Latest Stories

The Norbiton Rose Newsletter, Autumn 2016 was distrbuted locally by members.Norbiton_Rose_Autumn_2016.jpg


Nortbiton Rose Newsletter Autum 2016

The Norbiton Rose Newsletter, Autumn 2016 was distrbuted locally by members.

The Kingston and Surbiton CLP's delegate to attend the 2016 Labour Party Conference was Jonnie Byrne.

Here she reports back to member's on her personal view of Conference 2016 in Liverpool.

This is the fourth or fifth LP Conference I've attended and I'm happy to report that it was brilliant!  After each previous highly stage-managed Conference, I said "Never again!"  This time, I'll definitely go back. 

There were several people from Kingston & Surbiton CLP in Liverpool last week and they have all contributed to this report, though it is my responsibility alone.

Our members were there in every capacity:  Councillor Linsey Cottington, ex-officio and a tower of strength, Pat Mortimer, as an honoured guest of the Party, in memory of her husband Jim, Rosemary Addington, helping to run the various Peace stalls, Dave Ward, Tony Kearns and Sian Jones, as trades unionists with the CWU and GMB, and Bob Phillips, a member of the 1,000 Club.  And, on a personal note, on the FBU stall, I bumped into an old friend whom I hadn't seen for some 10 years, and who, I discovered, had been working for most of that time in the building just opposite the CLP office.  Ever on the look-out for interesting speakers, I took the opportunity to speak briefly to Matt Wrack and remind him of our presence so nearby.

To me, this was a wink towards what Conference should be:  though we're still a long way from restoring Party unity, let alone democracy, it was generally good-humoured, positive and dynamic.  It was also exhausting.  Quite apart from the extra mileage involved in just getting into the building because of the "ring of steel", delegates were on their feet in the hall for much of the time.  I have never seen so many spontaneous standing ovations!  Even the security wasn't as oppressive as in past years, when delegates used to be greeted by police armed with sub-machine guns.  This time, there were no queues and just Centre staff checking passes.

Every morning, we were greeted with the very useful "Yellow Pages" guide to the day's Conference business, produced by volunteers from the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD).  Introductory and closing briefings from the CLPD were very well-attended, despite being held a mile or two from the Conference Centre.

On a less positive note, Conference was over-shadowed by the backdrop of suspensions and expulsions; in particular, the suspension of Wallasey CLP forced an agonising choice on me personally, between CLP members whom I regard as family and who, I believe, have been wrongfully maligned by false reporting, and their MP, whom I have long regarded as a friend.  This is symptomatic of divisions within the Party as a whole, and somehow, we have to learn to bury our differences, however bitter, if we are ever to appeal to the country at large, as Jeremy Corbyn and many other speakers put it so eloquently throughout the week.  Conference clearly believed that that is all that is now stopping us from winning in 2020.  Shadow Cabinet speakers flew a kite about a snap election next year, no doubt to encourage the troops and create a sense of the urgency of the healing process, but I can't see that there is either the mechanism or the will for that to happen.

Bob Phillips has introduced me to the Swedish notion of lagom, "an untranslatable word that conveys the sense of a successful group consensus in which the 'losing' side joins the consensus because they have been listened to and respected".  Perhaps that could help us?

Each morning began, as normal, with the report of the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC).  This often sparks disagreement, as Motions are ruled in or out of order and so on.  This year, a groundswell of discontent with CAC rulings culminated in an unseemly row on Tuesday morning, concerning the refusal to discuss certain proposals which appeared to be in order, including an Emergency Motion on expulsions, the decision that Conference would have to vote on rule changes proposed by the NEC en bloc, rather than individually, and the consistent refusal of the Chair to put the report to a card vote, in apparent contradiction with the Rule Book.  By contrast, a point of order from Tony Kearns, complaining about the Sun "newspaper" being distributed in a Liverpool Labour Conference Hall, met with universal approval.

