Monday, July 10, 2006
Peter and Ann
The NEC has been done to death but I'm going to throw my 2p worth in anyway. I think that the standard of candidates in the constituency section is not that high at the moment. I only used 3 of my six votes.
But there are 2 candidates that I think are worthy of sitting on the NEC and of a mention on here 1) Peter Wheeler 2) Ann Black
Ann Black also does an email news letter which general has something interesting in it.
Hello again
Below is a report from the National Policy Forum meeting on 30
June / 1 July 2006 – as usual, please feel free to circulate, and
comments are welcome.
At the next NEC meeting on 19 July, Pete Willsman and I will be
proposing a motion which would restore reasonable rates for
visitors to conference. In 2005 the visitor fee was £59 waged / £29
unwaged. For 2006 it has been set at £82.25 with no concessions,
an increase of nearly 40% for waged members and 184% for
unwaged, This was done without consulting or even informing the
NEC.
I still believe that we should be a party for the many, not the few,
which is why I opposed the 50% increase in membership
subscriptions last year, along with Pete Willsman, Christine
Shawcroft, Mark Seddon, Angela Eagle, Dennis Skinner and John
Holmes, but we were outvoted.
Finally I hope you have received your ballot papers for the NEC
constituency places (if not, you should contact party headquarters
before 17 July). You may be receiving advice from various
organisations and tendencies and I will not add to it, except to ask
you to read what we say, maybe check your constituency’s
nominations at the back of the booklet, and vote.
Best wishes
Ann
National Policy Forum, 30 June / 1 July 2006
The National Policy Forum met in positive mood in the East London
docklands, now transformed into a stunning Thames-side riviera,
with rallying calls from Ian McCartney, Hazel Blears, Gordon
Brown, John Prescott and Tony Blair. Hazel pointed out that the
Tories nearly lost the by-election in Bromley and Chislehurst, their
18th safest seat, hardly suggesting a party on its way back to
power. The prime minister highlighted David Cameron’s
inconsistencies: praising work-life balance while voting against
paternity leave, putting security at risk by opposing 90-day
detention, talking liberal but asking his MEPs to leave the European
People’s Party and sit with fascists. Gordon Brown spoke of the
challenges of globalisation: development aid was not only morally
right, but strategically wise. If people had prosperous lives in their
own countries, mass migration would decline and terrorist groups
(more than half of all Al-Qaeda cells were in Africa) would lose their
appeal.
The main topic raised by members was energy policy, also covered
in a separate presentation by Malcolm Wicks, with nuclear power a
particular concern. Scottish Labour supported replacing existing
nuclear stations and maintaining our skilled engineering base, but
others worried about short-term decisions which would leave a
10,000-year legacy of radioactive waste, the true economic costs,
sourcing and transporting uranium, and whether focusing on
nuclear power would crowd out spending on renewables, clean coal
and conservation. I was unhappy that electricity and energy are
used interchangeably and misleadingly in policy documents -
though 17% of electricity is nuclear-generated, it contributes only
about 5% of total energy. Ministers responded with the need to
reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 and to secure energy
supplies through a balanced mix, rather than depending on
unstable or hostile regimes.
Other concerns included more help for the unemployed, building
confidence in the police among ethnic minorities, the fourth option
in council housing and whether local government should provide
services directly or just act as commissioners, better school meals,
ensuring that the Olympics benefited the whole community, House
of Lords reform, vocational and further education, health service
cuts, and acknowledging money sent back home by workers from
abroad as part of aid.
What Price Democracy?
Jack Straw introduced a discussion of party funding, and several
common themes emerged in the whole Forum and later in smaller
workshops. First, this was not just about money but about restoring
trust and confidence in the political process. Second, Jack and
others emphasised the importance of individual members. Since
1980 the membership of political parties had halved while spending
trebled, and though new campaigning techniques had a role, there
was no substitute for face-to-face engagement. Charlie Falconer
added that the focus on a few major donors meant that parties did
not pay enough attention to small donations and ordinary members,
prompting George McManus to recall the days when selling weekly
raffle tickets raised thousands of pounds and kept local parties in
touch with voters. Third, there was agreement in principle that total
expenditure should be capped, to end the arms race and prevent
Tory millionaires from pouring shedloads of cash into marginal
seats before an election was called. However there were concerns
about the extra work for already overburdened local treasurers in
exercising additional controls all year round.
