Clause IV 2024

Labour Conference 2019 from the balcony

I have decided to reproduce Labour’s Clause IV, its Aims and Values. I think some need to be reminded.

Clause IV.

Aims and values

  1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist Party. It believes that by the strength of our common
    endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to
    realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and
    opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties
    we owe and where we live together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
  2. To these ends we work for:
    A. A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public interest, in which the enterprise of the market
    and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to
    produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a
    thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings essential to
    the common good are either owned by the public or accountable to them
    B. A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the
    strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejuidice and the abuse of power. C. AN OPEN DEMOCRACY, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are
    taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human
    rights are guaranteed. D. A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, which we protect, enhance and hold in trust for future generations.
  3. Labour is committed to the defence and security of the British people and to co-operating in
    European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies to
    secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.
  4. Labour shall work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions and co-operative societies and also
    with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies.
  5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the trust of the people to govern.

Or

Labour Rules Clause IV 2024Download
 …

Disappointing and Dangerous

The door to a polling station with signs

The Election results on May 1st is disappointing for progressives in this country and dangerous. Reform won a by-election in one of labour’s safest seats, won two Mayoralties and took control of ten councils, two from Labour (Kent & Durham).

Labour’s response has been stupid, by suggesting we should have campaigned harder, or disgusting, as in we need to be harsher in “Stopping the Boats”. Copying reform empowers them, Labour must stop it!

Furthermore, it is little noticed that in Lambeth, the Greens, in a council by-election, won a ward from Labour. This is proof at the polls that there is clearly a constituency to the left of the Labour Party as it stands today.

It is little understood inside Labour that the “hero voter” strategy failed; few Tories came to Labour in 2024 with many voting either Reform or staying at home. In his article, “How Labour could beat Reform”, Phil Burton Cartledge, quotes the study, ‘Getting to Know Reform Curious Labour voters‘ which shows that Labour needs to ensure it does not lose its progressive base who seem more ready to vote for another party then Reform voters do to vote for Labour. As is the case for the Tories, the votes aren’t there on the right to make the difference.

The reasons for dissatisfaction withy Labour are clear, possibly best or at least succinctly summed up by John  McTiernan on twitter, and in this thread. Labour is no longer trusted with the welfare state or public services. It needs to re-establish that trust by keeping its implicit as well as explicit promises.

After posting my thoughts, I was pointed at “Entering Faragia” by David Aaronovitch and have corrected my stats. He also points out that Liberal Democrats beat both Labour and the Tories which is further evidence that Labour faces an electoral threat other than Reform UK and the Tories. You might like to read the article as he examines the likely built in delivery failure of Reform’s promises, particularity a DOGE in every county, and questions the calibre of many of Reform’s candidates. He offers Labour three responses, which he describes as panics, firstly to steal Reform’s clothes, secondly, to forget the long term and thirdly to return to Corbynism, which I feel he summarises and characterises unfairly if only by omission. Aaronovitch feels these are all deadends but I would offer a fourth, a return to Starmer’s 10 promises made to the party while campaigning for leader. …

Labour’s new deal for Europe

ec-london

This is a comment on A new deal with the EU is exactly what Britain needs. Here’s how Labour will achieve it | Nick Thomas-Symonds | The Guardian  – www.theguardian.com, I have made it with the help of diigo, where the headline comment on my bookmark, part generated and part selected from the article says, ‘via Comment is free | guardian.co.uk, subtitled, nonsensically, “This isn’t about politics – it’s about pragmatism. Working with our allies will make British people safer, more secure and more prosperous.”‘.

The article says nothing new and repeats the isolationist nonsense fantasies of Labour’s triangulators that Brexit can be fixed. It includes the phrase “honour the referendum” despite the fact that it was nearly nine years ago, and we’ve had three general elections since then.

Quotes and comments

We are equally confident in what the UK can offer in return. It is a politically stable country, and the government has a huge mandate, with more than four years left to deliver our policies. This stability has already inspired the confidence of businesses across the world, unlocking tens of billions of pounds of long-term investment.

  • The statistics aren’t in yet to substantiate investment numbers,

Labour is rising to meet the challenges in this new era of global instability.

This is not about ideology or returning to the divisions of the past, but about ruthless pragmatism and what works in the national interest.

When it comes to security, Nato is the cornerstone of our defence.

  • Really? A fantasy of the Labour Right, NATO’s gone, for at least four years, but Trump’s isolationism has not come out of the blue.

All of this will be framed by the very clear red lines we set out at the election. We won’t return to the arguments of the past: there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.

  • Well, it won’t work then. There isn’t a deal in which the UK wins at the expense of the EU. If only because, the queue of member states asking for their own opt-outs would be 25 long.

We will only agree an EU deal that meets the needs of the British people and respects the 2016 referendum result.

You can’t do both if you believe honouring the referendum means staying out of the EU but the referendum mandate was dishonestly won and is now nearly nine years old; I estimate that about 4½ million voters have died since then. …

On Labour’s industrial policy

a factory billowing smoke into a cloudy sky

I wrote an article on Industrial Policy which was published in Chartist Magazine. In the article, I try to describe the white paper, and probably my conclusion is best summarised with this quote, which I lifted from an article in this blog,

The big unasked question is whether investment/innovation industrial policies can work. Some economists including Meadway, Graeber, Dillow and Edgerton question the effectiveness of industrial policy, especially that aimed at innovation and start-ups, not least because of the need to combat climate change. Meadway & Graeber argue that the climate crisis is or should be changing the nature of the questions of economics. Dillow argues that the multiplier effect of investment is low and that identifying the successful future is too hard. Edgerton argues that the goal of policy should be a better life, not more jobs and that investment needs to be directed at health and education, both of which can offer comparative advantage.

