policies earlier but you asked for 5.
So what other can be in the top 5 that DIRECTLY speak to the rest of the salt o’the earth?
It seems some have already arrived at my 5th conclusion here.
I suggest we already know it by what has got their votes recently. Cummings knows, Farage knows, even the kid yaxley-lenon knows – their masters know, their line managers like Bannon and Mandelsson – the uber controllers and their brain trusts know – their ‘advertisers’ and PR people have all that knowledge. They daily sell their cars, soaps and entertainment to these people, the majority.
They are smart and clever but not in the aspirational middle class sense.
They have always been industrious and are proud of that.
They mostly work with their muscles and craftsmanship and not at desks.
They like their sports at schools and at work anf leisure thereafter and not swotting for grades instead.
They live and have always lived by their daily pleasures and are not interested in getting away from that communality of being just human and getting by in relative comfort and security.
They don’t like condescension- which this no doubt sounds like.
They know they may not aspire to the same as the ‘swots’ and suit jocks do but they will not be made to feel WORTHLESS.
They don’t like that regularly in their life they have been subjected to various ‘busts’ and ensuing austerities by governments of BOTH shades. They see that their VOTE counts for NOTHING in elections. – because one of the two always wins or they have a draw and the LibDems/DUP types get to make the government of the dame two parties. Which gives them the same as before.
They know that any new or alternate third party can NEVER win power.
All that has been used by the clever folk to get them to vote from Liberal to NF to Ukip to Brexit or worse.
Like the old Charlie Brown cartoon where the cynical girl always holds the ball for him to kick and convinces him everytime that she won’t pull it away – and then does!
‘You’ll always be a sucker Charlie Brown!’
Well – that is where I think we should be looking for an answer for that ONE JUST policy – like the smart manipulator propagandists have done with their B****T killer policy. Which put EU immigration at it’s centre and has let loose the almost subdued xenophobic instinct.
The Libdems did offer the ball to be kicked and then yanked it away!
It must be in the top 5 and maybe even first.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
I agree it has to be PR.
All best & look forward to your analysis.
Thanks…
[…] I did a quick totting up at about 7pm last evening of the preferences indicated by people commenting on my request for Labour policy priorities for 2024. […]
And here ladies and gentlemen in a nutshell is why the Left will continue to lose.
Nobody has mentioned immigration. A sensible immigration policy. The success of “get BREXIT” done was based on the idea of take back control of our borders.
Average voter doesn’t care about green new deals when he perceives mass immigration causing the issues.
Are the left really this stupid to not understand this?
It’s not a big issue anywhere
That’s the reality
Although I do tend to agree that it does need to be addressed.
The brickie from Grimsby neither knows nor cares neoliberalism is. What he does know however is that the party he used to vote for has been taken over by middle class ideologues who seem to be obsessed with terms like ‘neoliberalism’ , and claiming to speak for him and his concerns when they do nothing of the sort.
And if you think that is wrong, just read some of the patronising nonsense posted by some of you here in the last few days and honestly ask yourselves if you’ve got any comprehension of what the brickie from grimsby might actually be feeling.
So what are you suggesting?
How should the left create policy?
Are you suggesting there is no place for ideas?
Just prejudices, good or bad?
I live near Grimsby and my dad was a brickie. What that guy wants is someone who will honour the referendum result and deliver what they promise. The difficult bit is how he believes Johnson is that someone, but like Trump in the US, people think Johnson should get a go.
The UK needs a workforce development policy that aims for zero waste of people. The policy would include adequately resourced universities and technical institutes, a centrally funded, community-administered Job Guarantee to ensure that nobody’s skills go to waste just because the private sector does not want to hire them, free education and training for everybody, and close links between the public and private sectors. The government would monitor the demand for particular occupations and ensure that the number of places in universities, technical institutes, and apprenticeship programs suits the needs of society and does not create shortages or gluts of particular skills.
Lots to agree with here but it feels to me that it’s is strong on what the state should do and deliver, but there is not much on how to create the wealth needed to support the kind of state and services we need. That’s about tackling the disfunctional, financialised, wealth extracting version of capitalism that we have today. The lack of investment in people, r&d, technology, and building sustainable businesses to tackle climate change. Developing a far more productive economy. Tax on its own is a blunt instrument that in a way just deals with the symptoms.
The ideas are out there including from people like Marianna Mazzucato, Will Hutton, Colin Mayer (corporate purpose), Tom Brown and others. There are enough good companies out there who show that ‘good practices’ work and are not a route to bankruptcy. They would include:
– Changes to corporate governance to remove the focus just on shareholder which drives so much short termism. It should include changes to responsibilities to workers, and representation at board level, and to dysfunctional and unjustified incentive schemes for directors.