Fourth, speakers reiterated at length the importance of the trade
unions as an integral part of the Labour party, with financial support
coming mainly through thousands of individual members choosing
to give a few pounds a year as an affiliation fee. Outrage at the
idea that a future Tory government might try to rewrite the
constitution of our party was tempered by fear that they could get
away with it. I stressed that the union link needed rebuilding on the
ground, where too few branches can find anyone willing to act as
delegate to their local party and as a consequence, grassroots
members do not value the link.
This led on to whether there should be a cap on individual or
corporate donations. The arguments are superficially persuasive,
but other countries, notably the United States, find that it merely
encourages evasion. The Tories favour a limit of £50,000, because
many of their core supporters can afford it. (According to the press,
auction prizes at their summer party included a trip by private jet to
France for Sunday lunch, donated by David Cameron – so much for
his green credentials – and a place on a game shoot, which raised
£14,000.) There was little backing for tax relief on donations.
Healthy Debate
A brief question-and-answer session with Patricia Hewitt, Alan
Johnson and Kevin Barron, who chairs the health select committee,
concentrated on financial problems in the NHS. Though the total
deficit was less than 1% of turnover – equivalent to a £180
overdraft on a salary of £20,000 – concentration in particular areas
was producing damaging headlines about sacked nurses, delayed
operations and closing dental surgeries and hospitals. Speakers
from trusts which balanced their books supported Patricia Hewitt’s
argument that leafy Surrey and Sussex should not continue being
bailed out by the under-privileged inner cities. However there are
pockets of deprivation in every constituency, and punishing poor
individuals because they have rich neighbours should be
unacceptable. Further, local people have no control over health
trust management, and can only blame the government.
Looking Forward
The Forum then discussed the first-year policy document before it
goes out for consultation later this summer, though the number of
speeches and question-and-answer sessions meant that we could
only attend workshops on half the six policy areas. At more than
100 pages, some felt that instead of a Big Conversation-style
overview the document was simply six individual papers stapled
together, though many then went on to ask for more bits to be
added. There was also confusion about how far it should cover
current issues, such as Lords reform or trust schools. These are
already in the policy commission workplans, while this paper will
form the basis of the next manifesto and needs to look beyond
current arguments. But my advice is to talk about whatever you are
interested in and send the conclusions to the policy commissions,
rather than being constrained by specific Forum documents.
Education in particular had its hands full with work in progress. On
crime, justice, citizenship and equalities, I remain concerned about
emphasising more prison places and ASBOs as performance
indicators, instead of the desired outcomes of less crime and safer
neighbourhoods. On prosperity and work, paid bank holidays on
top of 20 days’ annual leave would be phased in by 2009, with CBI
support, and pension changes were sketched out to 2046, when we
should be into our 14th term in office. Foreign policy rightly put aid
and development up front, though it still envisaged tackling the
threats of the future with the weapons of the past. Sustainable
communities included housing and transport, where the
government must decide whether it really wants to price people off
trains. And health omitted reference to growing private sector
involvement and the impact of media campaigns, for instance for
herceptin, on less high-profile services. A final general point was
that where policies differ in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
they should be compared within the main documents.
EndNote
In closing, the Forum congratulated itself on its maturity, and wound
up by 4 p.m. to watch what members hoped would be an equally
fruitful world cup performance. But success will be judged on the
ground. A regional forum scheduled for the following weekend was
cancelled because only eight people registered, out of 500 invited,
so there is no room at all for complacency.