I also comment in my review of the Autumn statement.  …

Hard-a-port to avoid the rocky shore

Hard-a-port to avoid the rocky shore

I wrote a piece of Mike Phipps, Labour Hub, called, Labour in crisis must change direction, published on 30 Dec. It was a comment on the More in Common poll run on behalf of the Times, reporting that if there were an election tomorrow, Labour would lose 200 seats including those of Angela Rayner, Yvette Cooper and Wes Streeting. The Independent reports that they would be joined by Ed Miliband, John Healey and Bridgit Phillipson.

The rest of this blog shows a chart as to how the Commons would look, highlights the false start, identifies real earnings as the true indicator of economic policy success, looks at the example of Germany, and the threat of Reform UK. I conclude, "The big problem Labour faces is it designed its manifesto to win the election, not run the country. It’s still triangulating and refuses to recognise that triangulation reinforces & legitimises the politics of their opponents. This is particularly so on the issue of immigration and racism." Some are suggesting that a change of leader is needed, what’s needed is a change of direction that genuinely puts the country first. It remains, “the economy stupid”, but the economy is real wages/incomes." For more use the Read More button ...

It’s not just trust!

In a Labour List report Pat McFadden MP, in writing an introduction for a coming report on trust from the SMF, is quoted as saying, “ … cautioned Labour against assuming the magnitude of the majority the party won in July would “automatically” see it win the next election.”

Too right. The Labour List article places the timing in the context of current opinion polls one of which shows Labour with a 1% lead; personally, I prefer to use politico.eu’s poll tracker which suggests it isn’t that close but does show that Labour lost 10% points during the election; 131 of Labour’s elected MP’s have majorities of under 5000 and yesterday, Labour lost a bunch of council seats.

We also have the examples of Pasok, Syrezia, and the slump in support for Labour’s sister parties in France and Germany. All these countries now have significant caucuses of far-right MPs. The cost of Labour’s failure maybe very high.

Rosie Duffield in her letter resigning the Labour whip ( Sky | mirror )  spoke of the efforts of the whole party, and the electorate’s trust,

As Prime Minister, your managerial and technocratic approach, and lack of basic politics and political instincts, have come crashing down on us as a party after we worked so hard, promised so much, and waited a long fourteen years to be mandated by the British public to return to power.

…

How dare you take our longed-for victory, the electorate’s sacred and precious trust, and throw it back in their individual faces and the faces of dedicated and hardworking Labour MPs?!

While Labour’s leadership were telling its members before the election there was no room for complacency, today, there is no room for arrogance or failure to meet the electorates expectations which maybe higher than that which the manifesto promised. …

No more a nation of shopkeepers

No more a nation of shopkeepers

I went on the National Rejoin March. These are the notes I made if I had been chosen to represent Another Europe on the platform.

Now we have a labour government, one that claims to represent its federal party constituents and its voters. Unfortunately, would seem not on the question of European Union. The majority of Labour’s voters and members both support rejoining the European Union.

The LME, Labour’s pro-Europe socialist society, issued a call to attend their Labour Party conference fringe, claiming that in Parliament their membership was larger than the Tory party. It is probably not very helpful; the PLP is in fear of the leadership and so it’ll be sometime, if ever, before the LME members will find their voice and commitment. Their behaviour in the selections and manifesto making process illustrate a supine attitude towards the leadership, who had variously announced, “Not in 50 years” and that they would “Fix Brexit”.

The LME did not call for the rejoining of any element of the European Union, basically opposing joining the customs union and the single market. These Labour’s MPs join those journalists, consultants, and academics for whom their career and reputation is more important than their cause.

The persistent attempt to cleverly design demands that allow the government to claim they’re not rejoining but are in some way improving or resetting our relationship with the European Union is dishonest and will fail.

Even a medium term project to rejoin the Union or the single market requires the Labour Party and its Government to change its mind. Those of us who are still members need the help of those who are not.

The job of left wing, and all rejoiners, is to argue that the UK will not be permitted to rejoin until its ready to be a good citizen and to convince the people and their parliament that it’s an advantage to be members of a united Europe where member states and people act in solidarity.

We must leave the mentality of the “Nation of Shopkeepers” behind us. …

Labour’s “thick” red lines!

Labour’s “thick” red lines!

Why have the Labour Government trapped themselves with so many Red Lines? We have Reeves’ on the economy and now it seems Starmer and Cooper on the EU’s youth mobility proposals, although more accurately, they are red lines on the issue of the EU. It would seem that Reeves is looking for an escape route, although whether they’ll u-turn on the winter fuel allowance and 2-child benefit cap is another matter, but, on the EU, it seems that despite the obvious loop-hole of redefining students as non-migrants, Cooper and Starmer are not prepared to compromise on a youth mobility scheme with the EU despite having similar agreements with 15 countries already. The rest of this blog looks at Rosie Duffield's excoriating resignation letter, and I hark back to a New Statesman article, and quote it, "I can give you a whole cadre of these people who weren’t the Oxbridge elite, the special advisers and all of the rest of it,” one former MP told me, “but they were politicians and they did have a sense of what voters wanted and they had a way of communicating with voters that these guys [the young MPs and special advisers] never did. Just never did. And as a result, it was a profound misunderstanding of what democratic politics was about. It’s not a seminar.” For the whole article, read more ...