Dronfield Blather

"There Is An Alternative To Capitalism" by Steve Thompson

2012-01-24T19:36:00.011Z

2012

United Nations

International Year of Co-operatives

There is an alternative to Capitalism

2012 will be a year of opportunity to demonstrate that alternative. Privatisation of resources, businesses and services, benefit the privileged few and reduce everything to the building of private empires of wealth and political power. Everyone else being pawns in the games of the private profiteers. Life is too precious for that.

The Co-operative Commonwealth

I do not claim to reveal a panacea in this subject of how we can all live together to create a social and physical environment which is conducive to health and wellbeing. It would be foolish to do so. But I can reflect upon the great work (with both its successes and failures) of the Co-operative Movement.

It had its origins in the time when people were being forced by poverty to move from the countryside to the towns to seek work in manufacturing and mining. These people were taken advantage of by the privateers of their day, the owners of the factories and the mines.

It was at this time that people were forced to seek an alternative for their very survival. The collectivist approach stirred in the minds of men. People clubbed together and formed co-operatives, and were sometimes inspired by benign and learned men like Dr. William King of Brighton. This was the beginning of a precarious and often unsuccessful Co-operative Movement. The organisation was patchy and insecure, but this nascent movement organised a number of Congresses.

The co-operative movement at this time was not cohesive, it was not until the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Co-operative Society was formed that the Co-operative Movement began to make some headway. An experienced co-operator who chaired the Rochdale Board, Charles Howarth, had evangelical zeal and was practical. Experience had taught him what worked and what did not work, he had been involved in a previous co-operative in Rochdale which had failed.

With the success of the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society, Charles Howarth and other members were being asked to help other communities to set up co-operatives. And these new co-operatives were teaching others still, so that co-operative societies were springing up everywhere and had the benefit of guidance which meant that they were less likely to make the mistakes that earlier co-op’s had made.

It is this sense of solidarity, mutual support and co-operation between all these disparate enterprises which make the Movement what it is.

But values and principles which the whole Movement could agree to were needed to unify the Movement. Co-operation cannot work in isolation.

The Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society formed in 1844 established principles for the Movement.

The Values & Principles of the International Movement in the 21^st century are adapted for the modern world and agreed by all bona fide co-operatives, but they have their origins in the Principles first established in Rochdale.

The Rochdale Principles

1). Open membership

2). Democratic control (one man one vote)

3). Distribution of surplus in proportion to trade

4). Payment of limited interest on capital

5). Political and religious neutrality

6). Cash trading

7). Promotion of education

Experience and practicality over the ensuing years necessitated some changes.

For example, political neutrality is impossible when the Conservative Party exists to support the very anathema of co-operation, i.e. the private sector driven by personal aggrandisement and competition – the individualist philosophy. The Movement needed a political party which would be an advocate of co-operation, in due course

The Co-operative Party was born, and found an ally in the Labour Party.

Cash trading is no longer numbered amongst the Co-operative Principles.

A constant and very central principle for the Co-operative movement is the promotion of education. The early co-operatives had reading rooms before the advent of the public library. Lectures and classes were organised for the members. Many working class people in areas of depravation owe much to the co-operative movement for their educational development. Moreover, an educated membership was necessary for the continuance and development of the co-operative, after all, co-operatives are member run and member owned for the benefit of the members and the wider co-operative commonwealth. The directors and activists of the co-operative society are elected from the membership by the members. An aware and educated membership has always been very important, it is indeed the very foundation of the co-operative movement.

The dream of The Co-operative Commonwealth is the common ownership and control of the engines of society for the collective wellbeing of all people and a sustainable environment. This vision is so different from the world as it is, although the Co-operative movement has been making steady progress for two centuries, steady progress with setbacks from time to time. But the world is still Capitalist, there is a long way to go.

The Co-operative Group

The Co-op or as its businesses are now branded ‘The Co-operative’ is, of course,a co-operative. This means that it is guided by the Values and Principles of the Movement.

In capitalism, profits go to speculators who buy and sell shares on the stock market. The profits, in other words, go into private individuals pockets. The businesses are answerable only to a moneyed elite, their only purpose, profit maximisation.

The Co-operative is completely different.

Any surplus which the Co-operative makes is directed into fulfilling the purposes of the Co-operative Movement, guided by its Values and Principles and steered through a representative democracy, every member can play a part.

A percentage of the surplus is returned to the members, staff and communities in dividend or share of the profits as it is known.

Questions to ask when you trade with a business:

What is the purpose of this business?

For who’s benefit is this business operating?

If it is not a co-operative the answer to these questions will be; for private wealth accumulation.

A co-operative is a business which has intrinsic value, trades fairly and employs trading surplus to further the objective of collective wellbeing.

See here.

Steve Thompson

"Labour 2012" by Jon Williams

2012-01-22T20:46:00.002Z

New Labour is alive and well - according to Liam Byrne! One can only wonder why (New) Labour MPs continually copy Tory policies that attack the bottom of society without considering the majority of the UK.

Benefit fraud is according to the Government estimate worth just £1.2bn a year – or less than 1% of welfare spending. Compare that to the £70bn lost to the Treasury’s coffers through tax avoiding businesspeople. So why does the Labour Party think the solution is to remove benefits from the most unfortunate or even those who are in work but still have to claim benefits to make a living-wage? When there are so many people chasing every job it is surely better to invest in growth and more jobs, hence reducing the number of people claiming benefits.

Here Owen Jone's article highlights why the Labour Party is enthralled by ex consultants / business people and doesn’t seem to have a genuine voice outside the “Westminster Village”.

Polly Toynbee's article shows what Labour MPs should be trying to highlight - can it get worse when Tory policy removes benefit from children? Universal Credit and the Work Programme are two grandiose schemes that will cost more than they save. Reducing housing benefit will risk putting 800,000 homes out of reach of people on housing benefit.

Ed Miliband's interview with the Guardian suggests he will be being "playing safe" up to the next General Election, whether with the party or voters. We need more initiatives that grab the headlines that makes the electorate look towards better times e.g. investing in growth and jobs (in manufacturing). The Tory Party will gain a majority in 2015 unless Labour takes a risk by defining itself in the Centre of the current political spectrum - some would say that is now to the Left of Tony Blair.

By Jon Williams

P.S. Also hear this. HB.

Parliamentary Pitmen Politicians

2012-01-04T20:55:00.004Z

James Haslam (above) was the first of eleven pitmen to become an MP in North Derbyshire, when he was elected to represent Chesterfield in 1906. It started a tradition which lasts to this day under Dennis Skinner, the MP for Bolsover. How did these pitmen politicians emerge and did they achieve what they set out to do? This is the topic which I will be covering at the following meeting.

NOTTS & DERBYSHIRE LABOUR HISTORY SOCIETY

Topic...........Parliamentary Pitmen Politicians of North Derbyshire

Speaker.......Harry Barnes (former MP for North East Derbyshire)

Date............Saturday 21st January 2012

Time...........2 pm (doors open at 1.30)

Venue.........Chesterfield Labour Club, Saltergate, Chesterfield

(See here for a related item.)

Needed Wealth, Inheritance and Tobin Taxes

2012-01-03T17:01:00.004Z

The German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB) has demanded that Germany’s richest citizens help with the countries debt crisis and tax burden, instead of it falling on working people. They have pressed for wealth, inheritance and tobin taxes. We need the same call from Labour Movements elsewhere - especially here. See this. In the photo, Micheal Summers, President of the DGB puts the case to Angela Merkel.

HAT TIP : Left Foot Forward.

"Blue, Purple, Green, Red and now Black" by Jon Williams

2011-12-30T14:26:00.002Z

Labour has another new colour "Black". A thinktank established by Lord Mandelson. It has released two documents one called "Why fiscal conservatism and social justice go hand in hand" and the other "Cameron's Trap: Lessons for Labour from the 1930s and 1980s". (see here and here for details and downloads- plus this article in the Guardian).

Roughly translated "cutting your cloth according to your means" or "only spend what you can afford". This is more of a Tory than Labour policy that neglects to mention the poorest in society will never be able to have free income to spend or for that matter make some savings for their future. It doesn't mention investing in infrastructure to promote growth and hence creating new jobs. It talks about an "enterprising state" which is another way to introduce private companies in the public sector as a means to make profit at the expense of tax payers. These documents - one can only call them Blairite or New Labour - always start trying to rectify the bottom of society - without mentioning the top of society or make suggestions to equalise some of their benefits (tax loopholes) downwards to the middle / lower parts of society.

With a poor economic outlook Cameron's and Osborne's poll ratings are twice that of the two Ed's. Ed Miliband's conference theme of "predatory capitalism" predicted to be stolen by Cameron and hailed as the saviour, while the Labour party allowed it to develop. The Tories have a consistent repetitive message of "there is no alternative" to reducing the deficit, which the electorate understands and I'd be surprised if they have heard of Labour's five point plan. Getting Labour's message right (e.g. manufacturing and exporting), consistently repeating it and then the electorate will listen.

(Various responses to the Black Labour proposals can be found here)

JON WILLIAMS

"A People Deceived - Without Malice !" by Ken Curran

2011-12-29T10:00:00.001Z

The arteries of our parliamentary system have become so sclerotic. It cannot respond to hear the heartbeat of the people of these British Isles. So a growing decline in the unity of our people is being reflected in a rising interest in the self-determination of Scotland and Wales. As recently as last week Professor Salverson of Huddersfield University writing in the Guardian, argued for a step towards the reshaping of a new United Kingdom which would be based on Regional Government. He suggested an amalgamation of the Yorkshire Region, the North East and Cumbria. This is not as fanciful as some people may suggest. I don't believe that we should dismiss such proposals out of hand. I sense a growing feeling of uncertainty over the possible ending of the Union. The speculation stems not so much from an upsurge of nationalism in Wales and Scotland, but from a feeling that the Westminster Government increasingly fails to reflect the views of the people.

Rotten Apples In The Barrel

Much of our current political, social and economic debris (with its greed , mistrust and disillusionment) has its roots in Thatcherism. I am aware that she has not been around physically for a good number of years. However, in her role as the Ghost of Christmas Past she still walks the corridors of Westminster. The "Political Class" has not renounced her, nor has it cleansed itself of self-seeking individuals who almost daily bring our democracy into dispute. These people inhabit each of our major Political Parties. Few of our current MPs have really served their time to prove they are worthy, capable or trustworthy for their positions in Parliament. The state of our society and the decline of our country is all too apparent. Streets awash with litter from cans and plastic bottles. Unkempt parks and playgrounds. Boarded up shops. Rising unemployment. Young people thrown out on the scrap heap of a derelict, non-directional and valueless society. As with the collapse of Ancient Rome, Britain is no longer fit for purpose. The huge investment and suffering by those generations who fought the 1939-45 war to build the Welfare State, National Service and our Educational Provisions, has been squandered and destroyed by what is being turned into a greedy and philosophically aimless nation.

From KEN CURRAN

A Death Of Democracy

2011-12-14T17:59:00.001Z

The latest Report of the Electoral Commission shows that there are now six million people missing from electoral registers. The numbers of missing voters are especially high amongst the young, ethnic minorities, the poor and the mobile/rootless. One consequence is that the electoral boundaries which are currently being redrawn will be massively distorted as those missing from registers are not evenly spread throughout society. Overall, it will fiddle election results - disenfranchising many of those most in need.

This is the BBC's coverage of the Report : it provides a link to the full report itself.

What is needed to overcome this democratic disgrace is a proactive registration system which uses modern technology to track people and provide for full and regular canvassing by registration officials. To ensure that young people who have just attained registration rights are not excluded, the voting age should be dropped to 16 and the initial registrations should take place via their schools whilst they are still 15. The sale of electoral registers to commercial interests should be banned, as some people avoid registration to hide their details from those who are, say, pursuing them for debt re-payments.

In the 1992-93 Parliamentary Session, I ran a Private Members Bill which attempted to tackle the above problem. I had the support of the then Labour Leader, the late John Smith; whilst even Tony Blair as Shadow Home Secretary pressed for its support. But it was defeated by the Conservative Government. My proposals were stimulated by the negative impact which the Poll Tax had had on electoral registration. Technology has been transformed in the past 20 years, so the details of my proposals now need to be brought up to date. Nor at this initial stage had I seen the relevance of "votes at 16" to my proposals.

I went on to press the issue regularly in other legislative attempts; especially in the 1999-2000 Parliamentary Session, when I put up a stream of what I saw as "improving amendments" to what became Labour's Representation of the People's Act. The Act did, however, introduce a weak version of one of my proposals which was for Rolling Electoral Registration. This allows people to transfer their registration to their new residence when they move, rather than having to wait until a full new register is being constructed. The measure has only ever had a slight impact on the safeguarding of electoral registration. It is swept aside by other factors.

The Labour Frontbench needs to pick up the issue and act (in a modern setting) upon the type of principles I started to propound almost 20 years ago.

Whilst democracy requires much more than a system of one person one vote, it must be based on that principle.

Labels: Democracy

Jon Williams - Petition To Help To Save The NHS

2011-11-29T18:08:00.002Z

Aneurin Bevan (above) said of the NHS: "It will survive as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it".

Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham's email dated 24th Nov is running with two petitions - Labour’s "Drop the Bill" and local GP Dr Kailash Chand's "Calls on the Government to drop its Health and Social Care Bill."

Andy Burham says that "In the last few days we have had a major breakthrough - a local GP, Dr Kailash Chand has set up a Government e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Bill.
This is a great opportunity for us to pile the pressure on the Government, and so I want to ask a favour from you. I am asking all people who have signed the Drop the Bill petition to sign the Government e-petition as well. In addition, I am asking you to try to get four of your friends, family and colleagues to sign both petitions as well. We got 20,000 signatures in just a few days on Labour's petition - let's get 100,000 people to sign the Government e-petition."

By my calculations - as of today Dr Kailash Chand e-petition stands at nearly thirteen thousand...so over approx one thousand signatures per day it should take Dec, Jan and Feb to reach the total and maybe force a debate in the House of Commons.

An article by Allyson Pollock again highlights what a disaster privatising the NHS will be. He states - "The private sector providers too will have extraordinary new rights. The right to fair and equal treatment will no longer be for patients but for the benefit of investors, who will use competition policy and trade law to demand a right of entry and a right to ensure that their services can continue to operate profitably."

And to reinforce the message privatising the NHS is ongoing process happening now - please see the NHS Cuts Route Finder here .

And finally looking for inspiration from James Keir Hardie between 1895 and 1900 he worked to persuade the unions to back the ILP. The future can be found in history books...

"The unity of the working class is the one thing that matters. That can never be a thing of rapid growth. Abstract theories with them count for very little… Socialism supplies the vision and a united working class satisfies the senses as a practical method of attaining its realisation. To attain that unity is, and must be, the first object of all who desire Socialism." (p.4, Francis Johnson, ILP, 1922).

Jon Williams on "NHS Privatisation"

2011-11-24T11:36:00.005Z

Again worrying developments on the NHS privatisation story, following on from the Hinchingbrooke Hospital take over by Circle Health. It seems there is a connection between Circle Health and one of Andrew Lansley's adviser/s...as mentioned in the KONP film below,

KONP (Keep our NHS Public): a short film about lobbying and the sad story NHS privatisation story called "The Health Industry Lobbying Tour" (scroll down the bottom of the web page) and you will be amazed at the connections between private companies and the Tory party.
http://www.keepournhspublic.com/index.php

Here is another short film highlighting how the NHS is being secretly privatised,
You Tube: NHS Privatisation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNiruX2gZDc

The Labour Party has a useful web link http://www.labour.org.uk/dropthebill to sign. It gives the impression if the bill can be dropped - privatisation of the NHS will stop. All the information available indicates this is an ongoing campaign by the Tory party to (secretly) privatise the NHS, whatever the outcome of the Health and Social Care Bill.

Also see http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/ on the connections between our current / ex MPs, Think Tanks and private companies. Then there is the "Health Industry Lobbying Tour" direct web link http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/content/view/55/1/

Jon Williams on "Privatisation in the NHS"

2011-11-14T16:54:00.000Z

The Lords are still discussing the Health and Social Care (privatisation) Bill and we find NHS hospitals are already being privatised, for Hinchingbrooke hospital a process started 2 years ago! The following two articles show lobbying by friends of the Tory party, Circle Health operating at a loss and stating in its prospectus "care may suffer".

Southern Cross is a very recent example of a private company "asset stripping" and then walking away leaving vulnerable people at risk, then letting the Government to sort out the mess. Andy Burnham (Shadow Health Secretary) states "the company by its own admission has doubts about continuity of service and consistency of service".

The opening up of the NHS to private companies seems to have started several years ago, perhaps immediately after the election of the present Government (or perhaps during New Labour's time in Government), certainly we need more activity from the Labour party to highlight these worrying developments and campaigning to stop this privatisation process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/12/care-private-company-nhs-hospital

"The first private company to take over an NHS hospital has admitted in a document seen by the Observer that patient care could suffer under its plans to expand its empire and seek profit from the health service."

"Circle, which is backed by City hedge funds run by Crispin Odey and Paul Ruddock, who have donated £790,000 to the Conservative party, admits in its share prospectus to having made losses since it was set up in 2004. The latest accounts show an operating loss of £34.97m as of December 2010."

"Two NHS trusts are considering private sector management options: the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in London and the Whiston hospital (St Helens) on Merseyside."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/13/circle-health-social-enterprise-hedge-fund-manager

"Circle Health's majority shareholder is Circle Holdings, where former Goldman banker Parsa personally holds about 5% of shares and is again chief executive. In terms of who pulls the strings, it is Parsa and his hedge fund pals: end of story."

Ken Turton Replies To Ken Curran

2011-11-10T14:11:00.014Z

The site of the former Sheffield Victoria Station in 1988.

The two Ken's are regulars at our discussion meetings. Below we present Ken Turton's response to this earlier item by Ken Curran.

Ken Curran's article contains some bright ideas as far as our railways are concerned, but he does not need to pursue the dream of building a massively expensive tunnel under the Pennines. There is a ready-made alternative, which just needs to be reactivated.

Ken is right in saying that continental rolling stock cannot negotiate the present Cross Pennine Railway Lines due to its infrastructure, in general, not being compatible with that of the Continent or America. These overseas' railways can and do move container-type traffic which is the traffic of the future. British Rail suffers from being the first railway in the world to be built. Later railways were able to make improvements, including alterations to their infrastructure.

However, there is hope for the region which Ken draws our attention to. This needs to be based on the now defunct rail link called the "Great Central Railway", known colloquially as the "GCR". This line began life in 1907 and traversed Liverpool Central, Manchester Central, Penistone, Sheffield Victoria, Nottingham, Leicester Central, Rugby, High Wycombe, Marylebone, then Banbury, Reading West and Dover. It divided at Sheffield to Retford, Lincoln, Skegness, Immingham via Gainsboro and Cleethorpes, taking in Grimsby. The main route took in all the North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire coalfields which travelled north-by-west to Liverpool and Manchester.

The GCR was despised by other railway companies of its time, because it was built with some thought when it adopted the Continental infrastructure and indeed it came to carry continental rolling stock after World War 2. In 1936 it was innovative in planning and in putting into operation modern signalling systems in the Sheffield area intended for a more efficient electrification. Indeed it ran trains by electric traction from Sheffield to Manchester , taking in one in 147 gradients with ease until 1986. That line had two double-line tunnels, built to run continental rolling stock, and for many years did so.

One tunnel, a small one, was at Thurgoland. The second at Woodhead-Dufford was 3 miles and 177 yards long, being concrete lined and lit by electricity throughout. It was laid just after World War 2 and is still in existence today, as is much of the line from Sheffield. But it is used
by walkers and cyclists today. So with some small restoration, the line can be used again. For the bridges and tunnels can easily be cleared for fast running trains.

I have made a recent unsuccessful attempt with South Yorkshire Transport Services (SYTS) to have these restorations undertaken. The fact is that the tunnels of the former GCR line do not need excavating, they are already in situ. The SYTS seemed to me to be unaware of the situation before I brought it to their attention. These bureaucracies seem to me to be rigid in their thinking and nothing can move them. Facts are not important to such thick skinned people. Unfortunately instead, they are relentless in pursuing the unpursuable.

Anyway Ken, the GCR was a railway line that paid its way. This is illustrated by the fact that the Chairman of the GCR was Sir Edgar Watkins who also chaired the first Channel Tunnel Railway Company. The GCR was straight, fast and futuristic and it does not need need much work on it, apart from its re-opening. It would provide a route which would open up Sheffield and its greater area to the North West of Britain, along with the east coast ports and and on to your transcontinental ambitions. Although it has to be said that the Orient Express of yesterday travelled from London to India and China. A route that would also be advantageous to British Industry, if we had one worth its salt.

Ken Curran is "Seeking A Way Forward" (Part 2).

2011-11-08T11:40:00.004Z

Part 2 : Today's Lessons From The 1940s

(For Part 1 see here.)

Labour should use the present crisis to spell out the alternatives for the Democratic Left, as opposed to the laissez-faire and 1930's style so-called solutions of the coalition government. The current government are on a very dangerous road, they have scrapped any genuine commitment towards fulfilling previous promises on climate change policies. All experts in the field recognise time is of the essence if we are to avert the worst of the forecasted consequences. I cannot state strongly enough the urgency for Labour to make a comprehensive case for alternatives to the present mumbo-jumbo which is supposed to address the issues. Labour has a commitment to the pioneers of the Democratic Left. To ignore the need for a truly radical rethink would be tantamount to a betrayal of Democratic Socialism.