Questions and comments are welcome, and I am happy for this to
be circulated to members – and supporters - as a personal account,
not an official record. Past reports are at www.annblack.com. ¶ 10:29 am
But there are 2 candidates that I think are worthy of sitting on the NEC and of a mention on here 1) Peter Wheeler 2) Ann Black
Ann Black also does an email news letter which general has something interesting in it.
Hello again
Below is a report from the National Policy Forum meeting on 30
June / 1 July 2006 – as usual, please feel free to circulate, and
comments are welcome.
At the next NEC meeting on 19 July, Pete Willsman and I will be
proposing a motion which would restore reasonable rates for
visitors to conference. In 2005 the visitor fee was £59 waged / £29
unwaged. For 2006 it has been set at £82.25 with no concessions,
an increase of nearly 40% for waged members and 184% for
unwaged, This was done without consulting or even informing the
NEC.
I still believe that we should be a party for the many, not the few,
which is why I opposed the 50% increase in membership
subscriptions last year, along with Pete Willsman, Christine
Shawcroft, Mark Seddon, Angela Eagle, Dennis Skinner and John
Holmes, but we were outvoted.
Finally I hope you have received your ballot papers for the NEC
constituency places (if not, you should contact party headquarters
before 17 July). You may be receiving advice from various
organisations and tendencies and I will not add to it, except to ask
you to read what we say, maybe check your constituency’s
nominations at the back of the booklet, and vote.
Best wishes
Ann
National Policy Forum, 30 June / 1 July 2006
The National Policy Forum met in positive mood in the East London
docklands, now transformed into a stunning Thames-side riviera,
with rallying calls from Ian McCartney, Hazel Blears, Gordon
Brown, John Prescott and Tony Blair. Hazel pointed out that the
Tories nearly lost the by-election in Bromley and Chislehurst, their
18th safest seat, hardly suggesting a party on its way back to
power. The prime minister highlighted David Cameron’s
inconsistencies: praising work-life balance while voting against
paternity leave, putting security at risk by opposing 90-day
detention, talking liberal but asking his MEPs to leave the European
People’s Party and sit with fascists. Gordon Brown spoke of the
challenges of globalisation: development aid was not only morally
right, but strategically wise. If people had prosperous lives in their
own countries, mass migration would decline and terrorist groups
(more than half of all Al-Qaeda cells were in Africa) would lose their
appeal.
The main topic raised by members was energy policy, also covered
in a separate presentation by Malcolm Wicks, with nuclear power a
particular concern. Scottish Labour supported replacing existing
nuclear stations and maintaining our skilled engineering base, but
others worried about short-term decisions which would leave a
10,000-year legacy of radioactive waste, the true economic costs,
sourcing and transporting uranium, and whether focusing on
nuclear power would crowd out spending on renewables, clean coal
and conservation. I was unhappy that electricity and energy are
used interchangeably and misleadingly in policy documents -
though 17% of electricity is nuclear-generated, it contributes only
about 5% of total energy. Ministers responded with the need to
reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 and to secure energy
supplies through a balanced mix, rather than depending on
unstable or hostile regimes.
Other concerns included more help for the unemployed, building
confidence in the police among ethnic minorities, the fourth option
in council housing and whether local government should provide
services directly or just act as commissioners, better school meals,
ensuring that the Olympics benefited the whole community, House
of Lords reform, vocational and further education, health service
cuts, and acknowledging money sent back home by workers from
abroad as part of aid.
What Price Democracy?
Jack Straw introduced a discussion of party funding, and several
common themes emerged in the whole Forum and later in smaller
workshops. First, this was not just about money but about restoring
trust and confidence in the political process. Second, Jack and
others emphasised the importance of individual members. Since
1980 the membership of political parties had halved while spending
trebled, and though new campaigning techniques had a role, there
was no substitute for face-to-face engagement. Charlie Falconer
added that the focus on a few major donors meant that parties did
not pay enough attention to small donations and ordinary members,
prompting George McManus to recall the days when selling weekly
raffle tickets raised thousands of pounds and kept local parties in
touch with voters. Third, there was agreement in principle that total
expenditure should be capped, to end the arms race and prevent
Tory millionaires from pouring shedloads of cash into marginal
seats before an election was called. However there were concerns
about the extra work for already overburdened local treasurers in
exercising additional controls all year round.
