We want to build a new, positive politics. A politics that rejects fear and self-interest as a starting point for policy. A hopeful, optimistic politics based on the common interests and bonds between people, and on the values of fairness and equality that most British people share.
We believe that the Labour party is the primary, but not only, vehicle for this type of politics. But Labour has to change. We need a fundamental debate on how to put our values back at the heart of our politics. And we need a fundamental debate about the future of the party to ensure that our activists and supporters are valued, for their views as well as their effort.
Our politics will only change if our party does first.
The time has come for Labour to show what and whom it values.
A few ideas -
Stop supporting torture
Understand that we don’t have to join an unnecessary just because the US tells us too
Stop demonising asylum seekers
Stop demonising benefit claimants
Learn something about civil liberties
So much for a positive politics eh Andy. If you actually cared about any of those issues – beyond 6th form style posturing – you’d welcome initiative like this where Labour return to thier core values and the grassroots to focus on what’s really important.
I think this is a great idea and I look forward to seeing more.
It will be easy to do this in opposition. The difficulties come when we are in government and the leadership collectively and individually is drawn more and more into management and away from politics. I don’t blame any individual, but I watched the process over the last 13 years. It became harder and harder for ministers to see the world as the rest of us saw it, and the more senior they were the harder it was.
Our values should always to be the voice of those that cannot speak for themselves and fairness must be at the heart. We should never overlook that if we have greater respect for our animals and wildlife then we have a greater respect for human rights and social justice.
Animal issues may seem separate when talking of politics but that is just not the case. The way Labour gained respect for bringing in the hunting ban is a fine example of the need to care.
By protecting hunted animals we were standing up for what people see as decency and how they want society to be respected. Labour has a good record on animal welfare but it could have done more.
To those who do not care for animals will not understand any talk of values for them. This message will go over their heads. Yet for those that do, they will know there is a direct link to how we treat people.
For if we can’t treat our animals well then what hope do we have for people. David Cameron will show just how nasty he can be because he disrespects animals. Our leaders always have to be better than any man who supports animal cruelty returning.
Our values are strong but we need to let the public know we still have them. They need to know that the values of social justice and of decency are the keys that motivate us.
I wholeheartedly endorse all that Andy suggests and am rather puzzled about which core values, and what grassroots, Emma is referring to in her sneering retort.
I have recently rejoined Labour, dismayed by the ConDem coalition, and out of respect for Gordon Brown’s handling of the fallout from the global capitalist crisis, after an absence of a couple of decades – disillusioned by the party’s retreat into a cosy middle class establishment.
Community activity is extremely important but, without a party supporting such important principles (as those outlined by Andy) ones time would be far better spent joining the CSV, Church Action on Poverty or the CAB.
The big battle for Labour – if the party can bring itself to address it – will be to rest power back from corporations. We’re all familiar with the rising number of companies amongst the worlds largest economies. But the real implication of this shift is that, unlike nation states, these economies are not accountable to anyone except their shareholders. Not accountable for their economic impact, not accountable for their social impact and not accountable for their environmental impact. They are not democracies and they do not observe a social contract. And as the ongoing News International scandal illustrates, some have even come to consider themselves above the laws of the countries in which they operate.
Just as the defining challenge for the Thatcher government was to bring the Trades Unions to heel, so – I would suggest – that for a Milliband, ‘Blue Labour’ administration will be to curb corporate power. It will be a bloody and painful battle, but it is essential if democracy in Britain is to mean anything. After all, what difference does the right to elect a government mean when we are all increasingly dependent on unelected, private sector organisations for our quality of life? We may have legislation to determine a minimum wage, maternity and paternity leave, pension rights and so forth – but does any of this mean anything when the private sector has so externalised their costs that we all end up as freelancers on short-term contracts?