Returning to the past, I believe the present leadership has much to learn from the Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party of 1945-50. This was a group of well over 300 men and women, largely self made, many having endured the terrors of two world wars.. They had been forged in the crucible of hard times and shaped by the experiences of our industrial heritage. By and large, they were both ordinary and extraordinary people. They had seen all the horrors of war and long years of unemployment and poverty. They had spent years waiting for an opportunity to break with the nightmares and fears of the past. Fear of poverty, ill health, unemployment and wars.

In order to change all of that, they were both prepared and did keep the House of Commons in session, night after night in order to ensure that Labour fulfilled its manifesto promises. The Tories were furious and angry, complaining that they were lacking in sleep through all night sittings. Labour MPs reminded the Tories that millions of workers spent hours working long shifts doing harder work than sitting in a warm and comfortable House of Commons. I use this story to demonstrate the past determination and zeal of Labour to serve the people, although they were saddled with huge debts incurred during six years of war. These men and women were prepared to take big risks to deliver their promises. I believe the debts of the 1939-45 war were only finally settle whilst Tony Blair was Prime Minister.

The economic problems were not the only issues which the 1945 Government had to face. The winter of 1947 was absolutely awful. From late November, serious frosts and bitterly cold winds, followed by driving snow covered Britain several feet deep. Unknown in living memory, rivers and harbours closed. In quite a number of places, the sea froze. Where I lived the Tyne froze. This river was vital to Greater London as the Power Stations all depended on Colliers (coal boats) from the Tyne for supplies. With all the roads and railways under many feet of snow, it was vital for the Colliers to reach London by sea. With supreme effort, mobilisation and organisation, it was achieved. What I have described in terms of getting London supplied is from my personal experience. Yet my stories could be repeated by others of my generation, where their towns and villages were cut off for weeks. Thousands of volunteers were called upon to help troops and other servicemen to help get the country moving. The Government used the special powers available to it, to mobilise the nation. The people responded right across the land and whilst much snow was still on the ground in early May, Britain had got moving long before the snow melted. I only use these stories to demonstrate the sort of problems which the Labour Government of Clem Attlee had to face. Frankly I don't know how the people and government of today would perform in the environment of the 1940s.

In 1989 people celebrated the collapse of communism and the demolition of the Berlin Wall. The right wing press and politicians hailed the event as the triumph of capitalism over both communism and democratic socialism. That so called triumph is proving to be short lived, the events unfolding across the world suggest that capitalism is not really successful. As those of us who regard ourselves as democratic socialists know, our political recipe has not really been on offer, apart perhaps in Scandinavia where it seems more popular than the current Anglo-American model of capitalism.

The problem we are facing is the failure of capitalism. It is failing humanity on many fronts as poverty is spreading across the world. It is failing to tackle climate change. Crops are failing. Workers are thrown out of work. Health is breaking down, even in some of the richer countries. The financial system is both corrupt and out of democratic control or influence. Young people throughout the world are asking whether they have any future and if capitalism can solve these problems. I have no confidence that it can, beyond perhaps finding some short term respite from the chaos, only for it to return with even greater ferocity later. Under these circumstances life will become increasingly intolerable.

Labour has to respond and give people hope that there is a better life to be had under democratic socialism. All of what I write presents a huge challenge to the Labour Party and in particular to our leadership.

In conclusion, I return to the issue of the North-South divide which I covered in Part 1 of my analysis. My final suggestion, fits in with the West to East rail development I proposed, with their opening to European markets. I propose the building of a new Eco-City on the banks of the Humber. In my view, the Humber River Estuary has never been valued and used to its potential. A new Eco-City can produce much of its own power from a combination of water driven turbines, designed to automatically respond to the change in tidal flow. Every building would be insulated with green roofs, plus solar panels. The objective is to create a flagship Green City where new jobs would be created by new thinking and the use of new technology. This proposal linked to a new rail-ferry terminal should certainly begin to counter the trend to the South-East as being the only centre for wealth creation in Britain. My ideas on the West to East rail development and the establishment of a Humber based Eco-City have to be seen as a combined activity, one stimulating the other and building a momentum as it grows. I, therefore, ask that these ideas are seriously considered and used in creating a new Labour Manifesto.

Electoral Registration Problems

2011-11-04T09:55:00.002Z

The Commons Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform has just published this important report on individual voter registration. It is summerized here by the BBC as well as on the Parliamentary web-site.

An assessment of wider electoral registration problems can be found here.

More On Labour's Non-Consultations

2011-11-02T22:59:00.008Z

See Peter Kenyon once more.

You, Me and the ILP

2011-10-31T17:56:00.001Z

See here.

Independent Working Class Education

2011-10-31T11:49:00.006Z

These are students from Ruskin College who went on strike in support of the principle of independent working class education in 1909. This led to the formation of the Plebs League and then the Central Labour College. See our Adult Education thread on related matters. Also link into a history about developments from the time of Ruskin strike entitled "Plebs : the lost legacy of independent working class education". It can be found via the Features section here. (Click onto the photo itself to enlarge it.)

Independent Working Class Education : (Notice of their Day School).

DAY SCHOOL
12th November 2011
10.00 – 5.00
Northern College

We are looking forward to seeing you at the IWCE Day School. Please email now to confirm or book your place to - venablesk@yahoo.co.uk

Themes of the Day

There will be a wide range of presentations and lots of discussion, exploring “can Independent Working Class Education contribute to today’s class struggle?” We’ll look at anti-deportation campaigning, working class heroes, women in the unions, self taught workers, are Freire and Gramsci still relevant to education? what can we learn from the Plebs, Robert Tressell, from popular education? can we use film in our programmes? and more.

Northern College
[Wentworth Castle]
Barnsley, South Yorkshire
S75 3ET

The College is outside Barnsley
Car: Junctions 36/37 off M1. Bus/train. Look at www.northern.ac.uk/
£12.00 includes lunch. We can arrange free overnight accommodation, shared travel pool. Please get in touch now. The Northern College is accessible.

IWCE Project tries to -
* seek to offer a diverse range of education materials and approaches for trade union and other working class and progressive movement groups
* respect the role of the working class in making history, and in making the future

Ken Curran is "Seeking A Way Forward" (Part 1).

2011-10-28T13:50:00.003+01:00

The map on the left is Danny Dorling's interpretation of the North-South divide. For an explanation of his reasoning see here .

A LEAP IN THE DARK! by Ken Curran, Chair of the Sheffield Branch of the Co-op Party and member of the Sheffield District Labour Party.

Labour faces enormous challenges in the future. The current world financial crisis is paralysing most progressive political thought, not just in Britain but across the world. Here in Britain, apart from cuts being imposed by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition, we have a long standing problem which casts dark shadows across the land. The North-South divide which has developed over the years since the Second World War appears more pronounced than ever. What I am proposing is both progressive and visionary. For the idea to have any hope of success will require a future Labour Government not just to share the vision, but to take over its ownership in order to drive the project forward.

I take the view that only radical and dynamic proposals will overcome the current inertia in the British Economy. There is really no shortage of money available for investment, but finding somewhere secure to invest is the problem. My proposal would not create instant wealth. However, it would provide private and public investors with a long term security for their investments, which in time would grow with value.

Coming to the proposals themselves. If they were approved in principle by a future Labour Government and the projects used to stimulate debate, I feel such ideas would have the effect of creating a catalyst.

The political conference season of 2011 has come and gone, I regret to say there were no new exciting ideas. Not wanting to be disparaging about Ed Miliband's speech to Conference, it said more about the current state of the political thought on the democratic left than anything else. He reminded me of a very well intentioned person, groping around in the dark not wanting to tread on anyone's toes! Labour needs big ideas to set our pulses racing creating that sense of purpose that all good people will want to be part of. A NEW VISION FOR BRITAIN!

We have to break the influence of the Financial Institutions who have greatly contributed towards creating the present financial crisis and to deepening of the North-South divide.

The first step is to propose the building of an East-West tunnel under the Pennines (Peak District) perhaps from the east of Sheffield on to the lowland area of Greater Manchester, initially to carry high speed freight from the North West to a new Humber Port Terminal aimed to enabling goods from the towns of Preston, Burnley, Bury, Rochdale, Salford, Liverpool and Manchester to be transported to Moscow in and around 36 to 40 hours. I envisage a line across the North German plain into Eastern Europe and beyond, with Rail Terminals at strategic points to enable links to potential markets. I believe that the time saved in the transportation of goods from Northern and North Midland manufactures would be a huge leap forward in cutting the times of transportation.

At present much of our trade is with Europe, however over time I envisage extending the proposed high speed rail lines beyond the Urals in order to reach the countries of Kazakhstan and Mongolia, opening up a fast overland rail route into China and India. These routes would knock weeks off the current trade routes to the Far East by sea. That is, of course, for the future. Once the Tunnel is operational it would also transform the present travel times for goods in Europe generally.

The envisaged new Port on the River Humber with new rail and ferry terminals would increase the current capacity of trade. It would act as a stimulus for hard pressed areas like North Lincolnshire, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Immingham, Goole and Hull. The benefits would be shared by Derbyshire, Nottingham, West and South Yorkshire and beyond. In Yorkshire and the North Midlands the expertise to drive a deep tunnel under the Peak District already exists. It would in no way threaten the National Park . I am suggesting a new tunnel because of the need for space on the west of the Pennines to locate a large rail terminal. Although my knowledge of the west of the Pennines leads me to conclude that the current rail routes and tunnels are unsuitable for fast high speed travel.

These are only ideas at present, which I suggest are worthy of consideration. I am aware of no other ideas in the thought locker of the democratic left that would provide British businesses with the opportunities these proposals provide. As previously stated, there is really no shortage of money, only a reluctance to invest! Years ago Denis Healy accused the Tories of building a Candy Floss Economy. This they succeeded with under Mrs Thatcher. The need to restructure the economy is imperative. Giving support to this kind of initiative would boost a much needed confidence. Europe is floundering. Its current leaders lack vision. We could give that much needed leadership. The democratic left can and must provide answers to the problems of our age. Every crisis brings forth opportunities.

I have, however, so far only revealed half of my proposed package. Part two will appear on "Dronfield Blather" shortly.

Urgent - Support Legal Aid Facilities For The Poor - Now

2011-10-27T15:10:00.002+01:00

Starting from Monday next week the Commons discusses its final stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which as it stands would have a devastating impact upon the poorest in society. We covered the issue at our meeting in July when we were addressed by Juliette Frangos of the Chesterfield Law Centre. If you have not yet done so, there is just time to seek to protect legal services for the poor by supporting the proposals here and here.

Jon Williams on the Tories and the "Squeezed Middle".

2011-10-26T10:20:00.000+01:00

This is a very instructive article from Lord Ashcroft on many levels. It seems the Tories intent is to highjack Ed Miliband’s "squeezed middle" slogan whilst reducing its impact with the wider electorate.

Lord Ashcroft has a lofty position in Tory party and has finances to support their activities, such as commissioning polls, rather incisively, in marginal constituencies. The general thread of the article is a repositioning Tory policy towards Labour’s “getting the economy growing and creating jobs” as one of the most important issues facing Britain. He also highlights reducing the deficit, whilst important, shouldn’t be at the expense of job creation.

The centre ground is shifting leftwards when one of the Tories key supporters thinks the Tories should be “the party of the many, not the few” and makes a case to keep the 50p tax rate. If this is true Ed Miliband needs to move quickly to reinforce Labour’s message to the electorate in these marginal constituencies and the rest of the UK.

Leadership was a plus for David Cameron, but not so for Ed Miliband. Labour should use this information as confirmation it’s moving in the right direction. When support for the Tories has been on average the same as the last General Election there is hope for Labour. Ed needs to show more leadership qualities and communicate his (Labour) ideas to the electorate, before the Tories claim them all.

The article includes the following key sections, The emphasis is mine -

"How can the Conservatives expand their vote share at a time of flat or declining living standards? Again, economic competence and leadership hold the key. My research has found that former Labour voters who now think the Tories have the best approach to the economy are 157 times as likely to say they will vote Conservative as those who don’t think that.....A recent poll I conducted in marginal constituencies found that getting the economy growing and creating jobs is seen by some distance to be the most important issue facing Britain. Dealing with the deficit and the debt came further down the list – below the NHS, immigration and education. The Government argues, rightly, that controlling the deficit is a prerequisite for a sustainable recovery. But many feel that it is pursuing deficit reduction at the expense of job creation, rather than as a means to it. The Tories are thought to have the best approach on debt – but the voters they need to win over are less certain there are policies for growth.....The Tories in particular need to show that they are the party of the many, not the few, that they are on the side of the hard-pressed, not just the rich – a case which will be harder to make if scrapping the 50p tax rate seems to be top of the agenda.....If anything, the importance of leadership will grow as the next election nears."

John Williams.

A Death Of Party Democracy

2011-10-20T16:56:00.003+01:00

See here for my viewpoint on the first day of Labour's Recent Conference.

Harry Barnes.

The Hillsborough Disaster

2011-10-18T11:53:00.002+01:00

Clive Betts was at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster. See this moving video of his description of what happened.

Jon Williams Reports on "Open Day" at the Labour Party Conference

2011-10-16T12:31:00.000+01:00

Question Time at the Labour Party Conference

Wed 28^th Sep Labour Party Conference “Open Day” by Jon Williams

As part of Labour’s New Politics, Fresh Ideas to encourage a wider participation in politics Wed 28^th Sep was open to specifically non Labour members by invitation; it also allowed Labour members to apply. Activities at Conference were Exhibition stands, Policy Workshops and Seminars plus the access to the Main Hall at 5pm to take part in Question & Answer session hosted by Labour’s leader Ed Miliband. I attended the following events and made a few notes on the discussions below,

Policy Workshop in the Open Zone in the Exhibition Hall: Helping the next generation do better than the last

This was an open forum with 3-4 MPs answering questions from open day attendees. Some of the topics / questions asked by the audience were,

Tax avoidance – more inspectors should be employed to recoup lost tax

Families on low income – how will they cope?

Poverty is on the increase under the Tories

University costs – 30 years to clear £50k worth of student loans

There was concern about the removal of BSF (Building for Schools Fund)

Legal Aid cuts – how this will impact on local authorities to provide an alternative when pressure is to make cuts

Youth employment – NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training)

Increase in retirement age will take away a source of child care

Removal of pension tax relief for high earners was sought

Change procurement rules to support UK industry when bidding for European work e.g. Bombardier and include a requirement for companies to run apprenticeships before they can apply for public sector contracts

Support for small business now RDA’s have been scrapped, will LEPs (Local Enterprise Partnership) provide similar support? http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/leps

Co-operative Councils Network and the Co-operative Party Seminar

Chair Anna Turley Co-operative Councils Network

Rt. Hon MP Tessa Jowell

Cllr Steve Reed Leader London Borough of Lambeth (Co-op Council)

Cllr Sharon Taylor Leader of Stevenage Borough Council (Co-op Council)

Changing local communities together: Co-operative Councils http://www.councils.coop/

Interesting and worth explaining,

What is the Co-op Party – it is the political arm of the co-operative movement and is a party of social justice. You can achieve more working together than alone. They believe the only way to create a just and fair society is through power being spread evenly through society and not based on wealth, class, gender or race. Co-operatives don’t have share holders, they have members. The members own and control the organisation. The Labour and Co-op MP Ed Balls introduced co-operative trust schools – a new type of educational institution in which everyone has a stake in the school’s success i.e. parents, support staff, local people and students. There are more than 100 co-operative trust schools in England.

Tessa Jowell:

There are currently x17 co-operative councils working to implement mutualisation, cooperation and partnering, there was a worry Tories were hijacking these themes for the Big Society and a cover for cuts. This was really Tory ideology against the state.

One of the biggest worries was management of risk where ownership of buildings was involved, responsibility for maintenance and financial liability were big concerns.

It was hoped with shared partnership with councils these issues could be overcome.

Overall it was a positive action during these troubled times, it was an alternative solution to cuts.

Sharon Taylor:

The Tories Big society idea was fine for people with wealth and spare time to implement but those without it was almost impossible without help.

Co-op councils provide help for these people to make decisions and run activities, these were normally small/micro/autonomous activities e.g. community centres, parks and open spaces.

Co-op Councils would provide funding support.

One example is a Leisure centre run as a “Not for Profit” company and running an ALMO

Stevenage Borough Council is a fair trade council.

Steve Reed:

Quoted other public sector bodies working with local communities e.g. health and police

The public sector model is changing and driven by Tory cuts agenda

Where the middle classes have a choice whether to use public sector – the working classes don’t have a choice.

Historically public sector was a top down service that issue instructions from above – instead of bottom up.

People were looking for control of their day to day lives – to work together with councils.

Examples quoted were; co-op housing in Rochdale, micro mutual’s, school co-op trust & mutual school services in Newcastle and other community lead service delivery, living wage and local currencies.

Big ideas were “Service Enablers, Labour Localism and Swapping Ideas.

Other contributions from;

James Alexander Leader of York City Council

Current trend of schools becoming academies outside local authority – another option was a mutual trust

New model of service was to become a mutual operation

It is quoted how they set up Wi-Fi hot spots and transferred this expertise to other co-op councils to empower residents

Nick Forbes Labour Group Leader of Newcastle City Council

Suggested private sector contracts could be renegotiated – change them to mutual status

Discussions about what does it mean to be a citizen – how to be less passive and more engaged.

Can being a mutual improve on health in a community?

There need to be changes to how “language” is used to transfer ideas and meaning

Again it was bottom up, empowering and creating local champions

Labour's Conference Agenda

2011-09-22T14:32:00.001+01:00

The BBC has published this agenda for the Labour Party Conference.

The three consultations which we have been trying to track on Dronfield Blather will be dealt with under the following brisk timetable.

14.00 Sunday 25th September - Conferences Opens. Then after the normal wide range of introductory sessions, Lim Bryne will give a Report about the Policy Review - this was our submission. Then as the final item of the day Peter Hain will Report on the two other Consultations on which decisions are likely to be made (1) The National Policy Forum Report and (2) Refounding Labour - this thread trawls back on these (logically you need to start at the end and work your way back to the top.) There will probably later be a single card vote to push these two through. That is virtually it comrades. Then at 16.15 on Monday 26th, Tuesday 27th and Wednesday 28th; there will be a set of brief Policy Seminars. The final one ends at 17.00, but we are not told how long the others last. These will probably relate to the areas covered in Lim Bryne's Sunday Report.

That is all. Now you see it. Now you don't.

Labour's Confusing Conference

2011-09-22T09:45:00.003+01:00

With three days notice for blog watcher's, this seems to be what will be put to the coming Labour Party Conference. But you don't have to agree with it - or with the process under which it has been pursued.

Labour's Consultative Insult

2011-09-19T15:34:00.000+01:00

This is Ann Black's take on the current consultative mess in the Labour Party

There is only one Peter Kenyon

2011-09-18T18:14:00.001+01:00

But it wish there were more - see here.

Latest on Refounding Labour

2011-09-17T17:26:00.004+01:00

Email to members of the National Executive Committee on 13.38 today.

"To all members

Dear .....

As you know, final recommendations arising from the Refounding Labour consultation will be going to the NEC next Tuesday, ahead of consideration by the Annual Conference in Liverpool.

Peter Hain promised to keep you up to date with developments and wanted me to provide you with a summary of the some of the recommendations agreed by the recent Organisation Committee, and which will be discussed by the NEC next Tuesday.

The Committee is acutely aware that delegates will be receiving the final recommendations for consideration quite close to Conference, and was therefore keen for these initial conclusions to be communicated now.

The Committee agreed in principle that rules changes will be proposed in the following areas:

Purpose and objects

Clause I concerning the party's objects will be updated, giving greater emphasis to Labour's role in local communities.

Rights and responsibilities

Rights and responsibilities of the party leader will be defined for the first time, including control over appointments to the Shadow Cabinet.
Rights and responsibilities of Labour candidates and elected representatives will be defined, and provisions made for the use of model contracts.
Rights and responsibilities of elected members of the Parliamentary Labour Party will be defined, including the right to be consulted on any positions taken by the leadership in the context of a hung Parliament.
The ALC subscription will be abolished and councillors will instead, in line with other Labour representatives, pay a 2 per cent levy on total income arising from their elected role.

Enabling structures

Local Government Committees will be replaced by Local Campaign Forums (LCF), which will allow for local adaptation and different models of structure and membership. LCFs may apply to the NEC to pilot new and innovative procedures for selections. CLPs will be free to adopt different models of organisation to suit local circumstances, with certain common features, to allow joint working across constituency and geographical boundaries. There will be a new model of CLP finances to help redistribute resources more equally, and lift struggling CLPs out of debt.

Encouraging recruitment

The minimum age for becoming an individual member of the party will be lowered from 15 to 14 years old. There will be a lower local join rate for new members, to encourage recruitment.

Policy making

We will open up the process to ensure a greater voice for members in a system that is more transparent and accountable, and which reaches out to the public. We will create a process that ensures the voices of young members, women, BAME, disabled, LGBT and other under-represented members are heard in policy development. One representative from Labour International will be added to the membership of the NPF; and a textual omission regarding the Northern Ireland CLP, which already has one representative, will be corrected.

A bigger voice for councillors

The Leader of the LGA shall have the right to attend meetings of the political Shadow Cabinet when in opposition and the political Cabinet when in government. There will be better services provided for our councillors with a new website and enhanced online facilities, more training, design support for templates, and increased support for all Labour groups, large and small.