– Changes in the City including a FTT to reduce short term trading, and to the responsibilities of pension funds and fund managers, again to drive longer term sustainable behaviour by the companies they invest in
– Clamping down on abusive tax avoidance practices, artificial off shore structures, share buy backs et al (I’ll defer to Richard…)
– Using targeted state investment to drive the development of new sectors. GND and renewables is a huge and obvious example
-Tackling education and skills with a lifetime perspective – our low skills is a factor in low productivity. Companies need to take on responsibility for some of this as they did in the past
– Encouraging alternative business models including ‘for purpose’, not for profit and co-operatives
Most people work in businesses large and small, even if they are critical of their behaviour. The last Labour manifesto had little constructive to offer and seemed to demonstrate a low level of understanding of business and industry. (And no I don’t mean ‘business friendly’.) That may have been a factor for those voters.
Thanks Robin
Everyone wants to “save the NHS”; reform Social Care and provide much-needed jobs and skills. Its a no-brainer really. But the problem is, I feel we are approaching it the wrong way round. One of the things I hated about the Labour campaign was the slogan “for the many not the few”. I understood what it was supposed to represent, but the reality was, it put “difference” in people’s minds. Disabled are “the few” and they’ve been ignored far too long at a great cost to the country as whole.
Personally, as a carer and a disabled person I would say that there should be a realisation that IF you want to change social care and save the NHS and have a Green New Deal you can only do it one of two ways: Â either fund social care support properly (centrally via the NHS/Local Government funding) OR you give people the resources to fund it themselves. Â The second option gives more money to the local economy and can be a driver of economic growth in the UK. Â This “social care independence” comes in the form of training for people who need care as well as training for care workers (to be state funded – it has to be to ensure standards are achieved) and then giving people the income they need to employ care workers privately in their own homes as they need it, to purchase the necessary aids and adaptations required to remain independent (and this would include “buying in” the services of trades such as carpenters/joiners; plumbers; electricians etc.; which could be funded in the form of one-off grants which should NOT be policed as tightly as Disabled facilities Grants are currently (used for things such as extensions and major adaptations such as wet room bathrooms) because the aim of these grants are to KEEP people independent not “ration” support so badly that people are disincentivised from applying and therefore put themselves at risk and lose their independence, putting more strain on state services such as the NHS.
A nation-wide network of disability equipment that could be recycled/repurposed would go a long way to making disability care “greener” and “cheaper”. Â This would give much needed training and jobs to people to do the repurposing. Â
Providing disabled and elderly with green heating and access to hot water will also provide much needed jobs and help those who need it the most – no more choosing whether to “heat or eat” headlines to shame us all.
All homes built from now on should be “lifetime” homes standard – with wider doors, stronger walls to take rails and adaptations. Â Ramped access should be standardised over steps in new builds. Â
The final thing I would do is provide TRANSPORT for disabled people – to hospital, GPs and yes for daily living. Many of those “wasted appointments” you hear about are because disabled people are trapped in their homes unable to access the vital services they need to stay well enough not to have a health crisis which costs the NHS even more. Again, support that, and everyone benefits.
There are over 11 million disabled in the UK – 8.6 million people are additionally “economically inactive” (pensioners/carers/nursing mothers) – instead of thinking of a “Green new deal” for everyone, I believe that we should be starting here – support the disabled and elderly and everyone will benefit. Its a “trickle-UP economic model” – support the few and the many will benefit. Targeted economic support could save the UK.
Many thanks
One issue – surely a centrally planned NHS also inevitable spends locally?
One issue — surely a centrally planned NHS also inevitable spends locally?
Define “locally” – this is not necessarily so. If we look at mental health, for example, patients in out of county care is more common than not. Centralised NHS support SHOULD be for emergency critical patients not for “well disabled or elderly” endangered by a lack of basic care and support. If people are kept well in the first place, able to access community support locally, then they are less likely to need critical care in hospitals.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/case-studies/sheffield/
This idea already exists to an extent in the form of Personalisation in Social Care but it is heavily underfunded and under resourced and is no longer working as it should.
Bear with my thinking on this – one of the main criticisms of Labour was its multitude of manifesto promises. No one believed they could all be delivered. You are right to focus on just five, as that’s pretty much what the Conservatives did. By focusing on the NHS and by extension social care, coupled with Green New Deal training and support for utility infrastructure such as electricity and water, localised accessible mass transport, and an accessible house building programme it would benefit everyone, freeing up vital funding and resources for other sectors of the economy and giving people much needed training, jobs and support.
The world is changing – the suspension of the Boeing Super Max production today coupled with a growing realisation that air travel is no longer as desirable as it once was means those plans for extensions of airports will no longer proceed (they will not be necessary) as people seek other forms of transport which are Greener and kinder to the planet. Car manufacture will fall as people start to turn away from cars and towards ride-sharing and other forms of transport. In five years time, the country will look very different than it does today. But people will continue to get older and sadly, disabled. After 10 years of cuts and austerity, this could be a positive way forward towards building an inclusive society once more, I feel.
Thanks
On immigration Labour and the left most certainly need a policy.
The Tories have unashamedly adopted the UKIP policies of blaming many of the UK’s problems on immigrants, European and other, and hence the EU. Housing shortages, NHS queues, crowded transport, lack of employment opportunities have all been blamed on immigrants and that has been the primary message in their campaigning.