For my part, I only learnt that the Motion supported by my CLP had been rejected on the Saturday evening, through overhearing some gossip.  I still don't know why it was rejected and it would have been helpful had I been told in advance.

Otherwise, there was little of contention.  Conference is not a debating chamber these days.  The Chair did not ask for speakers for and against Motions.  There were good contributions, both from the floor and from the platform and all Composites were carried, in line with NEC recommendations.  Indeed, the only item where Conference went against the recommendation was a rule change which now allows Conference to refer back any part of a [National Policy Forum] document without rejecting the whole.  Not everyone agreed that the Balanced Energy Policy gave the correct balance (it included nuclear energy) but a pledge to end fracking was very warmly-received.  Shadow Ministers made many excellent pledges about what we would do in Government - repealing the Trade Union Act within the first 100 days, increasing Corporation Tax by 1.5% to fund a restoration of EMA and student maintenance grants, restoring nurses' bursaries and repealing the Health & Social Care Act, a progressive return of rail contracts to public ownership - but warned that we have to get there first!

The elected Mayors of Bristol and London, among others, pointed out that a successful record in our cities, as in smaller Labour-run local administrations, could do much to restore the credibility of Labour in power among voters.

Keynote speakers sought to move the ground of political debate:  Labour is no longer on the back foot, condemned for profligacy because we refused to defend our record.  Calling us "Comrades", Tom Watson said "We are the Party of Britain, of the real British values...of compassion and fairness".  Lord Dubs renewed pleas for child refugees from the Calais camp to be allowed to come to Britain seemed to underline that.

And we are solvent again!  Having paid off a massive debt by sticking rigorously to our own finance strategy, we can look forward to our increased membership to consolidate the position. 

On the Saturday, before Conference proper, the Leadership Conference was followed by Women's Conference.  After his re-election, by an even greater majority than last year's landslide, Jeremy Corbyn made the first of many pleas throughout the week to leave our differences behind and get on with the real job of fighting the Tories, so that we can put our policies into action in government.  As in the past, Women's Conference was a fairly humdrum affair but it may be livened up in the future, in the light of the rule change which will give it the power to put Motions to Conference proper.  I have reservations about this:  I would not like to see a proliferation of claims for BAME, LGBT and Youth Conferences with the same privilege.

Another rule change is likely to give a majority on the NEC to those who would rein in the Leader:  seats on the NEC for Wales and Scotland has long been a demand of the Left, who wanted delegates from these countries to be elected.  However, the rule change puts the new seats in the gift of the Leaders of the Welsh and Scottish parties to appoint.

Policy seminars have become an integral part of Conference and part of most days was given over to them.  Only delegates and ex-officio attendees could participate, to discuss specific areas of policy with Shadow Ministers and others, to be fed up to the National Policy Forum.  I chose Transport, chaired by the Unite AGS responsible for Transport, Diana Holland, with Andy McDonald and Daniel Zeichner, respectively Shadow Secretary of State and Shadow Minister for Transport, where workers in the various sections of transport, user groups, advocates for school-children, pedestrians and cyclists shared their experiences and suggestions. 

It became clear during the Leadership election that there is now consensus in the LP against austerity politics.  One commentator heard on the BBC made the point that this is neither new nor especially radical, it only seems so because of the blind alley of the last 35-odd years of neoliberalism and Milton Friedman.  This year's Conference marks a return to an acceptance of Keynesian wisdom.  And we can proudly call ourselves Socialists again.  John McDonnell's closing remark that "you no longer have to whisper it" brought the hall to its feet with whoops of joy. 