Full details of the actual textual rule book changes arising from these points will be sent to you as soon as the NEC has agreed the final recommendations to be put to Conference. The above recommendations do not represent the full extent of the changes likely to be proposed from Refounding Labour, and further issues are currently under consideration.

In addition, a number of reforms that do not require rule changes, such as new and improved technology for communication across the party, will also be proposed as part of the overall Refounding Labour package, and we will endeavour to ensure that you receive details of the final recommendations as soon as possible.

I hope this information is helpful and I will be in touch with further updates in due course.

Yours sincerely

Ray Collins

General Secretary"

The Derbyshire Miners

2011-09-11T16:00:00.001+01:00

The photograph was taken in 1983 and it shows a class from a Sheffield University Course for Derbyshire Miners' which was held at the Workers" Educational Association, Hurst House, Abercrombie Street, Chesterfield. Over three year's the students obtained 120 days paid release from work to study industrial relations, economics and politics. (See the final item below).

Ashes & Diamonds Exhibition

A tribute to the Mining Industry and those who fought to defend it by Darren Coffield at Hurst House, Abercrombie Street, Chesterfield

September 19th to 23rd : 10am to 4pm

Official Opening 12.30pm Monday 19 September by John Burrows,
(Leader Chesterfield Borough Council and ex NUM Official)

For examples of Coffield's work see - here and here.

September 20th at 7pm

Derbyshire NUM Day Release Reunion and Discussion with former lecturers Harry Barnes & Bob Heath

What Will The Labour Party Be Like By October?

2011-09-05T18:12:00.008+01:00

The Guardian claims that it knows what will emerge out of the "Refounding Labour" consultations at the Labour Party Conference in three weeks time- see here. Unfortunately, there has been no official announcement on these matters from the Labour Party, nor has anything been circulated to the membership. This is my satirical take.

Michael Foot and the 1983 Manifesto - by Jon Williams

2011-08-30T20:40:00.000+01:00

It's interesting to look back to when Labour was at its most unpopular. I think unjustly so - given the harsh treatment by the press at the time - especially of Michael Foot. From his last interview there is one line that highlights his foresight many years ago - amazingly true. He said " Yes, well, they got it all slightly wrong, I thought, when they attacked that manifesto back then. 'The longest suicide note in history', that was what Gerald Kaufman called it. Gerald was actually elected on the same manifesto, so I do still hold that against him, you know. We proposed taking over the banks, not being at the mercy of capitalist forces and all the rest of it. Although it was Jill who suffered the worse from all of that media attention."

The Labour Party Manifesto of 1983 is quite relevant in today's economic troubles. Below is an opening summary of four years of Tory Government from 1979. It all seems very similar to the current Tory (Lib) Government's policies!!

"When the Tories took office in May 1979, unemployment was falling and the economy growing. Living standards had gone up by a sixth in two years, and North Sea oil held out the prospect of economic growth, high levels of employment and better social services.

All this was thrown away by the Tories. Nearly three and a quarter million men and women are now out of work, even on the official count. Plant after plant forced to close. Manufacturing production down by a fifth. Investment cut by a third. Our domestic markets captured by imports of manufactured goods.

After four years of Mrs. Thatcher, Britain is a poorer country. We have fared far worse than any other major industrial country. The unprecedented advantage of North Sea oil and gas - worth, in tax revenues alone, 8p in the pound on income tax - has been squandered, with nothing whatsoever to show for it.

What have all these sacrifices achieved? Our economy today is weaker, not stronger, than in 1979. There is no prospect of real economic growth. Indeed, the Tories no longer dare to predict when unemployment will begin to fall. True enough, inflation, after being forced to record levels by the Tories, has been brought down. But look at the cost in jobs, in poorer housing, in living standards, and in lost opportunities for our youth. And now inflation is set to increase again, with interest rates and mortgage rates likely to rise too.

The legacy of four Tory years goes beyond unemployment and industrial decline; beyond the damage done to our social services; beyond even the dangerous commitment to new nuclear weapons. It is expressed in the deep sense of bitterness, distrust and despair now felt among so many sections of the community. Our task will be to heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

Unbelievable how the above words still apply today, in particular after the recent riots - "heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

At first glance there are several good ideas in this manifesto - that could be used even today. I believe all were agreed at Annual Conference, when it was still permitted.

On Michael Foot also see here and here.

Food For Serious Thought

2011-08-10T18:22:00.001+01:00

If you wish to give serious thought to our own and the wider world's current social, economic and political problems, the BBC 4 programmes which can be accessed via this link provides a valuable starting point. But beware, the first programme is likely to be removed from the link just after midnight on 14 August

What No Labour Party Democracy?

2011-08-04T20:38:00.006+01:00

More on the latest developments over "Refounding Labour" (which we last covered here) and the possibility that Labour Party Members will be faced with a fate accompli. See this important item posted by Peter Keynon (photo). We may need an emergency meeting soon to discuss his concerns. Watch this space. Thanks for your efforts Peter.

Update 5 August : The plot thickens.

Update 7 August : Peter shows that things have just got worse.

For convenience I have placed the 12 threads on this topic onto the label "Refounding" which can be clicked onto in the bottom right hand corner of this item.

Identifying With Jack

2011-08-04T12:04:00.005+01:00

This is a photo of the Labour Cabinet of 1945. The fourth person from the right in the back row is Jack Lawson (1881-1965). He differed from me in many ways, such as working in the pit where he went as a 12 year old , becoming a Government Minister and then a Peer. Yet there are many points on which I can identify with him. Although things often happened to us in a very different order and in a different context. For me, they were also at a much more shallower depth. But I can claim to share aspects of the points below - although unlike Jack I left the Methodist Chapel.

1. He was born in the north of England in a coastal mining community. 2. He grew up in a Durham County mining colliery. 3. He became a Methodist. 4. He joined the ILP. 5. He joined the Labour Party. 6. He joined the Co-op. 7. He was a bibliophile. 8. He made use of a bookseller in Newcastle in his early days. 9. His wife had links with Sunderland. 10. He had an involvement with adult education. 11. He studied at Ruskin College. 12 He served for two years in the forces. 13. He became a Labour MP. 14. He spent time at Easington Colliery.

I have finally got around to reading his 1932/1944 autobiography "A Man's Life" which I review here. However be warned, my review is a long one and I say nearly as much about myself as I do about Jack. But these are the entitlements of an old blatherer.

Support Justice For All

2011-07-29T16:02:00.000+01:00

One of the ways to fight the proposed cuts in legal aid (which was the topic we examined at our Discussion Meeting earlier this month) is to support and help the work of the "Justice For All" Campaign. To see what they are about and then to give them your support, see here.

You can also press your MP into giving them support. This is of particular importance as legislation which is currently before parliament is in need of radical change, if it is not going to create serious problems for many vulnerable people who are in need of the legal aid services, such as those services provided by Law Centres.

The role of the Campaign is explained in Early Day Motion 1194 which is currently before the Commons. Under the title Justice For All Campaign it states - "That this House welcomes the Justice for All campaign launched in the House of Commons on 12 January 2011; supports the aims of the campaign which are to raise awareness of the vital importance of advice and representation on legal matters for the most vulnerable in our society and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly under the law, no matter who they are, how much money they have or where they live; recognises that the strength of feeling is reflected in the fact that the campaign is a broad coalition of legal and advice agencies, trades unions, charities, community groups and members of the public; regrets that the reduction in spending on legal aid, through restrictions in scope and eligibility and the blanket 10 per cent. cut in the lower fee paid to providers of legal services, is having a detrimental effect on access to justice and on the well-being of the most vulnerable people; questions the real cost savings to the public purse that this budget reduction will achieve, given that early advice on legal matters saves money by keeping families together in their homes, and in work and education; believes that free, independent advice and representation on legal matters is essential to achieve justice for all; and calls on the Government to rethink the provision of legal services for the poorest in society."

The proposal is currently supported by 109 MPs. The political party make-up for this support is 83 Labour, 15 Lib-Dems, 3 Democratic Unionists, 3 SDLP, 2 Conservative, 2 Plaid Cymru and 1 Green. Their names can be found here. Names added who are Conservative and/or Liberal Democrat MPs will be greatly prized for they help break the Government's stranglehold on the current proposals. So it is a matter of how good you are at winning friends and influencing people.

Refounding Labour Will Not Be Refinding Labour

2011-07-25T12:50:00.007+01:00

If you ignore the item below this , there then follows ten threads which are related to this one.

What appears below is taken from Ann Black's unofficial report of Labour's National Executive Committee Meeting which was held on 19 July. It covers the latest known stage of developments in the follow up to Labour's consultations on "Refounding Labour". Much of what is emerging will be presented in a "take-it or leave-it" form at the coming Labour Party Conference. Many of the ideas which are being peddled are in direct opposition to the proposals which were submitted by our Discussion Group, the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party and the North East Derbyshire Constituency Party. In the final section which appears below, Peter Hain even seems to deny that he ever received our Discussion Group's submission. For we sent him the very idea he says had no support.

Without Ann Black we would have little idea of what is now likely to be foisted upon us.

"Refounding Labour Continued

Peter Hain introduced the latest proposals, after discussion in the organisation committee. An interim report has been circulated to stakeholders, and I’ve attached a copy. The NEC will not agree final recommendations until 20 September, four days before conference, no amendments will be allowed, and Peter will ask delegates to vote Yes or No to the entire package including rule changes. I think this is a bad way to begin a new era. In 2007 Gordon Brown pushed Extending and Renewing Party Democracy through conference, and we spent the next three years removing unpopular and unworkable parts. As a fallback I have asked for constituency NEC representatives to be engaged throughout the summer so we do not end up with deals or
stand-offs between the leadership and the unions, and I will consult as widely as I can. I was also promised, again, the full membership of the shadow cabinet review groups, a request outstanding since November 2010.

There is plenty of good stuff in the paper: welcoming new members, engaging with the community, more flexible local structures and so on, though much of this concerns good practice rather than rules. It recognises that many developments are only feasible with new technology, although these risk widening the digital divide. Development plans for constituencies and contracts between local parties and candidates or elected representatives gained general support but the details will be crucial.

The same applies to registered supporters. Maintaining lists of people who will help with campaigns, and inviting them to social events and local policy discussions, seems uncontentious. While Refounding Labour would not give them votes for council or parliamentary candidates, it does envisage allowing them to vote for the party leader as part of the affiliates’ section. Further, external organisations could apply for “registered consultee” status and gain rights to give evidence to policy commissions greater than those enjoyed by constituencies. Sharing contact information between the party and the unions is
another sensitive issue, and the unions are keen to regain nomination rights in parliamentary selections.

From Each According to their Means …

The paper tries to balance concerns that subscriptions are too high against the need to maintain income. The minimum age for joining would be reduced to 14, paying £1 a year until the age of 20, then £12 from age 20 to 26. Unwaged members and registered supporters would pay £15, and this would also be the first-year rate for new joiners. After that rates would be linked to income: £24 for trade union levy-payers and those earning under £20,000, going up by £12 a year for each additional £5,000 of salary.

Currently constituencies receive 33% of reduced-rate and 22% of standard-rate subscriptions. For some this is less than central charges for election insurance and the Euro-levy, and optionally Contact Creator, so they are permanently in the red. Many have argued that national charges should be proportional to the number of members, and so I will pursue this. It fails to address inequalities in wealth related to property or legacies, but no-one has yet found a way of
grasping that nettle.

On openness the paper is patchy. I agree that women, ethnic minority and young members should be able to work across party boundaries on common objectives, and hope that this will extend to constituency secretaries, and indeed to all members. The section on Young Labour has been subject to exhaustive consultation: among many changes, constituency youth officers and national policy forum youth representatives would in future be elected by young members only. There is a commitment to further discussions with the Northern Ireland CLP, the SDLP and the Irish Labour Party. And it is proposed to change the rules so that constituency AGMs would normally be held in November rather than February, leaving the spring free for campaigning: I would be interested in views on this.

Counting the Votes

Most agreed that multiple votes for the leader were not defensible. MPs could be restricted to their own section, but enforcing single votes across individual and affiliated members would only be possible if the ballot was conducted by a single body. The principle of having a woman in the leadership team was endorsed, but there were doubts about a leadership ticket, where candidates would choose a running-mate of the opposite gender and members would vote for the leader only, so discussion will continue.

Also still unresolved are voting procedures at conference, the make-up of the conference arrangements committee, and the composition of the NEC itself, apart from a proposal that the Scottish and Welsh leaders should each nominate a member of their executive committees with voting status. I am opposed to the idea of giving some of the conference vote to the national policy forum: it does not exist as a collective entity, and the NEC, as part of the forum, would gain a significant share. All these are central to the party’s future, and it would be wrong and dangerous to bounce them through conference without proper consultation. Finally Peter Hain said that submissions supported the continued vital role of the joint policy committee, and that there was no support for restoring any policy-making role to the NEC."

UPDATE 26 JULY: On this theme, see today's important contribution from Peter Kenyon here.

Still Refounding Labour

2011-07-21T18:51:00.001+01:00

We devoted two of our recent discussion meetings to a consideration of the Labour Party's consultative document "Refounding Labour", as well as to certain related documents. We also forwarded submissions on these to the Labour Party. Similar action was taken by the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party and by the North East Derbyshire Constituency Labour Party. The Regional Offices of the Labour Party also ran consultative meetings on "Refounding Labour" at Chesterfield and Sheffield. Details of these and related activities can be found here.

The Labour Party has now produced what it calls a "Summary Report" arising from its consultation procedures on "Refounding Labour". It can be found via this link. Comments upon this stage of the proceedings would be welcome. We will be pursuing the issue further.

Fighting Cuts To Legal Aid

2011-07-13T12:32:00.002+01:00

On Sunday we held an important meeting addressed by Juliette Frangos of the Chesterfield Law Centre under the title "Fighting Cuts To Legal Aid".

On 29 June the Commons passed the Second Reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill by 295 votes to 212. Yesterday the Bill moved into its Committee Stage where it receives more detailed scrutiny, although the Coalition Government have a built in majority on that Committee and they are committed to the general trust of its proposals.

If passed into law as the measure stands, it will have a devastating impact on the provisions of legal aid for masses of vulnerable people. It will remove legal aid for 100% of cases concerning welfare benefits, 100% of cases concerning employment law and 75% of cases involving new debts - with the other 25% of funding only being available via a Government telephone line for those whose homes are at immediate risk of being taken from them. On average 46% of Law Centre funding, to provide services for those who can not afford otherwise to obtain help from solicitors, comes from Legal Aid and without it many will face closure. Those who remain will be hamstrung in their work. Yet Law Centres, that were established because the original Legal Aid scheme had failed to address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, have been providing crucial services to those most in need of legal assistance ever since 1970. Now almost 70% of Legal Aid funding is earmarked to be cut with some cuts beginning as early as this October.

Because the proposed legislation covers a wide area, the issue of the massive cuts in legal aid is in danger of failing to get a full and fair hearing in the Commons. Nor is it a matter that is receiving the attention from the media which it should be given. Campaigning to defend access to Legal Aid is, therefore, crucial.

As a consequence of our meeting on the topic, I was asked to seek out ways and means by which our group could involve itself in moves to defend current legal aid provisions. As a starter, I provide the links below to two campaigns which I have signed up to. I hope that others will also do this. The links also provide further details of of the devastating impact of the proposed legislation. There is a need for all of us to do whatever we can to block the measure.

See Sound Off For Justice and Justice For All

The campaigning organisation 38 Degrees (which as you will see has a valuable track record) runs an opening entitled "What should we campaign on next?". I will now submit this item to them and press for their support. It would help considerably if others also raised the issue with them via the above link.

A Black Report On Wrexham

2011-07-06T20:46:00.007+01:00

The following is an unofficial report by Ann Black (above) of what went on at Wrexham when the National Policy forum met to discuss the submissions which had been received by the Labour Party on its three consultations - (1) Redfounding Labour, (2) Partnership Into Power (which now is seemingly incorporated in "Refounding Labour") and (3) New Politics, Fresh Ideas.

It is reproduce because our last two discussion meetings, the eight blog items below this one, the last two meetings of the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party and the last meeting of the General Committee of the NE Derbyshire Constituency Labour all focused on some or all of these consultations.

I have highlighted some items which can be linked back to the general trust of what the thirteen avenues mentioned above tackled.

"National Policy Forum, Wrexham, 24 June 2011

The Chair Peter Hain welcomed members to Labour Wales, where student fees remain low and the NHS is safe from privatisation, and expressed solidarity with the public service unions fighting for justice. He reported that Refounding Labour had received 125 submissions from constituencies, 35 from affiliates and groups, and 2,660 individual contributions through the website. The party’s reaction to the splits and losses of the 1980s may have prevented blood on the conference floor, but at the cost of over-centralisation and shutting out the grassroots. The task now was to re-establish the original inclusive, interactive vision. An audit trail should let members see what happens to their views, currently disappearing without trace, and genuine differences should again be debated at conference.

Leader’s Questions

Ed Miliband also addressed the Forum, accusing the government of U-turns, handbrake turns and three-point turns on everything from selling forests to sentencing policy to the NHS, and recklessness with the future of health, young people and local services. They could not even get it right on barring wild animals from circuses (a pledge which should have been in Labour’s manifesto, instead of waiting for courageous Tory backbencher Mark Pritchard to take
the lead).

No party in a generation had bounced back after one defeat, but he was determined to buck the trend. Britain did get better under Labour, and he would never deny our record, but mistakes were made. Internal squabbles and MPs playing the expenses system damaged politics itself. Members sent warnings from the doorstep about housing, immigration and scrapping the 10% tax band, and were ignored. The current consultation did not make easy listening, and showed we had lost touch with working people, who want those who do the right thing to be rewarded. Many of the three million affiliated trade unionists no longer voted Labour, and we must reach out to them and beyond them. Good ideas also came from outside the party, for instance “safe havens” in community centres and churches for young people worried about gangs and knives. Conference should be opened up, and local parties encouraged to build their own supporters’ networks. He confirmed his intention to appoint the shadow cabinet in opposition, as with ministers in government. This seems sensible, and feedback suggests that members are more concerned with frontbenchers’ performance than how they got there.

On pensions he blamed the government for handling the situation disgracefully, with Danny Alexander announcing conclusions while negotiations were continuing. His main concern was whether strikes would help or hinder in winning the argument. The public were now persuaded that it was unfair to delay pensions for women in their 50s, but too many still believed the myth of gold-plated public sector pensions and universal retirement at 60. The living wage was an exciting idea, and Labour would look closely at the recommendations of the high pay commission. Members also raised soaring fuel costs, the future of social care, compulsory sprinklers in new buildings (already law in Wales) and the new academies, including selective admission policies and what would happen if they went bust. Ed Miliband summed up Labour’s themes as the promise of Britain, the squeezed middle, stronger communities and life beyond the bottom line.

New Politics, Fresh Ideas III

Liam Byrne introduced his latest draft, following nearly four million contacts with the public, 70 shadow cabinet events, and thousands of members taking part in regional and local discussions. I’ve been to several and they were genuinely lively and engaging, but it’s hard to tell how far the paper represents Labour values or reflects the range of views of members, supporters and random voters. (Of 60 direct quotes four are from Ann in Brighton, with Kathy of Cheshire and Ian of Livingston getting two apiece.)

Forum members repeated, as we do at every level and every opportunity, the need for sharper attacks on the coalition coupled with clear statements of what Labour would do differently. Opposition should not be left to the archbishop of Canterbury. Voters want to know who and what we stand for, and cutting the deficit a bit more slowly is not enough, as Scotland showed. Some thought the current paper could have been written a year ago. No-one expects a detailed manifesto, but dividing lines and directions of travel derived from explicit values are desperately needed now, on the doorstep and in the media. Indeed the rolling programme of policy development seems designed more for government, where we control the agenda, than opposition, where fast, intelligent and well-informed reactions are essential. And I passed on messages from Reading: David Cameron should be congratulated for sticking to the target of 0.7% of GDP for international aid despite disapproval from his own backbenchers, and some of our attacks on Ken Clarke smack of opportunism rather than principle.

Workshops

We had to choose three out of six topics: economy, growth and jobs; the cost of living crisis; the British promise; rights and responsibilities; Britain in the world; and the Partnership in Power review. No-one was clear on what these covered, so some of the conversations were at cross-purposes, but doubtless the hardworking policy officers will ensure that everything ends up somewhere. As last time some groups had more than 20 people, giving each of them just two minutes at race-commentator speed. This tends to produce lists of unconnected points and there is no chance to develop themes through dialogue, or establish which views attract consensus and which are just one person sounding off. We would never run a local forum with groups larger than ten.

The cost of living session was supposed to include transport, and a few points were made on travel costs and loss of bus routes making it difficult for people to get to work. Housing was still in short supply: speaking from Nottingham Christine Shawcroft said there were luxury city-centre flats, student accommodation and buy-to-let, but little that normal people could afford. But mostly we talked about the impact: citizens’ advice bureaux filled with desperate people, and many others only one step from disaster. The shock of suddenly having to exist on £65 a week was greater for those losing well-paid jobs than those more used to scraping by. One person thought the gap between benefits and wages was too small to provide incentives for work, but most were unhappy about portraying all claimants as scroungers, or assuming that disability allowances were generous. Many people were ashamed even to talk about not having a job, blaming themselves as failures. Members also argued that the private sector was unable to employ all the sacked public servants, and indeed businesses depended on the wages from public service employment to keep going. I added that pay for most public sector workers had been frozen for several years while inflation ran at nearly 5%, and any further increase in
pension contributions would mean cuts in cash terms.

