Sunday, February 21, 2010

On the knocker in Stratford & Newtown: A future fair for all

Today, I woke up to a very wet and miserable Sunday morning. The words “Oh dear” (or something like that) sprung to mind as I contemplated the pending Sunday door knock. The prospect of soggy canvassers and sodden, illegible canvass sheets is deeply unappealing. I did once remark that politically campaigning is ideally a summer sport which just met with a pretty universal lack of sympathy from across the hard bitten political spectrum.

Yet the rain held off for today’s West Ham CLP canvass with our MP Lyn Brown (2nd right) in our Newham Olympic ward of Stratford and Newtown. We had 4 teams of canvassers out and about in the ward. The polling district we covered was mostly traditional London Railway terrace houses. We had I thought, once again, a very good response.

I very much doubt that many folk had heard that the Labour Party “vision statement” for the forthcoming general election is now a “future fair for all” but funny enough one of the themes that I and others picked up today was that residents were willing to say that they thought “fairness” was a crucial political issue to them.

This is not at all original but how on earth can we have fairness when we have the Conservative opposition promising “swinging cuts” (and worse) in essential public services while at the same time cutting inheritance taxes for the very, very rich?

I think that “our people” cannot abide such blatant unfairness and injustice.

Picture is of local members and Lyn before we went off for coffee and brunch in a Stratford High Street cafe.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

so what kind of bullying helpline goes public ????

never heard of it

obviously not very professional

why didnt they go to their union ?????

Mike Law said...

A future fair for all... what exactly does that mean?

And, what stopped the Labour government making the past 13 years fair for all?

Empty slogan from a washed-out administration.

Incidentally, did you ask the people of West Ham ward what they meant by "fairness"? Maybe the felt it was fair not to expect future generations to be burdened with paying off an excessive national debt.

Maybe not being an entry in a national ID database is fair to some.

Or could it be, not going to war on spurious nation defence treat information?

Maybe some felt it fair not to be banged up without charge for more than 48 hours.

Possibly, a few felt that a 10% tax rate for those on low incomes was fair.

Who are "our people"?

Mike Law said...

Sorry, typo in previous.

Should have read " not going to war on spurious nation defence threat information?"

Unknown said...

Some people have made the same point that Mike makes about fairness.

I'd say that things like the national minimum wage and investment in public services are a pretty good indication of the party's view of fairness.

Pretty much every policy aimed at bringing about greater fairness has been opposed by the Tories and their wealthy backers.

At the election we won't be voting to change the past, but to choose which future we have - Tory belt-tightening, or Labour fairness?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Mike Law posts a comment so critical of the Labour Government given that

1)His mate John Saunders is pictured in Jon Gray's main posting

2)From May 1997-November 2005 (i.e. EIGHT AND HALF YEARS)Mike Law was a Member of this party that, he now alleges, has done so little towards social fairness or the ubiquitous "civil liberties" !

Mike Law said...

Anonymous 16:33

As John Saunders isn’t a member of the Government I don’t see your point. There are plenty of pictures of John Saunders and John Whitworth campaigning for Labour on this blog, I consider both friends. They are Labour Party members and I respect that fact; that doesn’t mean to say that they have to agree with everything I say or do, nor does it mean that I have to agree with them. In fact, the last time Saunders and I met, we had a spat (over politics) which was forgotten within minutes. But, that’s the nature of friendship.

To correct some facts, I was a member of the Labour Party for 28 years 10 months. Having said that, I started to become distanced from the Party well before 2005. I adopted the attitude many current Newham Labour members seem to have, that is of convincing myself that things would change. It seems they haven’t.

On social fairness (however that is defined), it is bizarre that a Party (of any political persuasion) that has been in Government for 13 years should suddenly, on the eve of an election, start talking about making the future “fairer” for all… it implies that, on the issue of “fairness” it has been coasting. It’s just a sound bite with no meaning.

I’m not too sure what you mean by “ubiquitous ‘civil liberties’”, and I find it interesting that you felt the need to emphasise civil liberties. I’ll give you opportunity to elaborate before I comment further.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike
I agree with most of the other comments expressed and I do think that we live in a better and fairer county than under the Tories. There is still a huge amount to do which is not to be unexpected if you believe in a democratic reformist progressive politics.

The fairness agenda does has meaning IMO since it shows the parting of the ways. We believe in actively pursuing a fairer society while the Right do not fundamental believe in this. This is all about having politics.

Mike Law said...

“I agree with most of the other comments expressed…” There is one from James, which I would say is a pretty good response to my original comment (although I’d argue about the “investment” in public services and I’ll wait to see what he has to say about Labour belt-tightening if they get re-elected), and there’s an Anonymous contributor who thinks John Saunders is a member of the Government, imagines they have a better idea than I do as to how long I was a member of the Labour Party and tried to make some bollocks comment about “civil liberties”. Do you agree with both John?

Of course, the Conservatives will be putting forward a manifesto urging the electorate to vote for policies that promote an "unfair society"... utter rot.

And the "still a huge amount to do" mantra just doesn't wash... exactly how long will it take to get to this rosy utopia you envisage?

Mike Law said...

John,

On re-reading your comment I could owe you an apology. It could be that you're actually agreeing with the points I make (there's always a first).

If that's the case, I wholeheartedly apologise; if it isn't...

Anonymous said...

Mike Law 18.31

Of course John Saunders is not a member of the Government(!) but there he is campaigning with a member of the Government,for the Government.

I was not commenting upon your length of Labour Party membership;some 28years + is a long time.

I was commenting that for eight and half years of this Government's life you were still a party member, despite the vitriol that you now effuse towards same Government.

What is wrong with campaigning for "fairer future" ?

This being a fairer future than that which would ensue from the election of the current alternative, --a Tory Government, --NOT meaning fairer(or unfairer) than the preceding 13 years of THIS government.

After all politics is a choice, not between a flawed incumbent government and a sqeaky clean opposition, but a choice between political alternatives.

On the "civil liberties" agenda, --well,the terror threat has made our society more authoritarian,--but necessarily so. Many Labour supporters prefer a more authoritarian society anyway.In fact many prefer the birch to ASBO's.In some instances so do I.

Despite all this, the UK still remains a relatively, taking depressing look around the world , free and democratic society.

John Gray said...

Hi Mike

Sorry, No, you make I think fair points but I don't actually agree with your (23.45) views.

I was really worried until I re-read your comments.

Situation normal. Phwee, that is a relief!

:)

Mike Law said...

I really don’t understand what John Saunders campaigning for a Labour Government has to do with my view on that government.

As I stated in my previous comment, I hung on as a Labour member in the hope that things may change. My experience of how the mayoral system has been allowed to develop in Newham, coupled with my views about the Labour Party in government, made the decision to leave the Party my most logical move.

There is nothing wrong with campaigning for a “fairer future” (although that all depends on how that “fairer future is defined); there is even less wrong with explaining how we are going to get to that “fairer future”, how long it will take and what has prevented us from already achieving it.

Again, it may well be that Labour can deliver this “fairer future” and it could be that Labour’s “fairer future” will be different to one that would be delivered by a Conservative government . However, we come back to definitions.

I agree that all politics is choice, but that choice should dependent on, as Robert Dahl would put it, enlightened understanding. It is not enough to say “Labour good; Conservative bad”.

On civil liberties, I strongly disagree with you stance. To quote Pitt:” Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

I cannot accept that, as you state, many Labour supporters prefer a more authoritarian society and the birch in preference to ASBOs; where’s the evidence?

I agree that, among the worlds nations, the UK is a free and democratic society… but I never said it wasn’t.