Still Refounding Labour

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

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

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

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

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"

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.

(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".