Welfare also featured under rights and responsibilities, including an interesting discussion on the shift from contribution-based to needs- based systems. Even though childcare and in-work benefits go fairly high up the income scale (or did, until the coalition started hacking into them), separating them from payment into the system could cause resentment among those who paid but did not receive. Some suggested that taxes should be seen positively as part of a collective enterprise, but that may be too idealistic for 21st-century Britain. The group also touched on crime, including whether communities used to be more self-policing, and on whether it made sense to talk about “communities” at all, when they were so varied geographically, socially and economically, and overlaid by commuting and new technology. The best single contribution was a call to distinguish between listening and leadership: in the current consultation we should listen, but not succumb to populism, because people may be wrong: if 25 applicants are chasing every job, it is not fair to scapegoat those who lose out.

Deja Vu

The last session was on Refounding Labour, and specifically the review of Partnership in Power included within it. Those of us who joined the Forum in 1997 have been through this many times before. Representatives still cannot contact the members who elected them, or read comments and ideas from their own region. Forum dates are not planned far enough ahead and papers were again circulated late, despite the requirement for seven days’ notice. However keynote speeches are provided to the press, so at least we can read them on the way to the meeting. Most constituency representatives are still excluded from policy commissions, so the sum total of their participation has been six hours in Gillingham in November and six hours in Wrexham in June essentially repeating the earlier meeting. The format does not allow coherent discussion or summarising collective views. Was the whole thing value for money, above all for the members whose subscriptions pay for the Forum?

Interestingly a long-serving trade union member recalled that in 1994, when the Forum was a shadowy organisation existing outside the rulebook, there were indeed formal reportbacks from every workshop, with late-night negotiations, and votes on what had or had not been agreed. All that disappeared when it was opened up to ordinary members like your current elected representatives, but perhaps Peter Hain should learn from the Forum’s own history as we try for a fourth time to get this right."

ANN BLACK

Comments will be forwarded to Ann.

Ed Cuts Us In Half

2011-06-26T17:02:00.002+01:00

Our Discussion Group submitted six set of ideas for the "Refounding Labour" Consultation. The closing date for submissions was Friday, whilst yesterday Labour"s National Policy Forum (NPF) met in Wrexham to start examining the ideas which had been submitted to it.

The meeting at Wrexham started with a keynote speech from Ed Miliband. Unfortunately, Ed seems to have kicked half of our proposals into the long grass before the NPF got down to its work. His comments undermined our following three proposals.

(1) We proposed that the NPF should be scrapped as its operations are not understood by the bulk of Labour Party Members and it operates under a system which is talked about as being one of "smoke and mirrors". We wanted its work to be open and democratic and undertaken by the National Executive Committee and Annual Conference.

Instead, Ed Miliband wishes to keep the NPF, but to reform it on the following basis - "If local parties get enough support for a particular cause, it should be debated at the National Policy Forum or conference. Here's the offer: the more support from the public you get for your ideas, the more weight they will have."

(2) We proposed that Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution should be amended to remove its New Labour's commitment to a "Dynamic Economy" based on "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition" and to substitute a commitment to a "Sustainable Economy which pursues high quality public services operated democratically for the public good."

However Ed Miliband argued in the opposite direction saying "New Labour got us back in touch with the hopes and aspirations of the British people. It was right to change Clause 4."

(3)We argued that there needs to be a change in the make-up of the Parliamentary Labour Party, for parliament at the moment contains too many members of a “political class” where MPs often have more in common with each other across the political divide than they do with their own voters.

Whilst Ed Miliband made no reference to this area in his Wrexham Speech, yesterday morning's Guardian claimed that his position as disclosed to them was that - "All parliamentary candidates and councillors are to be asked to sign a code of conduct committing themselves to be in regular touch with the public." We had rather more than that in mind.

But we still have three more points left on the board and will be keeping an eye on their progress.

Our Discussion Group's Submission to the "Refounding Labour" Consultation

2011-06-15T15:35:00.006+01:00

Submission to the “Refounding Labour” Consultation from the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group which is attended by Labour Party Members and supporters from various Constituencies in North Derbyshire and South Yorkshire.

We discussed the first two of the ideas given below and then fed into our parent body the Dronfield Labour Party and from there to the local Constituency Party of North East Derbyshire, where they took on the form of resolutions. Both the Dronfield and the NE Derbyshire Constituency have separately submitted these. We have also gained support for these proposals from a dozen Labour Party members from six constituencies ranging from Romford to Darlington. This support was received via a blog we operate here.

1. "Complex and convoluted systems undermine the operations of supposed democratic procedures. Democratic arrangements need to be straightforward and understood. The current 'Partnership Into Power' system and the functions of the National Policy Forum are not understood by the bulk of Labour Party members who participate in Labour Party Branch and Constituency activities, serve on local councils and/or engage in local electoral activity. The current system is dismissed as being one of "smoke and mirrors". It should be abandoned. In its place we require a clear structure for policy making, in which democratically run units of the Labour Party have a direct link into the activities of the National Executive Committee and into the decision-making procedures of the Annual Conference of the Labour Party".

2. Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution should be re-examined, especially in relation to the sub-clause which most strongly reflects the areas in which New Labour's economic failures were concentrated with its call for a "Dynamic Economy" based on "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition". This sub-clause should be replaced by one that seeks a "Sustainable Economy" which pursues high quality public services operated democratically for the public good.

This is the suggested amendment to Clause 4 -

Replace sub-clause 2a on “A Dynamic Economy” with the following -

“A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, serving the public interest by operating through the principles of co-operation and participatory democracy, in which wealth and economic power are fairly shared.” (Some of the Discussion Meeting came to prefer the word “equitably” to “fairly” in this proposal).

Amend sub-clause 2b on “A Just Society” as follows -

"Replace the words"equality of opportunity" with the words "social equality".

3. The Labour Party needs to involve itself with people seeking to defend their quality of life, including their public services, by its members being out in the market places with petitions on issues such as the defence of the NHS. The membership also needs to be encouraged to establish links with groups such as Tenant Associations and to be proactive locally in monitoring key issues such as the impact of inflation upon the vulnerable and then publishing their findings.

4. Labour should draw up a “Charter of Youth” attracting the involvement of people in its development. This is because they are at the forefront of problems faced in this country and throughout the world. Then without the support of young people, Labour will have no future. More details of this proposal can be found on our blog here.

5. There is a huge need for a strong commitment to non-dogmatic forms of political education to take place throughout the Labour Party and the wider Labour Movement. A person who knows only their own side of a case, knows little of that. Hence ideas need to be fully debated and dissent encouraged. When members join a political party they expect leading political matters to be to the fore. Political Educational activities need to be a major part of our work from national to local levels. More details of this proposal can be found here , which is the clearest version of our approach.

6. There needs to be a change in the make-up of the Parliamentary Labour Party, for parliament at the moment contains too many members of a “political class” where MPs often have more in common with each other across the political divide than they do with their own voters.

Our Discussion Group's Submission to Labour's "New politics, Fresh ideas"

2011-06-15T14:54:00.009+01:00

Submission to the “New politics, Fresh ideas” consultation, from the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group which draws from Labour Party members and supporters in numbers of Constituencies in North Derbyshire and South Yorkshire. Dronfield is itself in the NE Derbyshire Constituency.

(1) In the introduction to the "New politics, Fresh ideas" consultative document. Liam Byrne states that as a Labour Party “Our values are non-negotiable”. We wish to challenge this claim. The only place where the aims and values of the Labour Party are spelt out is in Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution. Far from this clause being set in stone, it was radically amended in 1995 to usher in New Labour's political stance. It is, therefore, always open to amendment if this is what its membership wants. Below we reproduce the current Clause.

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, prejudice 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.

As democratic socialists, we can just about live with much of the above. Sub-clause 1 appears on the front of Labour Party Membership Cards and is what many members may believe is the full Clause. But there are four more sub-clauses given above. The first section presses for each person to be given the chance to reach their own potential, rather than seeing people as benefiting by sharing and helping each other. But the overall phraseology is ambiguous enough to be given a general form of democratic socialist interpretation. And the meaning given to the sub-clause depends to some extent on what then follows.

It is sub-clause 2a which is the major drawback.. It encapsulates the New Labour approach which came to fail us both morally and electorally by 2010. Here the concept of the "Dynamic Economy" attempts to marry together the opposing forces of a mainly unrestrained free enterprise approach with that of the public well-being. Below we offer an alternative form of words in favour of advancing the alternative concept of a "Sustainable Economy". In sub-clause 2b, we are also concerned about the commitment to promoting "equality of opportunity", a concept which creates the image of us being lined up on the starting line to race against each other, rather than our working together to form an egalitarian, participatory and sharing society. The notion of "social equality" seems to us to point us in a better direction.

Two proposed amendments are given below. Limiting the changes in the overall wording, whilst trying to get to the heart of the matter seems to us to be a practical yet principled approach.

Proposed amendments.

A. Replace sub-clause 2a on “A DYNAMIC ECONOMY” with the following -

“A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, serving the public interest by operating through the principles of co-operation and participatory democracy, in which wealth and economic power are equitably shared.”

Amend sub-clause 2b on “A Just Society” as follows -
"Replace the words"equality of opportunity" with the words "social equality"

(2) We also criticise this whole consultation exercise as being a marketing exercise illustrated by the character of its associated booklet, which is aimed at non-party members such as “small business owners”. 20 Shadow Cabinet Review bodies are linked into the exercise and the final wording on the booklet (in small print) indicates that those completing the booklet are likely to be nobbled by these bodies where appropriate.

We are, however, in favour of Policy Commissions being run under the auspicious of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party with their reports being fully discussed throughout the Labour Party and the wider Labour movement, with the Annual Conference of the Labour Party being given a full opportunity to determine or reject proposals, along with amendments and alternatives submitted from the grassroots of the Party. To give the NEC, Annual Conference and the membership of the Party control over these procedures, we call for the abolition of National Policy Forum and of all other arrangements under “Partnership into Power”.

Two Ideas To Transform Labour : Internal Party Democracy and a Democratic Socialist Vision.

2011-06-09T18:15:00.009+01:00

(Click on the cartoon to enlarge it). Just as we needed to found a Labour Party in 1895 when this cartoon appeared in "Labour Leader", in order to tackle the Liberal and Tory Parties, so we need to refound what we have today. The preparatory work was done by Keir Hardie and his friends in 1893 in setting up the Independent Labour Party (ILP). How do we prepare today? For the modern ILP see here.

Yesterday evening the Dronfield Branch of the Labour Party in the North East Derbyshire Constituency examined the three consultative documents issued by the Labour Party and determined its submissions. Below we give our two main ones. The first one has already been forwarded to the Policy and Research Department of the Labour Party, as the closing date for submissions is tomorrow. Arising from earlier work on this blog, we had also received the backing of people in eight other Constituency Labour Parties - from Romford to Darlington. This support was also listed in our submission to the Policy and Research Department.

The first submission, is also relevant to the separate consultation entitled "Refounding Labour". As there is still time to contact Peter Hain and company about this, other Labour Party members are still welcome to send in their support to us via the comment box below. Please add the names of your Labour Party Branch and your Constituency Party. As the submission needs to be received by 24 June, we ask you to send your support to us by 20 June.

The second submission will be sent under the arrangements of the consultative document "New Politics, Fresh Ideas" being run by Liam Byrne. On this, the Dronfield Branch is recommending a change to Clause IV of the Constitution and Rules of the Labour Party which deals with its Aims and Values. The logic of this being seen as of importance is that we feel that ideas on policy issues need first of all to be shaped by what should be Labour's general direction of travel. We also welcome support for this proposal, which again should be sent to us by 20 June.

Remember to let us know which of the submissions you support or whether you support both.

First Submission.

"Complex and convoluted systems undermine the operations of supposed democratic procedures. Democratic arrangements need to be straightforward and understood. The current 'Partnership Into Power' system and the functions of the National Policy Forum are not understood by the bulk of Labour Party members who participate in Labour Party Branch and Constituency activities, serve on local councils and/or engage in local electoral activity. The current system is dismissed as being one of "smoke and mirrors". It should be abandoned. In its place we require a clear structure for policy making, in which democratically run units of the Labour Party have a direct link into the activities of the National Executive Committee and into the decision-making procedures of the Annual Conference of the Labour Party".

Second Submission.

The current Clause IV appears below.

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, prejudice 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.

Sub-clause 1 appears on the front of Labour Party Membership Cards and is what many members may believe is the full Clause. But there are four more sub-clauses given above. The first section presses for each person to be given the chance to reach their own potential, rather than seeing people as benefiting by sharing and helping each other. But the overall phraseology is ambiguous enough to be given a general form of democratic socialist interpretation. And the meaning given to the sub-clause depends to some extent on what then follows. But sub-clause 2a has a major drawback. It encapsulates the New Labour approach which came to fail us both morally and electorally by 2010. It is where the concept of the "Dynamic Economy" attempts to marry together the opposing forces of a mainly unrestrained free enterprise approach with that of the public well-being. Below we offer an alternative form of words in favour of advancing the alternative concept of a "Sustainable Economy".

In sub-clause 2b, there is a commitment to promoting "equality of opportunity", a concept which creates the image of us being lined up on the starting line to race against each other, rather than our working together to form an egalitarian, participatory and sharing society. The notion of "social equality" seems to us to point in a better direction.

Our proposed amendments are given below. They limit the changes in the overall wording, whilst trying to get to the heart of the matter, which seems to us to be a practical yet principled approach.

Proposed amendments.

A. Replace sub-clause 2a on “A Dynamic Economy” with the following -

“A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY, serving the public interest by operating through the principles of co-operation and participatory democracy, in which wealth and economic power are fairly shared.”

B. Amend sub-clause 2b on “A Just Society” as follows -
"Replace the words"equality of opportunity" with the words "social equality".

******************************************************************

Update 11th June : Yesterday evening the General Committee of the North East Derbyshire Constituency Labour Party included the two proposals given above in its submission for the consultation on "Refounding Labour".

Consultations, Consultations, Consultations

2011-06-01T18:18:00.003+01:00

There are three consultative documents which are supposed to be circulating in the Labour Party at the moment, although I suspect that few members know about them all.

First, there is a document entitled "Partnership Into Power". There are only nine days left for comments on this document to be submitted. See here.

Secondly, there is the document "Refounding Labour." Technically we have until 24 June to send in our responses, but on the following day the National Policy Forum meets in Wrexham to examine proposals drawn from all the various submissions! Here is our own summary of "Refounding Labour", whilst here are the responses raised at our last discussion meeting. We aim to finalise our responses at out next meeting on 12 June. But then we also need to discuss the following.

Finally, there is a document entitled "New Politics. Fresh Ideas" by Liam Byrne which is supposed to have been circulating in the Labour Party since 27 November. It states that the "first phase of work will last until summer 2011 and a document arising from the work will be presented to the coming Labour Party Conference" and will then be developed via the work of the National Policy Forum.

Furthermore, under this procedure Ed Miliband has asked Shadow Cabinet Members to set up working groups and expert panels to explore "the big questions that confront our country". This work is to be fed into "New Politics, Fresh Ideas". Ann Black who is an National Executive Committee Member is making valiant efforts to discover what these groups have been up to. She states "I am still pursuing the shadow cabinet policy review groups. Thanks to Comprehensive Future for circulating a list for one of Andy Burnham’s groups; warm appreciation to Harriet Harman for full information on the international development review and its six expert taskforces; and rather less for Douglas Alexander, launching “Britain and the BRICs” * in Beijing through a press release which gives no indication of who else is involved. Another 17 are still unknown beyond short summaries."

But at least we can try to respond to (or go beyond) the four broad questions which Liam Byrne asks, these are -

1. How we grow our economy and ensure good jobs and a sustainable future?
2. How we strengthen families, communities and relationships?.
3. How do we put power in people's hands, over politics and public services?
4. How do we secure our country and contribute to a better world?

It should also be noted that Liam Byrne's document states at the start that Labour's "values are non-negotiable." But as Labour's aims and values are supposed to be reflected in Clause IV of the Labour Party's Constitution as amended in 1995 to fit in with a vision of New Labour, then surely they are still amendable if that is what the membership wants.

There will be plenty to discuss on the above matters at our coming meeting as currently advertised in the right-hand column.

* BRICs = Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa who are seen as the coming economic challenges to the dominance of the USA.

Ten Days To Transform The Labour Party

2011-05-31T14:50:00.004+01:00

A review of the Labour Party policy making process was launched at last year's Annual Conference of the Labour Party and a subsequent report will be presented for endorsement at this year's Annual Conference.

The deadline for submissions to the review is 10th June - in only ten days.

Submissions can be made either: - Via the Labour Party website at: members.labour.org.uk/pip - Or in writing to:
Review of Partnership into Power
Policy and Research Department
The Labour Party
39 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0HA

I intend to submit the following -

"Complex and convoluted systems undermine the operations of supposed democratic procedures. Democratic arrangements need to be straightforward and understood. The current "Partnership Into Power" system and the functions of the National Policy Forum are not understood by the bulk of Labour Party members who participate in Labour Party Branch and Constituency activities, serve on local councils and/or engage in local electoral activity. The current system is dismissed as being one of "smoke and mirrors". It should be abandoned.

In its place we require a clear structure for policy making, in which democratically run units of the Labour Party have a direct link into the activities of the National Executive Committee and into the decision-making procedures of the Annual Conference of the Labour Party".

If you would like to add your name to the above statement along with your Labour Party Branch and Constituency details, then please confirm this via the attached comment box within the next week. An alternative is to send your own submission directly to the Labour Party.

Harry Barnes.

Refounding The Consultation

2011-05-16T17:25:00.004+01:00

We can make Christmas come early this year for Labour. What are your own ideas on the following? They would be most welcome in our comment box.

Labour's consultative document "Refounding Labour" came in for a wide range of criticism at last night's Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Meeting. It was described as "a top down exercise, lacking any political perspective", "being like a Government Consultative exercise which provides too little time for independent discussion to take place", "a procedure where those in the know get their ideas endorsed in line with what was planned for all along", "a document that assumes that Labour only faces structural problems, yet it faces fundamental problems which go much wider", "containing nothing on policy issues", "another example of the tail wagging the dog" and even "a crap consultative exercise."

Nevertheless in an attempt to improve matters, a variety of ideas were put forward, including -

1. That because Labour's system of Policy Forums is not understood by the bulk of Labour Party members and tends to be made up of self-appointed people linked in with the leadership, they should be abolished.

2. In place of the National Policy Forum procedure, the Annual Conference of the Labour Party needs to be revitalised in order to involve members in policy-making.

3. The Labour Party should establish a set of Policy Commissions drawn from people with relevant expertise, to draw up reports on key issues such as how to control the operations of the banks and financial institutions. Such reports should then be discussed throughout the Labour Party and its affiliated organisations, with Annual Conferences of the Labour Party deciding what to accept, reject and amend.

4. The Labour Party needs to involve itself with people seeking to defend their quality of life, including their public services, by its members being out in the market places with petitions on issues such the defence of the NHS. The membership also needs to be encouraged to establish links with groups such as Tenants Associations and to be proactive locally in monitoring key issues such as the impact of inflation upon the vulnerable and then publishing their findings.

5. Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution should be re-examined, especially in relation to the sub-clause which most strongly reflects the areas in which New Labour's economic failures were concentrated with its call for a "Dynamic Economy" based on "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition". This sub-clause should be replaced by one that seeks a "Sustainable Economy" which pursues high quality public services operated democratically for the public good.

6. Labour should draw up a "Charter for Young People" which can attract the involvement of young people and thus help safeguard Labour's future. (See the case in "Dronfield Blather" here).

7. There should be a strong commitment to non-dogmatic forms of political education throughout the Labour Party and the wider Labour Movement. (See the case in "Dronfield Blather" here).

8. There needs to be a change in the make-up of the Parliamentary Labour Party, for parliament at the moment contains too may members who belong to a "political class" where MPs often have more in common with each other across the political divide than they do with their own voters.

At our next discussion meeting, we will go on to refine and develop the above points for submission to the "Refounding Labour" consultative procedure. It will be an attempt to lift matters beyond the mundane.

Refounding Labour : a summary of Labour's consultative document

2011-05-11T13:22:00.012+01:00

Keir Hardie is one of the primary founders of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and then of the Labour Party, of which the ILP was itself a part. Labour is now seeking to refound itself.

It is, therefore, appropriate that I should have recently returned from a week-end school run by the ILP (now Independent Labour Publications) where we discussed the "refounding" document which I summarise below.

It will also be discussed at our Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Meeting on Sunday.

Harry Barnes.

Peter Hain is Chair of the Labour Party's National Policy Forum. He has issued a Labour Party Consultative Document entitled "Refounding Labour : a party for the new generation". He says "I want to hear from as many people as possible - in constituencies, in the unions, in the affiliated societies, from those holding elected public office and beyond - about the future shape of the Labour Party.....After May 5 all local parties should arrange a meeting to discuss these ideas ahead of the deadline for submissions on 24 June."

Unless someone has access to the document, plus the time and inclination, this is not an easy matter to pursue. The document contains introductions from Ed Miliband and Peter Hain and is a further 9,000 words long and asks no less than a total of 105 questions. Nor is it easy to summarise, as it tends to be dominated by technical problems related to the complexities of the current structure of the Labour Party.