Conference was very busy.  There seemed to be more delegates than in previous years - logical, given the huge expansion in our membership; by contrast, the exhibition seemed smaller than in the past but with plenty to interest.  Seeing my badge, the man running the People's History Museum stand told me that they  have a copy of the Surbiton CLP newspaper.  Lots of fringe meetings to choose from, on subjects as diverse as autism, fracking and the problem of Labour representation for Northern Ireland.  Many, unfortunately, were full.  Bob, Rosemary and I attended an excellent meeting on Free Speech in Israel (FSOI), contending that anti-zionism is not anti-Semitism and a campaign for justice for Palestinians  is not anti-Semitic.   At a meeting on the Bus Services Bill contributions were based around a report on "Building a World-Class Bus System for Britain".  The report tackles the increased costs and damage to services caused by deregulation and proposes effective solutions.  Bob went to a GMB fringe session on the Grunwicks dispute 40 years on, an evocative event which was also "a real alert about how important Grunwicks was in waking up the union movement to minority groups and to the power of secondary picketing".  Linsey, of course, was particularly interested in housing, while Rosemary's focus was on anti-nuclear.  Our CWU comrades very kindly invited us to their reception on the Monday night.

Moving as the many tributes to Jo Cox, MP were, the most moving point to me was a short video with frames recalling the past achievements of Labour in power, which preceded the Leader's final speech.  I was not a Labour Party member for most of the time of this record but I was proud to think that I now belong to the family which has given us so much - and still has so much to give, if we will only all pull in the same direction.

Johnnie Byrne,

 Kingston & Surbiton CLP Conference delegate 2016

Labour Party Conference 2016 CLP Delegate's Report

The Kingston and Surbiton CLP's delegate to attend the 2016 Labour Party Conference was Jonnie Byrne. Here she reports back to member's on her personal view of Conference 2016 in...

Andy Harrop, General Secretary of the Fabian Societyvisited 160 London Road to speak to members of the Kinston and Surbiton CLP about his new report which looks towards a new welfare and social security policy.

CLP Chair, Laurie South, reflects on the report, and how it can change the narrative.

Andy Harrop, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, has written a report on the potential for abolishing personal tax allowances and using this money as the basis for social security and welfare payments (Harrop A.All in this together” August 2016). We were fortunate in Kingston to have Andy speaking to us shortly after the publication of the report. This blog cannot address every aspect of the welfare and social security system but attempts to provide a basis for new thinking.

Between 1997 and 2010 The Labour Party did try, to a limited degree, to use the social security and welfare system, along with the tax system, to try and redistribute wealth. There were child poverty targets and tax credits to ensure people in work had enough to live on. Tax credits were an important innovation – using the taxation system to redistribute to the poorest - though it does now seem odd to subsidise workers because employers will not pay them a decent wage, which is what happened in a number of cases.

Over the last years since 2010, there has been an uneasy area of agreement between the political parties over Welfare and Social Security. The Tories, and during the Coalition the Liberal Democrats as well, under the political ideology of austerity and balancing the national budget, saw welfare and social security as a minimal safety net which should be reduced as much as possible and circumscribed with testing and sanctions. Although rarely put as starkly as this, the Tories had three assumptions:

(i)            there is a significant group of people who want, and are very happy, to use welfare and social security as a way of life and are thus unfairly piggy-backing on tax-payers (“skivers not strivers”):

(ii)          welfare and social security, unless it is at poverty levels, serves as a disincentive to employment, so people must be encouraged into work by ensuring that “welfare does not pay”: and

(iii)         under their austerity programme, welfare and social security for those under pensionable age is an easy, legitimate and morally justifiable target for expenditure reductions to balance the budget.

As well as capping payments and applying a variety of sanctions, the Tories have frozen benefits at current levels until 2020. This amounts to a reduction in the amount people in most need receive which is very significant.

Unfortunately, Labour only questioned the detail of the Tory policy, which was a harsher and more sanctioned-based development of Labour’s own policies as implemented when they were in government. It was easy for the Tories to argue that this was the same policy as Labour had pursued when in government but just a little more austere because the economy was in a bad state.

Labour appeared fearful of challenging the consensus that the Tories had created around their three assumptions. Labour’s policy was, therefore, to mitigate the worst excesses.