Labour have not challenged that narrative though there is plenty of evidence to point out that the causes are overwhelmingly about Tory policies and cuts. Worse still, the Lexity elements of Labour have been happy to go along with the narrative to achieve their own objectives. ‘How dare you call our voters racist’ they say, though clearly areas of England do have a much bigger problem with racism than people want to admit. They should have been challenging the fundamental narrative that immigrants are the problem. I’d go further – Labour of all parties should be ashamed that they have not stood up for immigrants, many of whom should really be called residents as that’s what they are. Labour have failed to make both the the economic and moral case.
They need policies that challenge the economic deceipts as well as being based on a moral case. It’s reminiscent of the failure to challenge the Tory argument that the financial crisis was caused by excessive spending on public services rather than a global crash driven by poorly regulated finance. The message has lodged in the public’s mind ever since.
I agree they need a policy
As my friend Colin Hines might suggest, expect to be treated as a pariah if you do
The real political leaders have the courage and insight to say some unpopular things. It’s what differentiates them from mere populists.
It will take time and careful thought as to framing and messaging.
On ‘Immigration’. Robin you are right.
It has been mentioned several times on this thread
Including by me.
“the smart manipulator propagandists…put EU immigration at it’s centre and has let loose the almost subdued xenophobic instinct.”
The question I ask when this is used as a reason for voting tory or Leave, even lastnight at my Social Club, is ‘What personal experience do you have with immigrants ?’
The answer invariably is NONE.
BUT. They say…I read about it, It says on the telly, my mates say..Etc.
The main answer I get from these who know they have NO actual experience of migrants who may be getting the same benefits as any other long term ‘scroungers’ they grew up with is – ‘they didn’t pay into it and they are getting the same as me, it means more TAXES to pay for them’; ‘they get child support they send home’; my dad voted tory so i always do – i’m not really interested in politics’;
And the ultimate answer – ‘we’re an island we can’t keep taking ALL these people in – it’s OBVIOUS innit!’
It has been proved areas where migrants has been used as an excuse, have the lowest ‘new foreign residency’ and areas with the most ‘arrivals’ mostly voted remain!
All of it. Complete BS. Parroted from the msm and dark social media and community ‘influencers’.
In short ‘poor’ tory voters this time, did so because they feel they are not getting their ‘fair share of the pie’, the same reason as when they voted for the nebulous panacea brexit.
All due to a political Austerity meant to make them poorer and open to that manipulation.
The media told them and so did the man who owns Weatherspoons, which is the cheapest booze in pubs they go to instead of the now unaffordable ‘local’ they used to go to – and it’s share price peaked on the result I heard.
Thanks DG – you’ve echoed my thinking. She might not be a favourite person here, but Anna Soubry was excellent on this and described how she would regularly get these arguments on the doorstep. Her response would be to challenge them, asking people to give real local examples, which they could not. James O’Brien is worth a read – his book talks about how he handles callers to his radio show who blame migrants for their problems.
Labour need to find the arguments and the courage to use them.
I agree re James O’Brien – he is very good on this
The thing I have not really seen mentioned above, but is perhaps fundamental – that the country will be governed well – with wisdom, integrity and authority – firstly to ensure the peace, prosperity and integrity of the realm (in short perhaps, its safety, against all threats – from its enemies (whoever they might be), nature, or just events), and secondly in the interest of all its people. Perhaps so fundamental as to be ignored: but when people said no to Corbyn, this was down to them believing – rightly or wrongly – that he couldn’t (or wouldn’t) deliver it; and the Conservative victory reflected a view that even if Johnson wouldn’t either, his version wasn’t quite so bad.
Five in no particular order…
1) Green New Deal
2) A Job Guarantee
3) Nationalise Rail
4) MP’s can only have one paid job and that is their day job
5) Tough on crime, tough on the causes etc
I agree that 5 main points are enough to take to the electorate in a campaign, of course the manifesto has more detail, but you go into battle with a clear strategy.
And you go in to win and fight hard and dirty when its necessary. In the last two weeks of the campaign (in fact since 2018) Labour has sat on the edge of its own box and defended like a non-league team in a cup tie. You cannot win this way, you have to attack. The Tories had weaknesses and we sat on our hands. I include point number 4 for that reason as its not a major policy platform, but should be indicative of our approach. That was an open goal and we managed to put the ball over the bar, over the stand and into the river. It was mentioned on one day and forgotten about. For every Messi and Iniesta you also need a Busquets and Mascherano to be complete b******s as well*
*other football analogies are available.
I’d also not fight battles we cannot win and serve no purpose. Forget nuclear disarmament, forget trying to fight every other oppressed peoples cause in the world for just a moment, for we cannot help anyone in need unless we can help ourselves first. People will say we can, but history and the evidence shows we cannot.
I’m going to have a 6th choice because i’m in a bad mood (forgive me) – but the party needs Open Selection to choose candidates. No more NEC or leadership stitch-ups. The local party gets to choose, full stop. And if the candidate or MP does not perform in the eyes of the local party, then they are no longer the candidate.
[…] suggested earlier this week that it would be wise to consider now what five policies the progressive parties should prioritise […]