So below I have settled for (a) linking together quotations from the document about the current problematic position the Labour Party now finds itself in, (b) selecting several quotations from the limited number of areas where the document comes near to making any suggestions of its own and (c) selecting a dozen questions from the 68 "Big Questions" it lists at the close of the document. I would only add that what may be missing from the document is an overall question which might clarify matters and then make it easier to tackle the many the bits and pieces in the document. A question such as "what should the objectives of the Labour Party be, and how can these best be achieved?". It is a Keir Hardie type question.

(a) Facing the Facts (the bits in brackets are mine).

"...we need to be...frank with one another about where and why Labour has been abandoned by people who used to support us...between 1997 and 2010 Labour lost nearly five million voters...With our party massively in debt...After the 2009 elections they (the Tories) held nearly half of all council seats...we (were) left with some 4,500 Labour councillors in the UK facing well over 9,000 Tories...Labour's share of the vote in European elections...(was) only 16 per cent in 2009....General Elections used to be a two horse race (between Labour and Tories)...(but reached) a new low last year (between these) of only 67 per cent...the lowest since 1922 when Labour first emerged as the main opposition to the Tories...We began 2010 with half as many individual members as we had twenty years ago and less than 40 per cent of our 1997 peak...members nowadays get involved less often in canvassing on doorsteps, delivering leaflets, attending meetings, signing petitions, or even displaying election posters...affiliated membership among unions linked to Labour has gone down too, from a peak of 6.5 million in 1979 to 4.6 million in 1992, and in 2010 just 2.7 million...(in 2010) Nearly 40 percent of voters decided which way to vote during the four week election campaign...The number of constituency parties represented at Conference fell from 527 in 2002 to 444 in 2009 and only 412 in 2010, or under two thirds the total entitled to attend."

(b) Seven Suggestions (my emphasis).

1." Some have suggested the delegate system could be abolished except perhaps for election to a CLP Executive which managed the administration of the Party. That would leave as the main agency for policy-making and direction of campaigning the regular meeting for all individual members and affiliated members - with the option of adding in registered supporters, maybe also with recognised consultee groups invited to take part where appropriate."

2."Online users confirm that the internet makes it easy to participate in civic and political affairs, such as by accessing websites, signing an e-petition or responding to a government e-consultation."

3."Local Labour Parties must work more closely with other civic activists and social entrepreneurs, building local alliances with community groups where we share a common sense of purpose."

4."... a successful renewal of Labour's bases demands councillors who are community orientated, not committee orientated, facing out from the town hall, to the community, not locked in the town hall remote from the electorate. That also requires breaking free of the large committee structures and rule-bound approach of Local Government Committees and large district or county borough parties - or even perhaps their abolition".

5."Our representatives are elected because they carry the Labour banner. There may be a case for adopting a code to which they all must adhere, requiring minimum levels of participation in Parliament or their Councils and engagement with local communities."

6."... the National Policy forum... where there are major options or disagreements...minority positions need to be routinely reported to the Annual Conference for final decisions."

7."The fundamental aim of our policy making process should be to support the Party in developing a policy programme which appeals to, and connects with, the electorate."

(c) A Dozen Questions (my emphasis).

1."...members...How do we better encourage their participation in campaigning?"

2."...how should CLPs and local branches be reorganised?"

3."How do we better engage affiliated trade union members with Labour locally and improve their relationship with Labour MPs, councillors and candidates?"

4."...local community groups...may contain many Labour supporters: how can these...be better linked with the party and our representatives locally?"

5."How do we strengthen the voice of members?..."How can we increase our membership...?"

6."Conference is the supreme decision-making body of the party. How do we make it more exciting and relevant, more responsible, less corporate?"

7."What can we do to support our members and local parties in debating policy?"

8."How do we decide which policy issues to focus on?"

9."Is the National Policy Forum the correct focal point for our policy discussions?"

10."What should be Annual Conference's role in deciding policy?"

11." How do we need to change the way we campaign to win in 2015?"

12."How can the candidate selection process be improved?"

There is also an important section entitled "Political education and training" which suggests holding an annual summer weekend 'Festival' plus "modules and courses that cover political education for new and especially young members, covering the history of socialist ideas and the labour movement..." (on this see Dronfield Blather's presentation on Political Eduction here.)

Act Now To Defend Iraqi Trade Unions.

2011-05-10T17:30:00.002+01:00

See here.

More details from Brendan Barber.

A Good Start

2011-05-05T20:00:00.004+01:00

Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Class 1980-83 at Hurst House, Chesterfield.

The meeting at Chesterfield on May Day about Adult Education went well. It was based on the experiences of the Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Classes which had run from 1952 to 1994.

40 people attended the meeting, which fitted in well with the fine facilities in the Council Council Chamber of the North East Derbyshire District Council. John Halstead a former Lecturer on the Day-Release Courses started the ball rolling by telling us about Michael Barratt Brown who came to run the whole range of Trade Union Day Release Classes on behalf of the Sheffield University Extramural Department and then went on to become the first Principle of the Northern College which caters for adult students. John then read out a well-appreciated May Day Message from Michael who is now 93 years old.

To provide time for discussion in the best adult education tradition, the three speakers spoke only for ten minutes each. First, John Burrows outlined his own experiences in the Derbyshire Coalfield which led him to attend the Day Release Classes and become an official at Area level in the NUM. Today he is leader of the Labour Group on the Chesterfield Borough Council. Whilst he pointed to the significance for himself and many others of the courses, he pointed out that they could not now be reproduced due to the decline of coal and of similar industries. Neverless, he felt it was an educational approach that needed to be re-established and adapted to radically changed circumstances. Secondly, Bob Heath spoke. As a miner he had attended the courses in the late 1950s before moving into full-time adult education at Ruskin College, then eventually returning to teach on the Derbyshire Miners' Courses themselves and become their Director of Studies. In the study of subjects such as industrial relations, economics and politics; he stressed the significance of examining serious ideas and theories which challenged one's own preconceptions. He saw our whole lives as being shaped by powers and influences; so that an intelligent, lifelong and questioning concern for such matters was needed to advance democratic arrangements and give them substance. Finally, Toby Perkins spoke. He is the Labour MP for Chesterfield and a Shadow Education Minister. He stressed the importance to society of it expanding its educational avenues so that people developed the skills that are needed to handle the demands of the modern world. This being done, at its best, when adults continued to be part of the process.

A steady and ready flow of questions and contributions followed from the floor of the meeting. Half way through this process an opportunity was provide for four bodies who were present with literature stalls and/or displays to outline the ongoing work of their organisations in the field of modern day adult education. These were (1) Post-16 Educator, (2) the Chesterfield Workers' Education Association operating from Hurst House and (3) Chesterfield's University of the Third Age and (4) an initiative associated with the Northern College. On the latter, Sue Rolstone explained the objectives of the Rolstone Heathfield Education Fund to develop annual conferences and study weekends in the areas of trade unionism, politics and campaigning. Sue is the widow of Peter Heathfield, who was both Secretary of the Derbyshire NUM and then of the full NUM itself. He had always showed the keenest interest in the work of the Derbyshire Miner's Day Release Courses and as John Burrows had pointed out earlier, Peter was the person who had encouraged him to join its classes. (For an update on John see here).

Whilst no specific plan of campaign emerged from the meeting, it had drawn together people with a key interest in the form of adult education which had operated for more than four decades in the North Derbyshire Coalfield. We are now in a better position to network together given our shared interests. For how we next seek to deliver on this potential - watch this space. In the meantime, there is plenty to chew over in this think-piece.

The May Day March In Chesterfield

2011-05-04T12:05:00.003+01:00

See the video.

Peter Ryley on "Death or Resurrection : the future of adult education"

2011-04-30T17:51:00.007+01:00

Peter Ryley sets the scene for our May Day Debate as advertised here.

The editorials are gloomy. Local authorities report a massive loss of places. The WEA wrestles with difficult funding rules. Education without accreditation is not funded and is treated as if it is of no significance. The education of older adults is being marginalised and left to the voluntary sector through the U3A. University adult education departments are closing.

So, where do you start a discussion of adult education today? How about with a celebration of its success? Yes, it has been a huge success; not merely popular, but loved. It is emancipatory, transforming people’s lives. What is more, modern education would not be where it is today without the pioneering work of adult educators. Let’s just think of some of the triumphs.

1. The stereotype of university solely as a place to go after leaving school still exists, but should be dead. Mature students make up more than half the numbers in Higher Education. It is no longer an exception to see adults on degree courses.

2. Access courses continue to flourish and are a recognised method of entry into higher education. The Open College Networks continue to provide alternative accreditation routes, specifically aimed at promoting adult learning at all levels.

3. The Open University continues to be an international exemplar of good practice and high standards.

4. The issue of class is firmly on the agenda in terms of access and equality of opportunity, even if it has been bureaucratised through OFFA and appears to aim at rescuing ‘talented’ individuals from their class rather than ending the process of the systematic exclusion of the working class as a whole.

5. Policy makers at least pay lip service to the concept of lifelong learning and make the linkage between it and economic and social development.

6. The health and social benefits of learning throughout life have been recognised.

Millions of people participate, millions enjoy it and for many it is a lifeline, a source of support and encouragement through the turning points their lives. It is popular, successful, and has played a major role in the development of education in Britain. So where is it? Where are the newspaper headlines? Where are the party policies and vigorous debates? Where are the campaigns designed to win the votes of these millions?

It isn’t just that other issues such as health, welfare and, right now, libraries are more salient. Paradoxically, the very success of adult education has helped to make it less visible. It now tends to be hidden within general education policy, rather than being treated as distinct. This has resulted in merging of institutions and the loss of separate adult education centres in favour of integrated and mainstreamed provision. Once that happens, adult education is transformed from a discrete service into a marginal and vulnerable part of larger institutions where it tends to be poorly understood.

That lack of understanding pervades the public arena. Adult educators are left floundering about how to make the case for something that seems to have slipped from view. Once one of the great left causes, it is now no more. Even worse, it is often derided by ignorant leftists as a middle class perk -‘flower arranging for the blue rinse brigade’ - rather than a central part of our social landscape.

It is true that some of it did fit this stereotype. And this has meant that affluent students are now part of a process of privatisation by stealth. Individual classes and tutors self-fund and thereby escape crippling bureaucracy and form exclusive social circles. Profitable and popular areas, such as creative writing, which were once used to cross-subsidise more difficult community outreach, have been cherry picked by, for instance, the publishers Faber and Faber, who now run their own Faber Academy for creative writing. This is all well and good, but where does it leave the rest? What happens to those who cannot afford private provision? What becomes of a comprehensive national service and of universal, open access?

This has created a problem; us adult educators have been struggling to find the language to describe the intrinsic worth of what we do. We search desperately for utilitarian justifications and in doing so indicate our weakness, our lack of confidence to assert that adult education is not merely of social or economic benefit, but is a universal human need and human right; the mark of a civilised society.

So how do we get a more confident view of adult education back on the agenda? It will take a long process of patient agitation and activism and I think that we have to ask ourselves a number of questions before we can proceed.

1. How do we describe adult education? How do we break away from pleading for funding as a supplicant to determinedly assert the provision of adult education as a right?

2. How do we make the case that formal and informal learning are not separate but are intrinsically linked?

3. How do we deal with the issue of ownership and control of services? After all, years of voluntary, municipal and government investment have been thrown away with no concern as to the impact on current staff and students, let alone on future generations. If there is one thing that the long process of contraction has shown, it is how utterly powerless adult educators and their students actually are.

4. Where do the boundaries of state and voluntary provision lie?

5. Finally, and this the central issue for us on the left, how do we rediscover, redefine and understand adult education as a popular cause? Harry Barnes’ and others former work with Derbyshire and Yorkshire miners is a reminder of the emancipatory nature of adult education, promoting social advancement and tapping into a long tradition of working class education.

And it is here that I would start my personal advocacy, drawing on the work of the pioneering adult educator and Scottish polymath, Patrick Geddes. Because that is where I ended up working, my focus would be on universities and their role in providing adult education. Geddes wrote about what he called the University Militant. This was not a precursor to Sixties sit-ins, instead it was the idea that the university, in the broadest sense of the word, is the driver of the intellectual development of a society, intrinsically linked to its communities and an open resource. At the moment we are seeing universities justify their high fees by rushing to become ever more like gated communities, importing the middle classes to be educated in some of our great cities, whilst a number of latter day Jude the Obscures gaze through the ornate ironwork, muttering about it ‘not being for the likes of us’.

University adult education was and still can be, if any survives, an alternative mission, one that opens the gates and does not simply teach ‘outside the walls’, but demolishes them. A university should be an open institution, a place of learning for all the community, one that invites people in and goes out to meet them. And by all the community, I mean all the community: employers, employees and trade unionists; people from council estates and Barratts estates; young and old, both role models for learning in their communities; and the poor, the homeless, the marginalised and offenders. The current model that sells higher education for its economic benefits will eventually run aground on the rocks of reality. My campaign would be for an inclusive system that sees education as of intrinsic worth rather than simply a route to a bigger payslip, and central to that would be adult education as community engagement. Doing this would mean abandoning the patronising language of aspiration raising and, instead, getting down to the hard work of meeting the aspirations that already exist, changing the institution to fit the people, rather than people to fit the institution. To my mind, this would be a progressive agenda that should be a part of any contemporary, progressive political movement and a starting point for the renaissance of an adult education that this time round will not be lost because of the whims of politicians.

Peter Ryley has worked in adult education for around thirty years in local authorities, further education colleges and, latterly, the University of Hull’s Centre for Lifelong Learning before taking early retirement following a restructure of the Centre. See here for his blog.

Important May Day Meeting In Chesterfield

2011-04-16T11:08:00.006+01:00

What Now For Adult Education? Lessons from the Derbyshire Miners.

A Discussion Meeting.

Speakers

Toby Perkins, Labour MP for Chesterfield and Shadow Education Minister

John Burrows, Leader of the Labour Group on Chesterfield Borough Council.

Bob Heath, former Director of Studies for the Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Courses.

Time

1.30 pm (after the May Day March and Rally)

Date

2^nd May, 2011

Venue

Council Chamber of the North East Derbyshire District Council, Saltergate, Chesterfield (Entrance and car parking facilities via the back of the building)

ALL WELCOME

Developments in North Africa and the Middle East

2011-04-13T15:37:00.017+01:00

Click into the above map of North Africa and the Middle East to obtain an enlarged version. This map was effectively used by Dr. Farhat Nofal at our discussion meeting on Sunday to illustrate the radical political developments which are taking part in this crucial area of the world.

Since only December, protests in Tunisia and Egypt have achieved revolutionary moves towards the establishment of democracy. Other protest movements have so far achieved a variety of results. Powerful protests and repression continue in Yemen which could soon see a dramatic transformation. Governmental changes have came about in efforts to try and contain protests in Jordan, Oman and even in Syria. There is the armed conflict in Libya. Major protests have also emerged in Algeria, Bahrain and Djibouti, whilst they have also re-emerged in Iran and Iraq. There is then the continuing turmoil in the Palestinian areas and with Israel. Whilst protest movements have also emerged in Morocco, the Western Sahara, Mauritania, the Sudan, Lebanon and even in the highly oppressive circumstances of Saudi Arabia. Whether these regimes are monarchical or republican, they tend to have functioned under dictatorial and mainly family control.

Whilst complexities exist due to divisions within Islam between Shia and Sunni influences, from the complexities of Western involvement, over widespread concern about the well-being of Arabs in Gaza and Western Bank and from the imperial interests of Iran and Turkey: democratic forces such as nascent trade union movements in the region are fully in need of our support.

For a breakdown of the 2010 - 2011 Middle East and North Africa Protests also see here.

Political Education and the Labour Party

2011-03-20T22:55:00.001Z

A Conference with the above title was held in Rotherham on Saturday. I suspect that a number of democratic socialists (but thankfully not all) were put off attending when they saw that it was organised by the local Rotherham MP Denis MacShane and that Gerald Kaufman and David Owen were key participants. For at first glance it looked like an anti-left stitch-up. And indeed this might have been part of its intention.

The title of the Conference refers to the General Elections which followed Ramsay MacDonald setting up a National Government, the Attlee Government running out of steam and Michael Foot becoming leader of the Labour Party. These elections led to Labour being in a minority position in parliament for three periods which each spanned between 13 and 14 years.

The implications behind the title being that to avoid such periods in the wilderness, Labour should have stuck behind Ramsay MacDonald, obtained a more dynamic leader than Attlee if Bevanism was to have been nipped in the bud, and just never ever have acquired Michael Foot as leader as he was a loser. The conclusion which is thought to follow from such an approach is that a right wing New Labour agenda is needed in current circumstances.

But as we had a seven hour day with only short breaks and contributions from a series of independently minded academics, Polly Toynbee and others, plus audience participation; other lessons emerged. In fact in the concluding comments of the day from Andrew Gamble a Professor of Politics at Cambridge, he pointed out that the most telling collapse of Labour support emerged in the 1970s and not in the three periods stressed in the title. He could have added that in the ten General Elections from 1974 the Labour vote has only twice topped the 40% mark, yet this level was comfortably surpassed in all the nine post-war elections which proceeded that date. Perhaps if all that talk in the Labour Movement in the early 70s about developing a Social Contact had actually led to the development of a social bond that would have moved us in the direction of sharing, decency and social equality, then our support would not have fallen below the 30% mark in 1983 and 2010.

We were in danger of being provided with a selective one sided diet of the left's failings, covering Jimmy Maxton, Nye Bevan, Michael Foot, past Communist Trade Union leaders, the Ban the Bomb movement, Tony Benn and Militant. But this would hardly amount to a serious analysis. An early contributor David Howell pointed out that Labour support in 1945 was particularly strong amongst first time voters, which covered all those who had not qualified to vote in the previous General Election which was then way back in 1935. This was a cohort of voters who went on to help sustain the Labour vote in numbers of other early post-war elections. The question this leads to is just where can we find such a cohort today who have a clear interest in sharing and equality? What about today's young voters who are concerned about Student Fees, the loss of the Educational Maintenance Allowance, a lack of jobs, a world facing massive shortages of essentials, the dangers of climate change and the horrors of third world poverty? If we bring the young on board on such issues we do more than gain a political advantage, we help to revitalise our own beliefs.

Any conference which provides scope for the dialectics of debate, soon moves out of the realm of political propaganda into that of much needed world of political education; something which invariably takes over when carefully expressed disputes and disagreements arise. Even the anti Michael Foot line which was pressed by Kaufman and Owen, provides scope for countervailing considerations. Just why in 1983 did Michael Foot's leadership produce the worst percentage turn out for Labour of any General Election since 1922? Was it all due to his unilateralism, his duffle coat and his left-wing credentials? What about the knock on consequences of Thatcher running a highly populist and successful military campaign over the Falklands, and then there was the massive rupture within the Labour Party which led to the formation of the SDP? David Owen was at the centre of the breakaway and bares a major share of that responsibility for that 1983 election result.

Around 15 speakers made contributions, numbers of whom had sufficient interest in the topic to join the rest of us in the audience over the seven hours. I have always believed that speakers should also be listeners. Even when Hestor Barron confined her remarks to the experience in Durham Mining Constituencies in the 1930s, my concentration did not drop. But then she was discussing the area of my roots and I have read her book on the Durham Coalfield at the time of the 1926 Strike.

The day revealed an important issue for Labour if it is ever to maintain its future and reach its potential. It needs political education, political education, political education. So it is all power to Denis MacShane's elbow. He may have helped to produce something that has more significance than anything he probably ever had in mind.

What Now For Adult Education? Lessons from Derbyshire's Miners

2011-03-15T11:49:00.000Z

Some of the members of a group of Derbyshire Miners in 1960 who have just completed a three year Day Release Course. They are presenting miners' lamps to their tutors who are the men wearing glasses. On the left is Noel Williams of the Workers Education Association who taught economics and on the right is the politics tutor Royden Harrison from Sheffield University Extramural Department who was a leading Labour Historian and whose final book was to be "The Life and Times of Sidney and Beatrice Webb : 1858 to 1905 the Formative Years". From left to right, the students are Les Ralley who became a leading figure on both his local District and Parish Councils, a 27 year old Eric Varley who four years later was to embark upon his parliamentary career and became a Cabinet Minister, W. Whitaker, E. Lawrence presenting the lamps, E. Bradbury and N. Wade. The nature and significance of such courses is indicated below. A meeting is to be held on May Day in Chesterfield to discuss how far the tradition they were part of can be revitalised in modern circumstances. Details of the meeting appear at the close.

Under Bert Wynn who was Secretary of the Derbyshire Miners, a programme of Day Release Classes was established in 1952. These continued in operation for the next four decades, but finally ended as a consequence of the closure of the local pits. Miners attending studied subjects such as industrial relations, economics and politics.

A new class of 20 miners was established each year. They came to span a three year period and involved a total attendance of 120 days. The tutors on the courses came from the Sheffield University Extramural Department. The Derbyshire Miners having an agreement with the National Coal Board (NCB) to release their members from work to attend the classes.

Those attending required no prior educational qualifications; nor were any exams, tests nor marks ever provided. However, because the supply of places on the courses was always outstripped by the demand, selection conferences were held in the Miners Offices on Saltergate by the tutors where the applicants met together in discussion groups and participated in a note-taking exercise. A Saturday morning class also came to be run for those who it was felt would benefit from a preparatory development of their student skills; many of these miners moved onto the full Day Release Courses and made highly effective use of the abilities they had developed.