The problem for Labour was that they had no policy on welfare and social security which differentiated them from the Tories. Internal arguments in the Labour Party were about the injustices of parts of the Tory implementation of the system, the degree to which different groups would be penalised, and the affordability of the accepted welfare and social security system. Basically Labour was arguing for a humanised and sanitised version of the Tory policy.

Is it time for the Labour Party to give consideration to a radical system of welfare and social security which breaks the sterility of bickering around the fringes of an inequitable policy that has dominated the narrative of all parties and the electorate? Fortunately, the Fabians, part of the Labour family, have done much of the thinking in Harrop A. “All in this together” August 2016 Kingston & Surbiton CLP have been fortunate in having Andy Harrop talking about his work.

If we said everyone should receive a basic wage, what is the betting that the first reaction from the media would be “Labour borrowing money to give away” but they would, as is so often the case be blinkered and trapped in a narrow and exclusive thought train.

Political parties have vied to increase the tax free element that everyone receives claiming that this helps the poorest. Actually it is what the Fabian report calls a shadow benefit in that it provides an additional boost to the wealthier in society who need it least: it also helps the middle income. Unfortunately, it does little to help the very poorest who are lucky if they receive enough to pay any income tax.

Just as Tax Credits were a way of using the tax system to redistribute income to help the poorest, so the removal of the income tax allowance could be used to either:

(i)            help the poorest in society by funding a humane and redistributive welfare and social security policy: or

(ii)          provide basic wage to everyone over a certain age (calculated by the Fabians as £3,166 per person per annum or about £60 per week).

A basic wage has the merit that it removes the necessity for means testing. However it is unlikely that the removal of the tax allowance would provide a sufficient basic income for the poorest in society. Currently (2016/17) the personal allowance (i.e the amount on which you pay no income tax or your shadow benefit) is £11,000. Your Personal Allowance goes down by £1 for every £2 that your adjusted net income is above £100,000. This means your allowance is zero if your income is £122,000 or above. The corollary of this is that we might want to see the income tax rate raised for those over £122,000 or the cost of welfare would appear to fall on those earning between £11,000 and £122,000 a year.

The other areas of difficulty in social security and welfare is the housing allowance and the size of families. The Tories capped the amount of housing allowance payable and have frozen the benefit (along with other benefits) at current levels until 2020. The cost of renting privately is not uniform across the country: London in particular has very high levels. The implication of this is a need for a much more variable and flexible housing allowance, and a need for more housing particularly council housing. Similarly, those with more children have increased expenses and need more if we are to avoid child poverty.

Removing the shadow benefit of a tax free allowance means that the Labour Party will be building on Gordon Brown’s policy of using the tax system to redistribute income to the poorest and most in need. This is a very radical step and would need to be communicated very carefully since political parties have, in the past, used an increase in the tax free allowance as a measure of political machismo. Income tax has become characterised as the government taking our money. Treating tax relief as a benefit given by the government changes our perception and perspective. The removal of the personal tax allowances needs to be seen as a way of redistributing wealth and creating a more equitable society.

Perhaps such a policy, which will need to be supplemented by some kind of means tested benefits, needs to be introduced over a period of time. However, it removes the debate over levels of welfare and social security benefits from the sterility of arguing about what the country can afford to provide a decent standard of living for everyone in society.

Unless we want to continue arguing about levels of benefits we need to change the narrative and debate. The Fabian Report has offered us a way forward.

Laurie South

Towards a new welfare and social security policy

Andy Harrop, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, visited 160 London Road to speak to members of the Kinston and Surbiton CLP about his new report which looks towards a new welfare and...

More Stories >

The Labour Party will place cookies on your computer to help us make this website better.

Please read this to review the updates about which cookies we use and what information we collect on our site.

To find out more about these cookies, see our privacy notice. Use of this site confirms your acceptance of these cookies.