Fourth, speakers reiterated at length the importance of the trade
unions as an integral part of the Labour party, with financial support
coming mainly through thousands of individual members choosing
to give a few pounds a year as an affiliation fee. Outrage at the
idea that a future Tory government might try to rewrite the
constitution of our party was tempered by fear that they could get
away with it. I stressed that the union link needed rebuilding on the
ground, where too few branches can find anyone willing to act as
delegate to their local party and as a consequence, grassroots
members do not value the link.
This led on to whether there should be a cap on individual or
corporate donations. The arguments are superficially persuasive,
but other countries, notably the United States, find that it merely
encourages evasion. The Tories favour a limit of £50,000, because
many of their core supporters can afford it. (According to the press,
auction prizes at their summer party included a trip by private jet to
France for Sunday lunch, donated by David Cameron – so much for
his green credentials – and a place on a game shoot, which raised
£14,000.) There was little backing for tax relief on donations.
Healthy Debate
A brief question-and-answer session with Patricia Hewitt, Alan
Johnson and Kevin Barron, who chairs the health select committee,
concentrated on financial problems in the NHS. Though the total
deficit was less than 1% of turnover – equivalent to a £180
overdraft on a salary of £20,000 – concentration in particular areas
was producing damaging headlines about sacked nurses, delayed
operations and closing dental surgeries and hospitals. Speakers
from trusts which balanced their books supported Patricia Hewitt’s
argument that leafy Surrey and Sussex should not continue being
bailed out by the under-privileged inner cities. However there are
pockets of deprivation in every constituency, and punishing poor
individuals because they have rich neighbours should be
unacceptable. Further, local people have no control over health
trust management, and can only blame the government.
Looking Forward
The Forum then discussed the first-year policy document before it
goes out for consultation later this summer, though the number of
speeches and question-and-answer sessions meant that we could
only attend workshops on half the six policy areas. At more than
100 pages, some felt that instead of a Big Conversation-style
overview the document was simply six individual papers stapled
together, though many then went on to ask for more bits to be
added. There was also confusion about how far it should cover
current issues, such as Lords reform or trust schools. These are
already in the policy commission workplans, while this paper will
form the basis of the next manifesto and needs to look beyond
current arguments. But my advice is to talk about whatever you are
interested in and send the conclusions to the policy commissions,
rather than being constrained by specific Forum documents.
Education in particular had its hands full with work in progress. On
crime, justice, citizenship and equalities, I remain concerned about
emphasising more prison places and ASBOs as performance
indicators, instead of the desired outcomes of less crime and safer
neighbourhoods. On prosperity and work, paid bank holidays on
top of 20 days’ annual leave would be phased in by 2009, with CBI
support, and pension changes were sketched out to 2046, when we
should be into our 14th term in office. Foreign policy rightly put aid
and development up front, though it still envisaged tackling the
threats of the future with the weapons of the past. Sustainable
communities included housing and transport, where the
government must decide whether it really wants to price people off
trains. And health omitted reference to growing private sector
involvement and the impact of media campaigns, for instance for
herceptin, on less high-profile services. A final general point was
that where policies differ in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
they should be compared within the main documents.
EndNote
In closing, the Forum congratulated itself on its maturity, and wound
up by 4 p.m. to watch what members hoped would be an equally
fruitful world cup performance. But success will be judged on the
ground. A regional forum scheduled for the following weekend was
cancelled because only eight people registered, out of 500 invited,
so there is no room at all for complacency.
Questions and comments are welcome, and I am happy for this to
be circulated to members – and supporters - as a personal account,
not an official record. Past reports are at www.annblack.com. ¶ 10:29 am