The miners on the courses also engaged in private study and produced a steady stream of written work. After their time on the courses, the participants went on to make a variety of uses of their studies. Some becoming more deeply involved in the work of the National Union of Mineworkers, other progressed through the NCB, numbers became involved in the work of the wider labour movement including those who became local councillors, whilst the late Eric Varley and Denis Skinner became local MPs, others moved into full-time studies at Adult Education Colleges and then often went on to obtain degrees at University before taking up posts such as social workers, educationalists and full-time trade union officials. Others remained in their established roles in their communities, taking their newly developed interests with them and also influencing communal developments.

I was lucky to be a tutor on the courses for 21 years from 1966, before becoming a local MP for a further 18 years. I have always claimed that the standard and seriousness of the investigations in the classes was more substantial than was the general run of my experiences in parliament. This is because serious adult education is about making well thought out judgements on complex issues, whilst parliamentary politics is too often about point scoring.

The pattern which was established in Derbyshire was pursued elsewhere. The Extramural Department were involved with similar courses in areas such as the South Yorkshire Coalfield, the Steel Industry, the railways, engineering and with Shop Stewards Courses which drew people together from differing firms.

It was not, however, just because of the decline of large industries mainly concentrated in the public sector, that such courses were ended. Another pattern of adult education (which had always had its own separate existence) took over but was manipulated under Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately, it became a growing trend that was then pushed under New Labour. What remained of day-release work was often placed under the influence of employers, whose interests were to see their workers being trained to undertake tasks strictly relevant to their employment duties. More emphasis was placed upon adults attending courses in their own time, which would be carefully accredited to meet specific and limited purposes. Certification became the order of the day. The way for adults to progress via education came to be seen as requiring studies to be broken up into specific and limited modules and tested at each stage, so they could act as stepping stones (or some would say stumbling blocks) to higher qualifications. The scope for investigating key issues about life and society were restricted and were seen as secondary. The old form of equality and socialising between tutors and students, in which each learnt from the other, was seen as being unnecessary. Increasingly course fees were expected to cover the bulk of the provision of adult education.

It is not that there should be no room for some forms of today's dominant trend in adult education, but it should never have happened at the expense of the invaluable approach which the Derbyshire Miners had participated in and developed.

Nothing in life is, however, ever too late. Some of us have always attempted to replicate something of what used to be called the liberal education tradition by running and attending a variety of discussion groups. But it is now time to campaign for what was taken away from us. We are not alone in this.

Why not join us at the meeting advertised below? Former participants in the Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Classes will be present. But we know that we can't somehow just try to re-cycle the past. It is a matter for all of us to seek new ways in which what was once achieved in a period from the 1950s can be refashioned to meet the challenging conditions of the 21^st Century. We owe many debts to Coal Mining in Derbyshire; serious adult education is one of them.

What Now For Adult Education? Lessons from the Derbyshire Miners.

A Discussion Meeting.

Speakers

Toby Perkins, Labour MP for Chesterfield and Shadow Education Minister

John Burrows, Leader of the Labour Group on Chesterfield Borough Council.

Bob Heath, former Director of Studies for the Derbyshire Miners' Day Release Courses.

Time

1.30 pm (after the May Day March and Rally)

Date

2^nd May, 2011

Venue

Council Chamber of the North East Derbyshire District Council, Saltergate, Chesterfield

ALL WELCOME

A Labour Charter For Young People - A Discussion Paper

2011-03-10T22:48:00.002Z

A document of this form is being presented for discussion at Labour Party Branch level. If its contents are considered to be worthy of further action, it can then be forwarded for consideration at Constituency, District Party and then national level.

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and genuinely is the only political party of the people of the United Kingdom. It has a long history of service given to the nation. We are committed to the continued improvement of society, both at home and abroad. In particular as a Party we are dedicated to continue our work to abolish poverty both here and elsewhere. These are not easy tasks, nor are they empty promises. In order to achieve these goals we shall have to confront and control many obstacles. For these tasks we shall remain steadfast in the struggle to reach our objectives.

Whilst we appear as a Party to be in good heart, we should be concerned that our base of support remains too narrow for Labour to win outright victories in the future. What we need is to begin a process of continuous engagement with Youth Organisations and Student Unions, with a view to drawing up a Labour Charter for Young People, to get the youth of the country to join with Labour in a united way to confront the many challenges which lie ahead.

Ensuring the well being of young people today and in the future is no easy task, nor will it be a straightforward task for the Labour Party. The issues to be confronted are central to the tasks facing Labour when it is re-elected. These include, huge housing problems at a time when we are building less houses than at any time since the early 1920s, mass unemployment, an ageing population with a pensions crisis, the problem of climate change and a decline in natural resources and even greater famines in the future. These are all issues which are a major concern for young people.

As things stand, young people are not really included in our political debates, yet all of the issues mentioned above will have a major impact on their futures. Labour has to include young people in its vital discussions on the future of our country and our place in tomorrow's world. Labour needs the energy of our young people, we need their vital spirit of idealism if we are to meet the today's challenges and if we are truly to reform society. Labour cannot achieve what it can, without the support and involvement of the young.

From Ken Curran, Chair Birley Labour Party in Sheffield. Chair Sheffield Branch of the C0operative Party. Please discuss and comment.

My own view on the way forward is for Labour to set up its own Ministry for Youth with the specific remit of preparing policy proposals for the next Labour Government to act upon. Such proposals should be drafted as a result of a wide ranging exercise involving as many Youth Clubs, Student Unions, Youth Workers and Community Groups as possible. Once the work is completed the Party should call a special conference which would consider its report for final approval; with the National Executive of the Party and the Shadow Cabinet holding prior meetings to make their own assessments of the proposals.

The future challenges which lies ahead for our young people are huge. They are confronting a cocktail of challenges which are wider than for any past generation. Labour desperately needs young people with the energy and desire to build a better world. In the recent past politicians have been preoccupied with finding short term solutions to long term problems. The knee-jerk politics of the Blair-Brown era lacked a long term vision of the kind of society we were supposed to be creating. Short term thinking does not produce long term solutions, the nature of the many problems which our young people shall have to tackle in the years ahead requires long term and well thought out solutions. Labour can no longer think in terms of Parliamentary Sessions in order to deal with long term problems. If we believe that the depth and seriousness of our problems will take 5, 10 or 15 years to begin to tackle, then it is better to show this than to camouflage the facts. We have to prepare programmes capable of achieving objectives, and at the same time campaign for that period in order to take the policies forward.

In order to secure the long term support of our young people, Labour shall need to give certain guarantees in return for our Contract with Young People. It is reported that 650,000 young people who should either be at school or in Colleges are instead wandering the streets. Labour needs to offer young people proper jobs, education rights, housing, access to sports activities and events, concessions to cinemas, theatre and travel; all in return for their participation in stimulating civic service activities. The above issues should form part of Labour's Charter for Youth. With the support and involvement of young people, we shall be able to face the future.

LET US FACE THE FUTURE TOGETHER........................... KEN CURRAN

The Future Of Food And Farming

2011-03-10T17:22:00.004Z

The above title is given to a special report produced by Government Scientists and Government Advisers, which was commissioned by Gordon Brown's Labour Administration in 2009. On 24 January, 2011 the report was presented to both the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of International Development by Sir John Beddington the Chief Government Scientist. The report and related material can be found here.

The report deserves to be taken seriously, although the Government's response failed to match up to the depths of the concerns it expressed. The most alarming findings being that by 2050, we shall need 40% more food, 30% more fresh water and 50% more energy. The report warns us to expect food riots and social unrest. It draws attention to an ever growing world (and local) population growth placing huge burdens on the earth's natural resources and concludes that developments cannot be sustained. The combination of climate change, the growth in population and market forces are creating conditions which will produce world wide chaos.
We should take a proactive approach in order to meet these serious threats to humanity. We can at least write, email and otherwise put pressure upon MPs, Euro MPs and officialdom generally to get them to play their part in helping to create a better and safer world.

The Labour Party has to develop a wider political landscape for itself, at present it is consumed by the cuts crisis in Local Government and reforms to the NHS. Important as these are, we cannot ignore this report. If we do so, we do this at our peril. For as the report states "we face the perfect storm".

Ken Curran, Sheffield District Labour Party and Chair of Sheffield Branch of the Co-operative Party.

Council Leader of the Year - a regular at our meetings

2011-02-15T11:41:00.000Z

Councillor Graham Baxter MBE has been declared Council Leader of the Year in recognition of his dedication to ‘making a real difference to the lives of local people.'

The annual “Councillor Achievement Awards”, presented by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) are the top accolade for the country’s 20,000 councillors who serve over 400 district, county, city and metropolitan local authorities across England and Wales.

Cllr Baxter - who was described as 'visionary' by judges - has served as a member for Dronfield North on North East Derbyshire District Council for 28 years, and has been Leader of the Council since 2004.

The award recognises his transformational leadership which saw the council undergo rapid improvements, from being classed as ‘weak’ by the Government in 2004 to ‘excellent’ in 2008 - the fastest turnaround in local government history.

Since 2008 North East Derbyshire has twice between nominated as the country’s Most Improved Council at the national Local Government awards (in 2009 and 2011), and last week it announced plans to form an alliance with Bolsover District Council – sharing senior managers in a move that would enable both authorities to protect key frontline services in the light of cuts to their Government grants.

In presenting the award to Cllr Baxter at a ceremony in London on 8 February, Chief Executive of the LGiU Andy Sawford said: “He is a leader who has a belief in open government, community involvement and transformation. During his six years as leader he has shown strength of character and determination to provide excellent services that make a real difference to the lives of local citizens.

“The shortlist was exemplary, however the judges felt that of all the nominees Cllr Baxter’s leadership has brought about evidence of real transformation. He has really stepped up to the role of being Leader and brought clear vision to the Council.”

Cllr Baxter said: “This is a real honour but it would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of all councillors and officers at North East Derbyshire District Council.

“We have a great team approach at the council and this spirit will be crucial to the challenging months and years ahead as we focus on protecting services for local people in the light of the tough financial climate.”

Socialism Not Isolationism (by Ken Curran)

2010-12-03T17:30:00.002Z

Parliament In The Dark

Monday' Opposition Day Debate in the Commons on the Coalition's massive cuts which are planned in central grants to local authorities over the next four years, provides an opportunity for Labour to point out the global nature of the current financial crisis. For it is the overall economic climate which is used by the Government to attack public spending.

It is time, however, for Labour to tell some home truths. The economic crisis arose thanks to an ignorance in economic and financial affairs by politicians of all political parties. Not just in Britain but world wide. The role of the banks was the stimulus in creating the crisis. A sign of blindness and ignorance at the size of the gathering storm.

Labour should look seriously at itself afresh, for at one time it believed that capitalism had the potential to lead us into just such an economic and social disaster. To ignore the history of the part played by the banks over the 1920s and 30s beggars belief. We have to admit that Labour played a major part in creating the crisis. Whilst Gordon Brown eventually took steps to try and avoid a total collapse of world trade, we still remain in a position of great uncertainty.

Politicians of different shades appear to behave as if they understand the nature of the beast they are attempting to tame, yet increasing numbers of the general public are beginning to doubt whether any of them know what they are talking about. Public doubts about the quality and nature of our democracy are not surprising given the nature of the performance of many of our MPs in recent years. It will take more than one election to erase the memories of the expenses scandal. There is the disgrace of the recent behaviour of Nick Clegg over the question of Student Fees in his signing the Student's Petition whilst at the same time his colleague Danny Alexander was in secret talks with the Tories about the possibility of going into coalition with them if a hung parliament arose. Clegg and his colleagues deceived a generation of young people, many of them voting for the first time. Clegg has done an enormous damage to politicians and the concept of democracy as well as to his own Party.

Acting alone the Labour Party can not substantially alter the performance of the global market even to fulfil its own modest demands. Labour and other Democratic Socialist Parties need to act in concert in order to mount the maximum pressure upon the world's financial system. It is misleading the electorate to claim that the practices of the global market can be dealt with in isolation.

I see political isolationism as the great fault line in Social Democratic thinking. It is the biggest obstacle to creating a stable economic economy. This is perhaps the reason why Social Democrats fail to maintain and sustain electoral success.

The decline in the influence of Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist Parties across the world is due to the lack of a collective vision and a collective message. These parties continually sing from different hymn sheets. It is hardly the best way to sell an alternative message. It gives the electorate the impression that we know what we are against, but not what we are for.

I accept that in the course of political debate differences of approach and opinion will emerge. All of us have a duty to conduct ourselves in a responsible manner. Unfortunately in the recent past some who are (or have been regarded themselves) as leading members of the Labour Party have only been too keen to speak to the media as though they were the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom in our movement.
The preview by the Guardian of Ed Miliband's address to the National Policy Forum as he unveils his Policy Enquiries pointed out that he would warn that the same old stance will not restore trust in the Party. He promises that the Party will engage in what he describes as a million conversations to reconnect to a disillusioned public. Perhaps there is the chance of a Renaissance of Labour. New Labour led us into what eventually turned into a minefield. Our leaders disregarded our Party Values. Some even indulged themselves in behaviour unbecoming to a Party of high ideals. Let us hope that we emerge from the morass, some of which has been our own doing. We can learn from our past mistakes and still build on the ideals of Keir Hardie (photo above, addressing a rally at Trafalgar Square), Clem Attlee, Nye Bevan, Barbara Castle, Robin Cooke and many more. They all had their faults, but none of them would have advocated CASINOS as a means of improving society.

Ken Curran, Sheffield District Labour Party, Chair Sheffield Branch of the Co-op Party.

How Is Labour To Become The "People's Party" Again ?

2010-11-27T20:10:00.003Z

Ed Miliband (above) has called on Labour activists to take the term 'big society' back from the Conservatives and for Labour to become the "people's party" again.

Launching a major policy review, he said the party must move beyond New Labour to reconnect with the public's aspirations after "losing its way". See here for the details. Then see here for his earlier letter to the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group.

This policy review will be at the centre of our next Discussion Meeting which is to be addressed by Richard Caborn (below). For details of that meeting see our right hand column.

What Matters Most Is How We Think

2010-11-20T10:55:00.001Z

Our last discussion meeting was addressed by Danny Dorling (see photo) and was previewed here.

His telling talk covered the subject matter of his fine book "Injustice : Why Social Equality Persists" which was published earlier this year.

Danny stimulated a fine discussion and a lot of serious thinking. Thirty people attended on a Sunday evening and there was general agreement on the significance of the meeting.

Earlier he was interviewed for the radio programme "Little Atoms". Just click here to listen to the telling nature of what he has to say. In his book he argues "...what matters most is how we think". Stimulating the type of thinking he is after is, of course, exactly what our discussion meetings are about. So we could not have had a better speaker. We now know much better what we are up to.

The Business of the Committee

2010-11-15T21:00:00.003Z

This is Natascha Engel our local MP in North East Derbyshire. Soon after the General Election, the Commons established its first ever Backbench Business Committee and Natascha was elected in a ballot by MPs from both sides of the House to serve as Chair of the new Committee. Towards the end of the last Parliament a vigorous debate took place in the Commons as to whether such a Committee should be established and, if so, what its make-up and powers should be. In December, Natascha addressed our Discussion Meeting on the issue. As a consequence, over the following three months we ran a series of items on the matters involved which can be found here, here, here and here. Natascha has written an article on the role and workings of the new Committee which is published today in the MPs' own journal "The House Magazine". This is a crucial update on an issue which our discussion group has carefully been following. The purpose of this present item is to provide a link to her own key update. It can be found here. On the 18th of November 2010 she also made a speech on the issue shown in this video.

Unbelievabubble

2010-11-15T16:36:00.001Z

For a description of what happened at 10 Downing Street the day that Margaret Thatcher resigned, this is not to be missed. It gives hope for those working for the end of the present Coalition Government.

I first found out about Thatcher's resignation in the cloakroom of the House of Commons when a gleeful Tory MP, the late Geoffrey Johnson Smith beckoned me over to read the news on a teleprinter. He was a Tory who certainly wasn't crying. He was as joyful as a Sunderland Supporter who had just watched his team win 3-0 at Chelsea. How many Tories will be like that when the Coalition ends?

Injustice : Why Social Inequality Persists

2010-11-02T22:45:00.002Z

Daniel Dorling is Professor of Human Geography at Sheffield University. Earlier this year Policy Press published his latest book "Injustice : Why Social Inequality Persists". He is to address the next meeting of the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group on this key topic at 8pm on Sunday, 14 November.

Simon Jenkins has described him as "Geographer Royal by Appointment to the Left".

Richard Wilkinson co-author of "The Spirit Level" states "beliefs which serve privilege, elitism and inequality infect our minds like computer viruses. But now Dorling provides the brain-cleaning software we need to begin creating a happier society".

His book has also been described as "at least the equal of The Spirit Level" in this review. Whilst Nancy Krieger of the Harvard School of Public Health states "for injustice to flourish, inequality must appear as natural, normal, innate and inevitable. Danny Dorling, in this impassioned, empirical, and hopeful book, skewers ideologies that justify injustice - and reminds us that a necessary step towards creating a better world is collectively imagining it is possible."

Daniel Dorling who undermines the five modern tenets of injustice, viz:

•elitism is efficient;
•exclusion is necessary;
•prejudice is natural;
•greed is good; and
•despair is inevitable.

If I Was Labour's Leader...

2010-09-30T19:39:00.005+01:00

If I were Labour's newly elected leader in addition to seeing the need to rebuild the Labour Party to become a mass party with wide support in society, I would at the same time seek to internationalise the debate on what democratic socialism means and get beyond our domestic scene.

Trying to tame or regulate capitalism from our own perspective is not possible. Nor is it possible to influence changes in public behaviour sufficiently over climate change, future famines and shortages of water and raw materials unless we seek to internationalise the debate. This is why we need to start a wide debate with fellow democratic socialists in order to develop an international strategy.

In a blog item at Labour List which I otherwise identify with, there is no mention by Jon Wilson of "Labour Values" of the need for an international dialogue on either the banking crisis or climate change and its attendant problems such as drought and famine. Whilst unlike George Monbiot (the Guardian's Climate Change Correspondent) who accepts the inevitability of being unable to sufficiently influence world opinion on these matters, I believe that as socialists we can and must continue to pursue the long term objective of defeating ignorance, famine and poverty.
The last phase of the Climate Change debate in Copenhagen ended in failure due to the influences of capitalist doctrines. We must combine together with as many men and women as possible of political goodwill across the globe to confront the forces of greed, which regrettably the banks and many other institutions across the globe have come to represent. Unfortunately the Social Democrats and Socialists have lost political power in many countries across Europe. I believe that this is largely due to them losing their way in the same manner as New Labour.

Democratic Socialism and Global Capitalism are not natural bedfellows. Capitalism is the antithesis of Democratic Socialism. This is not my being doctrinaire, but genuinely stating a fact. In the same way science tells us that oil and water don't mix, you cannot get socialism and capitalism to blend. But one can exercise controls over the other.

So even if we accept that capitalism has produced technical advances which have at times benefited temporally privileged groups of people, then we have to finds ways to see that such benefits go to all people throughout the world. Substantial controls, restraints, redirection and transformation have to be placed on the writ of capitalism if we are to start to save the world and make it safer for future generations. Changes that we will have to work on continuously to produce a situation that enables us to develop a world which is finally free from the dominance of capitalism's greed and exploitation.

We all have our own histories and cultures, but the thing we now have and share in common is the currently uncontrollable behaviour of global capitalism. If we don't find solutions to control that behaviour, then I do fear the worst for humanity.

We can't, however, just depend on one set of regulations to control global capitalism. As John Kay said in the Financial Times on September 14th this year -"Serious reform must begin with a realistic assessment of what regulations can achieve. Regulations can observe compliance with prescribed procedures - and that is really what they mostly do - but have a very limited ability or opportunity to assess what behaviour is prudent." Only eternal vigilance and understanding can shape what regulations are needed when.

The new generation of politicians which Ed Miliband speaks of have some enormous challenges that require their urgent attention. For humanities sake they must not fail. Room for manoeuvre in today's world is very limited. I repeat my earlier warning in Dronfield Blather, Global Capitalism left to its own devices has the potential to kill the human race.

Ken Curran, Chair Sheffield Co-operative Party and Sheffield District Labour Party.

Dronfield's Message From Ed Miliband

2010-09-25T19:32:00.003+01:00

During the campaign for the election of the new Labour Leader, Dronfield Blather received the following letter from Ed Miliband. We have added links to the items from his web-site which he refers us to.

"Thank you for your letter and the views of the signatories to the statement you attach. I agree that we need now to have a serious discussion about what we got wrong in Government, and how we should stand up to the Coalition while preparing for a return to power. I have said repeatedly that I believe we need to put our core values at the heart of everything we do.

Early on in the campaign I set out my vision for the future direction of our Party, which I hope meets the requirements for your Manifesto of Intent. In a speech in Leeds, I reflected on the reasons behind our defeat in May and set out how we can learn lessons and reach out to the country again. A few weeks later, I gave a speech outlining how the Labour Party can adapt to 21st social democracy, to become a living, breathing party of progressive change. You can find both of these speeches on my website www.edmiliband.org

It could be a long road to the next General Election, but the change has to start now. In Government we sometimes seemed to lose a sense of the values that should always shape Labour's mission. As leader, I would put these values back at the heart of everything we do.

I want to lead a Party that actively turns its values into reality, to improve people's lives. We need to be ready to offer a better vision to the electorate. We need to have already shown by our actions and arguments that Britain needs a different kind of economy in which new manufacturing and small businesses are prized.

We can only do that by listening to our party and building a movement for change. I would appreciate your support to make this happen.

With best wishes,
Ed Miliband."

Lib Dems Crash In Dronfield

2010-09-24T22:45:00.005+01:00

The Lib Dems suffered a crushing defeat in yesterday's District Council By-election in the Gosforth Valley Ward of the North East Derbyshire District Council.

In this three seater in 2007 the average results of the Political Parties were Lib Dems 51.1%, Tories 30.0% and Labour 18.9%.

The By-election was a contest for a single seat. The Liberal Vote fell dramatically to 31.3%, the Tories took 37.1% and Labour moved into second place with 31.6%.

The Liberal percentage vote fell by 19.8% with 7.1% of these going to the Tories and 12.7% to Labour. The Liberal swing to Labour was almost twice as strong as the swing to the Tories.

Although the turnout dropped substantially from 36% in 2007 to 26%, the Labour vote actually increased from a previous average of 315 to 354. It was its best ever result in the ward.

Whilst Labour only moved into 2nd place by 4 votes, it overtook the Lib Dems who had had an average lead over them of no less than 563 in 2007.

If the By-election had been fought under the Alternative Vote, then the Lib Dems would have been eliminated and their second choices redistributed between Labour and the Tories. Labour would have needed just 207 of the potential 350 transferred votes to ensure victory. That is under 3 in 5 of the transfers.

Don't Gamble With The Future

2010-09-07T19:00:00.006+01:00

On the 3rd of September I attended a demonstration called by the Sheffield Trade Union Council. This was in the form of a public meeting outside the Town Hall. This was a protest demonstration against the Con-Lib Dem Coalition's budget to address the current financial situation. A crisis brought about by the free market, no rules capitalism that has spread across the world over the past decade. The demonstration was supported by the Sheffield District Labour Party, Sheffield Labour Councillors, Paul Bloomfield MP for Sheffield Central, Sheffield Green Party, Youth Workers (92 of whom are to lose their jobs as a result of budget cuts), Sheffield Pensioners Action Group, hospital workers worried about the future of the NHS, school teachers and government workers from various offices across the City.

The crowd numbered 500 or more. This was a good turnout for a Friday early evening 5.30pm demonstration in the kind of hedonistic pleasure seeking City Sheffield is tending to these days. "Forget the problems of the world and lets have another drink" seems to be the prevailing culture. We tend to live in an anaesthetised society. Drink, drugs, television, sport, entertainment; each one diverts the mind. Reality cannot be faced, because the facts are too stark! That said it was a pleasant surprise that over 500 people turned up for the event from different walks of life. For over an hour we were able to make "common cause" and unite against the very nature of the greedy and increasingly intolerant society Britain has become.

After a decade of near silence (apart from electioneering and leafleting) the Sheffield District Labour Party are once more beginning to participate in the protests and street politics of the City. Over the years of New Labour they found themselves bound hand and foot by the Machiavellian machinations of Blairism. The great lesson which I hope has or is being learnt is that even when Labour is in office, still the Party has an important role beyond campaigning for Labour Candidates. That role is to act as a conduit for feeding into the Party the views of the people, not acting in the way Blairites had of only listening to those who had been carefully vetted. That became part of the great undoing of Gordon Brown when he ran into Mrs Duffy of Rochdale. This told him what Labour canvassers were facing on a daily basis. Ordinary party members ought to be the political watchdogs of the Party, feeding in to the Party public opinion, not just sending out the latest "On Message" so slavishly followed, even though as individuals we have little faith in the message.

One of the problems that Labour faces within the Party is tolerance, for those who feel they need to question the Party bureaucracy, policy or our elected representatives. Instead they are often regarded as trouble-makers or heaven forbid extremists. What these prevalent attitudes clearly identify is the need for some fundamental political education in the Party over what Democratic Socialism is all about. Without this basic knowledge, discussion remains at a very primitive level.
In Sheffield and elsewhere people are joining the Party, even some of our old disgruntled members are returning. We must ensure they are joining a political party that has or is genuinely learning from its past mistakes. Tony Blair's book A Journey tells a story that should be an object lesson to us all. How could a mentally dysfunctional messianic person rise to become leader of the Labour Party? While Labour did achieve some good things under his very strange form of leadership, by far the greatest beneficiaries of his years of Premiership has been Mr and Mrs Blair. Only Blair in his first year as Labour Leader described himself as the New Keir Hardie, when in effect he was the direct opposite.Returning to the subject of the September 3rd demonstration, I was struck by the significance of the date. It was on September 3rd 1939 when Britain declared war on Nazi Germany. Here we were declaring our own personal war against not just the Tory-LibDem Coalition Government, but on the very serious world-wide financial system. A system which has created a world-wide free market and a few-rules system, which has a far greater risk than anything envisaged by Karl Marx. Global Capitalism left to its own devices has the potential of killing off the human race. As the late Tony Judt wrote in the opening paragraph of his very last book in 2009 Ill Fares The Land, "We can no longer continue to live our lives like this". I now write that Mankind has but a short time to respond positively and effectively. If the destruction of our natural environment and humanity itself is to be avoided!

This is a greater challenge than the Second World War which took over six weary years.

Food for thought - aimimg to provide food for humanity.

From Ken Curran, Chair Sheffield Co-operative Party Branch. Chair Manor & Castle Development Trust. Sheffield District Labour Party.

Manifestos Of Intent - Read These Before You Vote.

2010-08-26T10:52:00.004+01:00

UPDATED AND ADJUSTED 29 AUGUST - THE FOLLOWING NOW INCLUDES MANIFESTO MATERIAL FROM ALL 5 CANDIDATES IN THE LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTION.

On 16 June we commenced a campaign to get the candidates in the Labour Leadership Election to issue what we called "Manifestos of Intent".

As time went on we came to feel that these Manifestos should be published at least a week before the ballot papers were due to be issued to members of the Labour Party. That made yesterday the deadline.

We are now able to present these Manifestos or provide relevant links to the candidates own web-sites where they have previously published this material themselves.

We cover each candidate in alphabetical order.

*****

DIANE ABBOTT

People’s Economic Strategy

We need to rebalance the economy away from an over reliance on financial services and the City. I would have a new approach: a manufacturing strategy; investment in infrastructure; support for the Green New Deal and a renewed commitment to regional economic development.

The Coalition’s savage cuts are not inevitable, they are ideological. And they are not the solution. We have to grow our way out of this recession. Instead, I would raise billions from a financial transactions tax and a bigger bank levy, and by cracking down on tax evasion. Why should ordinary families pay for bankers’ irresponsibility and greed?

Liberty is crucial to our democracy

Liberty is crucial to democracy and we need to take back the civil liberties agenda. Basic rights and freedoms will help to bind 21st century Britain together.

I was against compulsory ID Cards, anti trade union laws, 42 and 90 days detention without trial. I also argued against holding children in immigration detention centres. All my life I have campaigned to protect innocent people’s rights. I oppose the indiscriminate collection of innocent people’s DNA.

There is no contradiction between keeping Britain safe and protecting our basic rights and freedoms.

A Strong Welfare State That Protects The Most Vulnerable

I oppose cuts to pensions, benefits and welfare. These cuts will disproportionately affect women. A strong welfare state is a vital safety net. We must invest in the welfare state to increase social mobility.

The coalition wants to take security of tenure from council tenants and slash housing benefit. Thousands could find themselves homeless.

I would have the biggest programme of council house building since the war. It would meet housing need, ease social tensions over housing, create thousands of jobs and generate growth.

An Ethical Foreign Policy

I am the only candidate who argued, marched and voted against the Iraq War. I will set a timetable for the withdrawal from Afghanistan. We must work more closely with our European allies and the United Nations.

Trident is a Cold War weapon. It will not keep us safe. Strength in the modern world for the nation state is about diplomacy, development and aid. It is not about wasting billions on nuclear weapons we will never use. I will scrap the Trident nuclear weapons system.

Despite our current economic challenges, we should continue Labour’s proud tradition of reaching out to help the very poorest internationally.

Public Services For The People

The Labour party should be proud of its historic support for the public sector.We are the party of the National Health Service. But under New Labour there was too much creeping privatisation.

Public sector workers are at the heart of our communities. We should value them more. Why should they lose their jobs because some bankers gambled with other people’s money?

I would bring the railways back into public ownership. This would be a pragmatic step and would make it easier to invest in the infrastructure, help create green alternatives and jobs and brings profit back to the people.

This is her campaign web-site.

*****

ED BALLS

We have received this email from Ed Ball's Campaign Office -

Ed Balls has set out his Manifesto position "in the mailing to all party members .....which includes a mini-manifesto section on policy, plus a number of pledges re the Party itself. This can be read and downloaded here.

Ed’s speech at Bloomberg yesterday fleshes out the economic side of this in more detail and can be found here."

This is his campaign web-site.

*****

ANDY BURNHAM

He published his Manifesto entitled "Aspirational Socialism" on his web-site on Monday. We reported on it here. It is some 9,000 words long and can be viewed and downloaded here. This is the home page of his campaign web-site.

*****

ED MILIBAND

We received the following letter from Ed Miliband and have added links to the items from his web-site which he refers us to.

"Thank you for your letter and the views of the signatories to the statement you attach. I agree that we need now to have a serious discussion about what we got wrong in Government, and how we should stand up to the Coalition while preparing for a return to power. I have said repeatedly that I believe we need to put our core values at the heart of everything we do.

Early on in the campaign I set out my vision for the future direction of our Party, which I hope meets the requirements for your Manifesto of Intent. In a speech in Leeds, I reflected on the reasons behind our defeat in May and set out how we can learn lessons and reach out to the country again. A few weeks later, I gave a speech outlining how the Labour Party can adapt to 21st social democracy, to become a living, breathing party of progressive change. You can find both of these speeches on my website www.edmiliband.org

It could be a long road to the next General Election, but the change has to start now. In Government we sometimes seemed to lose a sense of the values that should always shape Labour's mission. As leader, I would put these values back at the heart of everything we do.

I want to lead a Party that actively turns its values into reality, to improve people's lives. We need to be ready to offer a better vision to the electorate. We need to have already shown by our actions and arguments that Britain needs a different kind of economy in which new manufacturing and small businesses are prized.

We can only do that by listening to our party and building a movement for change. I would appreciate your support to make this happen.

With best wishes,
Ed Miliband."

This is his campaign web-site.

*****

DAVID MILIBAND

My vision for Britain

No movement has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people – creating the NHS, building the welfare state and introducing the National Minimum Wage – than our Labour movement. And there is no greater danger to these achievements than a Tory Government. This Conservative Coalition is bringing the wrong change to our country.

We owe it to the people of Britain – to the men and women seeking work, to the pensioner worried about police cuts, to the student with no university place – to be the change Britain needs.

As I think of the challenges our country faces, I’m guided by my vision for the Britain I want to live in, the Britain I want to raise my children in and the Britain I seek to serve.

I believe in a Britain where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few.

I believe in a Britain where people earn a living wage and wealth is truly shared.

I believe in a Britain where everyone can benefit from work, with a new industrial revolution that supports manufacturing and creates, protects and improves jobs.

I believe in a Britain where the opportunity of world-class education and the guarantee of excellent health care are a birthright for all not the preserve of a few.

I believe in a Britain where families who need a home are not left to the chances of the market, and the welfare state protects better and also demands more in return.

I believe in a Britain where people have power in their communities, lives are not ruined by crime, liberty is real and we break the hopeless cycle of crime.

I believe in a Britain where people feel secure locally because they know Britain is effective globally on security, economy and climate change.

And it’s because I know this hope for Britain is shared by you, and needed by
our country, that we have a duty to win.

I'm asking for your support and your vote. And I'm asking you to join with me in building the movement for change that Britain needs.

The Cause worth fighting for
‘Power, wealth and opportunity… in the hands of the many not the few’. An inspirational phrase printed on each of our membership cards.

I will be the leader who puts Clause IV into action.

Power and security in every community
Labour was the first government since the Second World War to cut crime, and we devolved power to Scotland, Wales and London – but our work is far from finished. I would:
1. Give people more power over their public services and local government greater power to lead their communities.
2. Defend police numbers and the priority of tackling anti-social behaviour.
3. Ensure we build more council housing to rent and affordable housing to buy.

Wealth creation across the country
I would reduce the deficit by getting Britain growing and working, not by cutting the roots of our economy.
The Tory cuts hurt those least able to afford them and risk a second recession. I will:
1. Focus on returning Britain to full employment and achieving a fair deal for those who work the hardest.
2. Promote manufacturing through a new industrial revolution – starting by doubling the levy on banks and investing in green jobs.
3. Support a Mansion Tax on houses worth over £2m not the Tory cuts to family livelihoods.

Opportunity to tackle the gap in life chances
We improved education most in the poorest areas, but pupils from these schools are still least likely to go to top universities. Life expectancy is still too dependent on the postcode in which you live.
I will work to ensure that where you are born does not determine where you end up, through:
1. Recruiting the best teachers to the toughest schools, focusing pupils on learning not simply on exams, and expanding higher education and apprenticeships.
2. Fighting against the Tories’ attack on the NHS and prioritising public health to target all health inequalities.
3. Preventing the waste of worklessness by providing a job to anyone at risk of long-term unemployment and making sure they take it up.

This is his campaign web-site.

1 SEPTEMBER UPDATE : David Miliband has distributed a booklet by post which starts with the above material - mine arrived today (HB). The whole booklet can, therefore, be seen as an extended version of his Manifesto and should now be in the hands of Labour Party members.

We Have A Manifesto

2010-08-23T22:48:00.000+01:00

In response to the campaign run by "Dronfield Blather", Andy Burnham has today issued a Manifesto setting out the programme he would seek to pursue if he is elected as leader of the Labour Party. It is some 9,000 words long and can be viewed and/or downloaded from his web-site. It is a serious contribution and should be studied by all those with votes in the leadership contest.

Andy describes his stance - "It begins with a definition of the philosophy that underpins my approach to politics and outlook on life. It is Aspirational Socialism. It means that we want all people to fulfil their hopes and dreams but knowing that this will only happen for those who have least if we work for a world where resources and power are shared".

It is hoped that the four other contestants will set out their stalls based on their own values and commitments. Later this week we will publish or provide links to any Manifesto material we have access to from them.

Eventually we will make our own assessment of the different cases which the five candidates argue.

Manifesto Momentum

2010-08-20T16:00:00.003+01:00

Yesterday as part of his Labour Leadership Campaign, Andy Burnham circulated an email in which he stated - "Next week, I will set out in my manifesto how I intend to rebuild our great Party from the bottom up, as an open and vibrant campaigning force with power vested in the hands of our members. ..... My manifesto – ‘Aspirational Socialism’ – is a coherent political philosophy and vision for our country. Keep an eye on my website at www.andy4leader.com for more information. You will be able to download my manifesto to read at your leisure."

As we first reported on 2nd July, Andy's action is fully in line with a commitment he had then made to "Dronfield Blather". Following a further exchange of emails, he repeated his promise to us as recently as 6th August.

As soon as he issues his manifesto we will provide access to it on this site.

As we showed in the item we posted on 1st August, we also hold promises from the other four candidates that they will also issue Manifestos. We will send each candidate a link to this current item and press David, Diane and the two Eds to also deliver their Manifestos next week. Not least because the ballot papers in the contest are due to be circulated from 1st September. It would be good to have a chance to read and digest the Manifestos before then.

We initially ran a campaign for the issue of such Manifestos here.

Now There Are Five

2010-08-01T15:51:00.022+01:00

All five candidates for the Labour Leadership have now responded positively to the campaign run by Dronfield Blather to issue Manifestos of Intent. On Friday we reported that four out of the five were then on board, but afterwards the missing Ed Balls was approached at the close of the final hustings held at Manchester and he accepted our proposal.

It all reminds us of the first of Enid Blyton's books about the Famous Five. It was entitled "Five On A Treasure Island" and as is shown opposite. The cover of the book depicts Enid's missing character being safely brought aboard at the last moment.

However, the drama is not yet over. The five have all agreed to publish Manifestos of Intent. Three have confirmed this by email, one by a letter and the other face-to-face with Blogger Brader at Manchester.

But we only have until 16 August until the balloting commences. So we are keen to gain access to the finalised Manifestos themselves for publication by then. So far we hold some initial material from two of the candidates, although if they wish they still have time to elaborate on what we hold.

Whenever all five Manifestos are to hand we will publish them alongside each other. If anyone falls out of the boat we will, however, publish what we then hold on 16 August which is the date that balloting commences in the contest. We can't wait any longer than that.

Candidates are, of course, free to publish their own Manifestos at any time they wish. If they beat us to it, we will nevertheless stick to the above timetable.

UPDATE AND CORRECTION 3rd AUGUST.
The start of the ballot for individual members of the Labour Party has been changed from 16 August to 1 September. We hope, however, that the candidates will submit and/or issue their "Manifestos of Intent" well before the new date. People need time to examine and discuss Manifestos. So we will still seek to act in conformity with the time-table mentioned above.

UPDATE AND ALTERATION 5th AUGUST.
For what are called logistical reasons, the final date on which we hope to issue the candidates' Manifestos is now pushed back to 25 August. It is a good old fashioned compromise between the two dates mention in the earlier update. At least it shows that we are in communication with the high commands in the various candidates' camps.

Below - the famous five at their final hustings at Manchester.

The Glass Is 80% Full.

2010-07-30T17:25:00.001+01:00

We now have the agreement of four out of five of the candidates in the Labour Party Leadership election to issue "Manifestos of Intent". The two Miliband bothers have joined Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham on this. The only person who has not yet replied to our repeated requests is Ed Balls. So I have emailed his wife on the matter. That should do the trick.

We would like to publish all five Manifestos together. This will be done as soon as they are all received, or we can link to them. But we can't wait until after the balloting commences on 16 August. If we don't have a full hand of Manifestos by then, we will publish what we hold and explain the efforts we engaged in to get the rest.

At the moment we hold material from two of the candidates, so we will not finish up being empty handed. Any candidate is, of course, free to publish a Manifesto themselves whenever they wish.

We have asked Yvette to have another word with Ed.

WELCOME ON BOARD DIANE AND ANDY

2010-07-19T19:55:00.000+01:00

Diane Abbott (left) has agreed to issue a "Manifesto of Intent" in line with our campaign.

This means that Diane joins Andy Burnham (right) in responding positively to our proposal.

We are still waiting to hear from Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and David Miliband. At least two of these have been approached on the matter at meetings and the third should have been nobbled by a friendly Labour MP.

Perhaps 5 out of 5 is just around the corner. But keep the support coming in, so they can't forget.

Less Blather, more manifesto

2010-07-15T19:50:00.001+01:00

See "Though Cowards Flinch".

Questions For The Leadership Candidates

2010-07-11T12:05:00.003+01:00

We should have held a Discussion Meeting today, but the World Cup Final has got in the way.

Instead here are some pertinent questions for the Labour Party leadership candidates from one of our regular attenders SNOWY WILLIAMS.

"In your scheme of things -

(1) Will the former Clause 4 be re-introduced into the Labour Party's aims and objectives?

(2) Will words like socialism and socialist appear in your literature?

(3) Will local constituency parties be given greater control over their choice of candidates?

(4) Will you spell out in unambiguous DETAIL the relationship that you aim to establish between the Trade Unions and the Labour Party?

(5) Will Trade Unions be able to offer direct sponsorship to candidates of their choosing for parliamentary elections?

(6) Will you abandon the policy of handing over schools to private bodies for profit?

(7) What are your attitudes towards re-nationalising transport, gas, electricity and the water supply?"

Further contributions from Snowy appear here and here.

Support from the Socialist Health Association

2010-07-05T15:24:00.002+01:00

The Socialist Health Association is backing the call initiated on Dronfield Blather which seeks to get the candidates in the Labour leadership elections each to issue a "Manifesto of Intent". This is the first organisation affiliated to the Labour Party to do this. We are seeking support from others. Andy Burnham is the only candidate so far to have accepted this call.

One Accepts. Four Reminded.

2010-07-02T11:49:00.001+01:00

The call which appears on the thread below this one, has received a positive response from Andy Burnham (photo) and has the backing of John McDonnell. It is a request for the candidates in the labour leadership contest to issue "Manifestos of Intent" related to the democratic socialist principles contained on the back of Labour Party Membership Cards.

The other four candidates have today been sent this fresh email -

"Dear Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, David Miliband and Ed Miliband,

A fortnight ago I emailed then posted you a request to issue a "Manifesto of Intent" for the Labour Leadership Campaign. Manifestos which it was hoped would be issued widely amongst those with votes in the selection. I also handed a copy of the request to David Miliband that day, at a meeting he addressed in Sheffield.

So far Andy Burnham has responded favourably to this request, so I am sending him and his campaign team a copy of this email.

I hope that each of you will now agree to our suggestion.

Full details of our proposal are provided here, listing those who are backing us -
http://dronfieldblather.blogspot.com/2010/06/calling-those-with-voting-rights-in.html

All the best,
Harry Barnes (Labour MP 1987-2005),
http://threescoreyearsandten.blogspot.com/
(Address, email and phone number also supplied)."

Calling Those With Voting Rights In The Labour Leadership Contest - But It Is Not Your Vote We Are After.

2010-06-16T16:40:00.041+01:00

The letter below is being submitted to the five candidates for the Labour Leadership - who are shown above. If you are a member of an organisation which has voting rights in this election, then why not add your support via the comment box on this thread? Give your name and list the relevant organisations which you are a member of. These include Constituency Labour Parties, the Co-operative Party and affiliated bodies such as many Trade Unions and various Socialist Societies. The type of details we are after are limited to those shown for signatories at the close of the letter. This comment box takes information from anyone with an email facility. Other signatories will be added as they are received. As a consequence this thread is being periodically updated.

TO THE CANDIDATES IN THE LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTIONS

The supporters of this letter are members of either the Labour Party and/or members of organisations affiliated to the Labour Party who pay their political levy or its equivalent.

Immediately after the election we felt that Labour needed a period of reflection and serious internal debate to assess the reasons for our defeat and to think through the direction we needed to move into.

Instead we have been confronted with an imperfect leadership contest in which the Party’s wider membership and its affiliated bodies have been excluded from the nominating procedure. This has restricted both the range of the political viewpoints and the background links of the candidates who have emerged.

What we feel now needs to be done is to seek to use the current imperfect leadership contest as a means by which we can acquire something like the form of assessment and internal debate which we feel is necessary.

This means that there is a need to divert the current contest away from being just another ’X factor’ game show, towards being a serious debate related to the principles contained in the Labour Party Constitution which state - “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”.

To help achieve the depth and nature of the debate that we are seeking, we call upon each of the candidates to publish a Manifesto of Intent to make clear to everyone the direction in which they would seek to lead the Labour Party, based on their assessment of the reasons behind the electoral defeat and their interpretation of the direction where the principles quoted above should now lead us.

We ask that these Manifestos of Intent should be distributed widely in order to generate extensive discussion across the Party and beyond, so that this will assist those voting in the leadership contest to reach balanced and principled understandings.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We invite Labour Party members, members of the Co-operative Party and those who pay their political levy to Trade Unions affiliated to the Labour Party (or the equivalent) to add their names and their organisational links to this letter via the Comment Box.

(1) Ken Curran, Birley Branch LP, Sheffield South East CLP, UNISON, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch.

(2) John Halstead, Nether Edge Branch LP, Sheffield Central CLP, Cooperative Party Sheffield Branch.

(3) Harry Barnes, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Chesterfield Branch, Labour MP 1987-2005.

(4) Martin Brader, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(5) John Dunn, West Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(6) Graham Baxter MBE, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE. Leader NE Derbyshire District Council.

(7) Jon Williams, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(8) Shelagh Wolliscroft, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(9) Roy Pilkington, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(10) Stephen Brunt, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(11) John Gilbert, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(12) Bill Michie, Nether Edge LP, Sheffield Central CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch, Labour MP 1983-2001.

(13) Bob Piper, Abbey Branch LP, Warley CLP.

(14) Mick Davies, Bristnall Branch LP, Warley CLP.

(15) Shay Boyle, Sutton Branch LP, Bolsover CLP, GMB.

(16) Frances Kelly, Finchley and Golders Green CLP.

(17) Patricia Williams, Sutton Branch LP, Bolsover CLP, UNISON.

(18) Steve Thompson, Sheffield Central Branch LP and CLP, Co-operative Party Sheffield Branch.

(19) Dr Duncan Hall, Skipton Branch LP, Skipton and Ripon CLP.

(20) Douglas Michael Chewter, Skipton and Ripon CLP.

(21) Marianne Quick, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(22) Ian Robathan, Pheasey Branch LP, Walsall CLP.

(23) Jack Wearing, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(24) Doreen Curran, Berwick-upon-Tweed Branch LP, Berwick CLP, NUPE Retired Member.

(25) Ronald Curran, Berwick-upon-Tweed Branch LP, Berwick CLP, NUPE Retired Member.

(26) Gary Kent, Beckenham CLP, UNITE, NUJ.

(27) Christine Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNISON.

(28) Caroline Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(29) Rosie Smith, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(30) Barry Winter, Chapel Allerton Branch LP, Leeds North East CLP, ILP.

(31) Frank Abel, Manor and Castle Branch LP, Sheffield Central CLP, NUT.

(32) William Brown, Sheffield Hallam CLP, ILP.

(33) Felix Gott, Hornsey and Wood Green CLP.

(34) James Vernoit, Vauxhall CLP.

(35) Rebecca Eeley, Cheadle CLP, Fabian Society.

(36) Bernadette Duffy, Birley Branch LP, South East Sheffield CLP.

(37) Gordon MacMillan, St Ann's, Tottenham CLP.

(38) Dave Hill, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, UNITE.

(39) Janet Hill, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(40) Caz Brader, Manchester Withington CLP. CYWU.

(41) Samuel Ohene, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(42) John McDonnell M.P., Hayes and Harlington CLP.

(43) Edna Woodhead, Ecclesall Branch LP, Sheffield Hallam CLP.

(44) John Woodhead, Ecclesall Branch LP, Sheffield Hallam CLP.

(45) George Bell, UNISON Bassetlaw Local Government Retired Member.

(46) Paul Harman, Darlington CLP.

(47) James Doran, Darlington CLP, Co-operative Party Darlington & South Durham Branch.

(48) Bob Gachagan, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, GMB.

(49) Ann Barnes, Dronfield Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, GMB.

(50) Martin Stone, Chesterfield CLP, UNISON.

(51) Socialist Health Association.

(52) Pete Firmin, Hampstead & Kilburn CLP. CWU.

(53) Val Graham, Chesterfield CLP, UNISON.

(54) Stan Newens, Harlow CLP, Labour MP 1964-70 and 1974-83, Labour MEP 1984-99.

(55) Derek Bunce, Haywood & Hixon Branch LP, Stafford CLP, UNISON.

(56) Paul Cotterill, Leader Labour Group on West Lancashire Borough Council in a personal capacity.

(57) Simon Whitten, South West Bedfordshire CLP.

(58) Ian Woodland, Southampton Itchen CLP, UNITE.

(59) Andreas Paterson, Norwich South CLP.

(60) Jon Taylor, Chair Wharley Bridge Branch LP, High Peak Constituency.

(61) Mark Grayling, Grassmoor Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP, Chesterfield Co-operative Party.

(62) Tom Gann, Greenwich & Woolwich CLP, Fabian Society, Parliamentary Candidate for Salisbury in the General Election.

(63) James McGee, Salisbury CLP, Fabian Society.

(64) Vino Sangarapillai, Horsey & Wood Green CLP, UNISON.

(65) Anthony Mckeown, High Peak CLP, UNITE, Co-operative Party Chesterfield Branch.

(66) Ruth Stoba, Whaley Bridge Branch LP, High Peak CLP.

(67) Kingston & Surbiton Constituency Labour Party, (posted by Max Freedman Chair)

(68) Stephanie David, Bexleyheath & Crayford CLP, GMB.

(69) Robert Naether disabled GMB Union south wales.

(70) Alex Williams, Stockport CLP.

(71) Steve Pickering, Eckington Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

(72) Bob Heath. Eckington Branch LP, NE Derbyshire CLP.

Who Are The Milibands?

2010-05-31T11:25:00.011+01:00

Details of the next Disussion Meeting of the Dronfield Labour Party are given below. These meetings are open to members of the Labour Party and to members of the Dronfield Contact Club. They are open to others by invitation.

SPEAKER............John Halstead

TOPIC..................Who are the Milibands?

TIME....................8 pm to 9.15 pm

DATE...................Sunday, 13th June 2010

VENUE.................Contact Club, Snape Hill Lane, Dronfield

This meeting provides an opportunity to discuss the Labour leadership issue and the current direction of Labour politics.

The Miliband brothers, David and Ed appear to be the two front-runners in the Labour Party leadership contest. Their late father, Ralph Miliband was a leading Marxist intellectual at the London School of Economics (LSE), before moving to the University of Leeds. Ralph said his sons provided 'stringent criticisms' of his views. How might the views of his two sons relate to those of their father?

The discussion will be introduced by John Halstead who studied at the LSE under Ralph Miliband's personal supervision. John formerly taught adult students (workers in the mines and steel works, on the railways and in public services) at the University of Sheffield. He has been prominent for many years in the work of the Society for the Study of Labour History.

The late Ralph Miliband on the left and his two sons Ed and David below.

Election Inquest - Is there a void in the mind of the Left?

2010-05-06T22:00:00.003+01:00

From Ken Curran (left).

The Polls have just closed. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to be able to know whether Labour has the largest number of MPs, whether we have a hung parliament, or whether we have finished up in third place. But what I do know is that this has been a terrible election, not just for the Labour Party but for the future of progressive politics.

Whilst the novelty of the TV debates could have raised some excitement amongst sections of the electorate, nobody can genuinely claim they were designed to raise the levels of political enlightenment. They were just another TV Game Show.

To understand why Labour is likely to have done so badly in the election, we need a sense of labour history in order to understand where its malaise had its roots.

Labour stood to be beaten long before the election was called. For years there has been a growing gulf between the Labour Party and its natural supporters. This has not just been a political gulf; every bit as important has been the cultural gulf. Over the past 30 to 40 years, too many Labour MPs have tried to emulate to the rich in dress, lifestyle and outlook. They have regarded politics as a career, not seeing themselves as the advocates of the poor. They have not acted on behalf of those whose problems arise from the operations of the current system of free market capitalism. They have failed to recognise the damage the free market does to those at the bottom of the economic pile. They have personally distanced themselves as far away as possible from those people they perceive as failures. New Labour has failed to recognise that the very economic system it put its faith in to produce a Golden Age of Post Blairism is itself fundamentally flawed.

People were never left in any doubt by Keir Hardie as to who he represented in Parliament. I feel that he would not have wished to have been seen dead with many of today's Labour aspirants. Nor would I.

Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have tried to build three separate false perspectives. Each, however, presuming that economic and social progress will come as a pre-ordained gift provided we only vote for them. None of the parties have attempted to present the electorate with a vision for the future.

Whilst Brown did make several attempts to steer debate around to economic issues, both Cameron and Clegg avoided engagement on the issue. This meant that without seeing any serious debate, a mainly politically immature electorate were more easily seduced by the two younger and photogenic challengers for Downing Street. Given the nature of the TV coverage, hormones played the major role.

The big question at this important juncture is how do we begin to tackle the void in British politics which is the absence of democratic socialism from the centre stage.

A pointer is provided in an article by Matthew Brown entitled "The Void In The Mind Of The Left" which appears in the Spring Edition of Democratic Socialism. A version of his article can be found here here on the web-site of Independent Labour Publications.

His article is a response to the Compass Summer Lecture in September 2009 on "The Future of Social Democracy" by Jon Cruddas - which is printed as the first article here. In his address Cruddas had called for a realignment of social democracy and social liberalism constructed on what he called the four pillars of progressive politics - equality, community, sustainability and democracy. Under these banners he set out what he calls "a programme for the centre left".

Listening to the talk, Matthew Brown regards Cruddas's programme as little more than a series of leftish sounding demands for reforms; including anything from Compass's much trumpeted High Pay Commission to greater tax justice, scrapping Trident and the third runway at Heathrow, integrated transport, constitutional change including proportional representation and so on.

None of these will answer Mrs Duffy of Rochdale or the poor on the Manor Estate at Sheffield.

Following Jon Cruddas's talk a number of people contributed from the platform. It was Professor Massey who identified the lack of a political strategy in what had been said, claiming that a shopping list of electoral demands would not create a basis for viable politics. Whilst she was well disposed to many of the calls for radicalism from Cruddas, she felt that without a political strategy to support such a programme, it would ultimately fail as (by itself) it would create enemies. She felt that there was a need to go beyond parties and parliament to build a cultural and political movement as a means of bringing about wider and deeper social change.

I conclude from the forgoing remark that without a fully thought through programme and an accompanying strategy, the chances of a future radical Labour Government capable of being able to change the behaviour of capitalism are nil. The first challenge as I see it is to educate the electorate. As Professor Massey pointed out "Labour has been so used to having a natural social base it has no idea how to construct a new one". She claimed that "work has to be put in to establish a new common sense, because that is what he (Cruddas) is calling for. The current common sense took a concerted effort over years - not just the big set piece battles but the drip, drip, drip of arguments and constant assertions".

In 1992 I wrote a discussion paper entitled "Re-vitalising Labour". My opening sentence was - "We must return to the streets as the Party of protest, giving expression to the concerns of the people". We cannot wait for some political event or opportunity to arise before we act. Over the past few years the Party has almost suppressed its natural inclination to show anger in public. We became more concerned with image than we were with the many violations against working people perpetuated by Thatcher and her band of pirates.

Because we wanted respectability from the establishment, our supporters were left on their own. We have to been seen physically both supporting and leading people in their daily trials for them to recognise that Labour is really on their side.

When Professor Massey stated the need to go beyond parliament and political parties to build a cultural and political movement to bring about wider and deeper social change, then personally I feel that she is right. Perhaps we need the formation of a new Chartist Movement to operate beyond the current political parties. With clearly declared objectives, perhaps set in a time-scale it could become a massive public pressure group. Its size would force all political parties to have due regard for its views and demands.(The original Chartists in 1848).

If such a movement had been formed well in advance and in sufficient depth, then perhaps Blair would not have been able to join Bush in his Iraq war. I can think of a number of times when the existence of a new Chartist Movement could have influenced the Government. The most recent could have been over the banking system and the bonus's paid to executive directors. It has not just been Labour voters who have been angry over these issues. I am sure that there are many Tory voters who are angry over the arrogance of bankers and big business bosses. These discontented people have a key role to play if we ever hope to change the behaviour of capitalism.

We need a wide debate on the future of what is a fragile democracy. We can at least do our own bit in the light of today's election results. Others are welcome to participate. See here also.

Ken Curran Snr, Chair of the Sheffield Co-operative Party. Sheffield District Labour Party. Writing in a personal capacity.

On Sunday evening, the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group (seen below) will be discussing the consequences of the General Election Result for Labour. Roger Barton our former MEP will be the speaker whilst Ken Curran will be present to argue for his above concerns. This could well be the first grass roots reaction in the Labour Party to the new situation. (See the right hand panel for details).

See You On May 6th At 10pm

2010-04-06T12:00:00.002+01:00

Due to the General Election no further items will be posted on this site until the close of the polls at 10pm on May 6th.

Sheffield TUC - Events of interest

2010-04-02T11:46:00.001+01:00

Events of interest – 5th April,2010.
Information from the Sheffield TUC.
April to July,2010: Sheffield Trade Union Studies Centre Union
Learn Courses For Trade Union Representatives,Health & Safety
Representatives, and Union Learning Representatives. For information
regarding Courses contact:- Trade Union Studies Centre, The Sheffield
College, Skills For Business, Learoyd Way,Hillsborough Barracks,
Sheffield, S6 2LR. Tel 01142602404. E-mail tony.fletcher@sheffcol.ac.uk
10th April,2010: National March & Rally on “Defending State &
Public Services.” Assemble: 12.00 Noon for 1.00 P.M. at Temple Place on
The Embankment. Then March to Rallly in Trafalgar Square.
A FREE BUS provided by Sheffield TUC will depart at 7.00 A.M from
opposite the Queen`s Hotel (near to the Interchange).
To book seats telephone Ray Jackson on 0114 2345121.
12th April,2010: Sheffield Unite Against Fascism Public Meeting.
7.30 P.M. Victoria Hall, Norfolk Street,Sheffield.
13th April, 2010: Sheffield Unite Against Fascism leafletting.
Meet at 5.00 P.M. outside BCAF,Spital Hill,S4 7LG.
15 th April,2010: Public Pre-General Election Meeting Organised by
The Leeds Branch of ASLEF. 6.30 P.M. to 8.30 P.M., City Chambers,
Leeds Civic Hall,Millennium Square,Leeds, LS2 3AD.
Chairperson: Nick Whitehead, District Organiser,ASLEF;
Speakers: Bill Adams, TUC Regional Secretary; Rosie Winterton,M.P.;
Tosh Mc Donald, Vice-President, ASLEF;
Jane Thomas, Prospective Labour Parliamentary Candidate,Keighley;
Pauline Cawood, Branch Secretary, Leeds Branch,ASLEF.
17 th April,2010: “ Love Music Hate Racism - Stop The BNP- Make
Sure You Vote!” 8.00 P.M. to 2.00 A.M., West Indian Centre,
Laycock Place, Chapeltown,Leeds.
Waged £8./Unwaged £5. Contact: 0788638736.
22 nd April,2010 : W.E.A. Education Course on “Talking Politics.”
The Course will be held from 10.00 A.M. To 12.00 Noon on Thursdays for
10 weeks from this commencment date at Sheffield Independent
Film,5,Brown Street, Sheffield,S1,. Enquiries about the Course are
obtainable from Paul Boizot,The Tutor, on 01904 621510 and
www.paulboizot.co.uk/course.htm.
24TH April,2010: The Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire History
Society will present a talk on:”Our First World War Heroines -
The Canary Girls of Chilwell.” The talk will commence at 2.00 P.M. and
be held in the Mechanics Institute, 3,North Sherwood Street,
Nottingham. The Canary Girls, who worked in the Chilwell Munitions
Factory, were so named because of their being in contact with TNT their
skins turned into an orange yellow colour. During July,1918, eight tons
of TNT exploded and 134 workers were killed and 250 workers were
injured. The dead were buried in a mass grave at Attenborough. The
authorites attempted to cover up this horrendous disaster and it took
fifty years of campaigning before a Memorial to the dead was erected.
For further information regarding this Event please telephone Hillary
Cave on 01246 270628 or E-mail: hilary.cave@btinternet.com.
26 th April,2010: 2010 General Election Hustings Meeting
organised by the National Union of Teachers. 7.00 P.M. (Reception at
6.30 P.M. with tea and biscuits), Friends Meeting House,St.James Street
(Near Cathedral). “WHAT FUTURE FOR EDUCATION UNDER THE NEXT
GOVERNMENT?” Come and hear the debate and put your questions to
Sheffield candidates, namely:- * Paul Scriven, Liberal Democrat
Candidate for Sheffield Central; * Paul Blomfield,Labour candidate for
Sheffield Central; * Maxine Bowler, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition,
Sheffield Brightside; * Julian Creasy, Green Party candidate for
Sheffield Central; * Conservative Party Speaker to be arranged; and
Sheffield National Union of Teachers Speaker.
27 th April,2010: Sheffield Trades Union Council Delegate Meeting.
7.00 P.M. Trades & Labour Club (Talbot Street entrance). All Trade Union
Branches are urged to affiliate to the Sheffield Trades Union Council in
order that their representatives may attend Delegate Meetings and
share experiences and problems with Delegates from other Trade Union
Branches, professions and industries. Trade Union Branches wishing
to affiliate to the Sheffield Trades Union Council please contact: The
Secretary,Sheffield Trades Union Council, Trades & Labour Club, Talbot
Street, Sheffield, S2 2TG
(Tel. 0114 2750744 or 2349737).
28th April,2010: The Sheffield International Workers` Memorial
Day Ceremony will be held at The Workers` Memorial Tree situated in
front of the Town Hall. The Ceremony will commence at 12.30 P.M. and
be Addressed by The Lord Mayor of Sheffield and a number of other
Speakers. Trade unions and organisations which support health and
safety at work are requested to support the Ceremony by ensuring a
good attendance and by providing wreaths and flowers.
REMEMBER THE DEAD – DEFEND THE LIVING!
1 s t May,2010 : Leeds Trades Union Council May Day March and
Rally. “Public Services Not Private Profit.” Assemble 11.30 A.M. in front
of the Art Gallery. COME AND JOIN US WITH YOUR BANNERS!
1 s t May,2010: “Love Music Hate Racism – Northern Carnival”
Barnsley Town Centre will host some of the U.K.`s top live acts and
D.J.s. The Carnival will be jointly organised by the Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council and Love Music – Hate Racism. This will
be Barnsley`s biggest ever day of music and there will something for
everyone. Additionallly, there will also be The Festival Fringe with over
40 bands on 19 venues across the Town. This is a non-profit Event and
£8 tickets are available from the Barnsley Metrodome Tel.0845 838 4519
and from other venues in Barnsley. Early booking is advised.
3rd May,2010: Chesterfield Trades Union Council May Day March &
Rally. Assemble: 10.30 A.M. Town Hall. Rally: 12.00 Noon - New Square.
3 rd May,2010: ”Coal Not Dole.” Film on the 1984/1985 Miners`
Strike- The Strikers` Story. Free Admission. 1.00 P.M., North East
Derbyshire Council Chamber, Chesterfield. This Event is to be
organised by the Chesterfield & District TUC and Graysons, Solicitors.
3rd July, 2010: South Yorkshire Festival held at Wortley Hall from
12.00 Noon to 5.00 P.M.. This is the largest and most popular Annual
Trade Union and Labour Movement Event in South Yorkshire. It is an
Event where ordinary working people and their families and friends
enjoy themselves in the settings of Wortley Hall and its 27 acres of
formal and landscaped gardens.
10TH July, 2010: Durham Miners` Gala.The Gala goes back
to 1871 when the first Gala was held in Wharton Park in Durham with
Speakers from Barnsley, Glasgow, Staffordshire and Sunderland. In
recent years, due to Prime Ministers Blair and Brown declining
invitations to Address the Gala it is usually exclusively Addressed by
Real Labour Speakers such as Dennis Skinner,M.P. and Tony Benn.
Being attended by around 70,000 people the Durham Miners` Gala is
believed to be the largest annual industrial and political gathering in the
whole of Europe.