Billy Hayes SPEECH: WHAT NEXT FOR LABOUR

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/permalink.p ... 58_0_1_0_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please find following my speech at a Progressive London/Tribune Meeting - “What Next For Labour”.

The direction of the coalition Government is very clear from the agreement reached between the two Parties.

It says: “The Parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain.”

The Lib Dems have capitulated to George Osborne’s policy on the economy.

That covers not just the immediate £6 billion reduction in public spending, but also Osborne’s planned emergency budget.

This is going to determine the immediate priorities for the Labour movement.

We have to be prepared for a serious fight to defend public services.

In the face of this, I find the response of people like Polly Toynbee very wide of the mark. I heard her describe the Government as “a progressive alliance” at last Wednesdays Compass meeting.

In the Guardian of last Thursday, she wrote that the coalition is “a bold step into better politics entered into in good faith by both leaders.”

She draws these conclusions presumably because of the coalition’s proposals on civil liberties and political reforms.

Whilst we shouldn’t mourn the demise of ID cards, we shouldn’t place these matters higher than the living standards of tens of millions of people.

So for me, the next step for Labour is beginning the defence of public services, essential to maintaining an expansionary economic policy.
In the forthcoming Labour leadership election, it is crucial that we ensure a serious debate of these questions.

Despite the capitulation of the Lib Dems to Osborne’s cuts, the arguments are strong against this.

In 2009, there was a collapse in private investment with a loss of 26.3%, worth £54 billion.

Consumer spending also fell, although not by as much, by 3.6%, worth £29.5 billion.
Now, considering the whole economy fell by around 6%, we can see that the collapse of private investment was much more dramatic.

It is only with additional Government spending of £50 billion in 2009 that the economy was kept afloat, and the basis laid for its recovery.

This was Gordon Brown’s very positive final contribution.

This is now under threat from Osborne’s cuts.

Focusing just on the deficit unbalances policy:

The deficit is so high because tax revenues have also collapsed in the recession.

Tax revenues fell in 2009 by 18.1%. This, in comparison to the fall in the previous rising trend in tax revenues, accounts for almost the whole deficit.
A further reduction in public spending would create additional unemployment, increase total unemployment benefits spending, and further reduce income tax receipts.

Osborne’s policy could increase, rather than decrease the deficit.

Not that the coalition cares – their actual policy is to restore profitability, not investment in the economy.

The type of cuts being proposed are very damaging.

The public sector employs around 5 million people. Senior civil servants have been preparing for the incoming Government a 10% cut in spending, this works out at half a million job losses.

Richard Murphy, on his website “Tax Research” estimates that on a median wage of £21,000, those half a million jobs will save £10.5 billion in wages for the Government.

But after paying benefits, Richard Murphy estimates the Government will save just £0.8 billion.

This is to pass over the misery inflicted on half a million people and their dependents.

But the public sector isn’t just a wage bill. It is also part of the economy.

By Richard Murphy’s estimate, to achieve a 10% reduction in public spending, means half a million job cuts and £57 billion of cuts in services and benefits.

So, to restate, we have a very serious fight ahead for the defence of public services.

Those thousands of people joining Labour since May 6th expect the Party to lead the defence of these services.

Of course we have just had an election campaign where it was forbidden to emphasise the progressive contributions of Labour. Yet that is what makes Labour unique.

The coalition Government will not introduce any legislation of comparable historical significance to the minimum wage, or our raft of equalities legislation.

So we expect the leadership campaign to be an explanation of how Labour can build upon the historic platform of legislation introduced by Socialists.

Let us not get dragged into facile debates where style is all. When it comes down to it, the leadership debates didn’t change that much in the election. –

It was the organised campaigns on the ground that really delivered.

So the leadership campaign should be an organising campaign as well. We want to attract new activists and voters by showing that politics matters, and policy choices make a real difference.

Nor can it be acceptable in the leadership debate to act as though there are no issues to debate on defence and international policy.

Labour leaders should not be intimidated by suggestions of being “soft on defence”, or ambiguous about terrorism.
We want a real accounting of Britain’s role in the world, and how we can be a force for peace.

That means alternatives to Trident, and it means ending the unwinnable and immoral war in Afghanistan.

With Hague in the Foreign Office, we’re going to see a completely abject attitude to US empire building. This is very dangerous for the world, and must be opposed.

Of course, turning away from empire building will have knock on benefits for public spending.

We continue to have a vastly inflated military budget in comparison to other EU states. Time to put aside the nostalgia for lost influence in the world. Time instead to engage as equals with the rising forces in the world, particularly with China and India.

Now, one thing I must pick up on is the need to defend the constitutional place of the Unions inside the Party.

The Conservative and Liberal deal says: “We also too agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming Party funding in order to remove big money from politics.”

Cameron has previously said he wants a £50,000 donation limit, and to break the Union-Labour link.
Breaking this link is an essential part of softening up the opposition to public spending cuts.

Without cross party support, breaking the Union-Labour link will be difficult for the coalition. There must be no ambiguity on this.

We want every leadership candidate to confirm they will defend the unique character of the Party. We cannot have the Tories and Liberals defining the constitution of Labour.

It is also the case that the Party’s manifesto needs to be clarified.

It talks of our starting point being Haydon Phillips’ proposals.

But we debated these, and came to an agreement amongst Party stakeholders. Jack Straw got agreements with TULO on guaranteeing the Union link. These must be restated in all our internal debates.

Opposition gives us more time to have serious internal debates.

This is perhaps the only benefit of opposition.

So we must use this time wisely. Only by establishing a clear policy, and a new leadership , can we draw on the supporters who will renew our movement.

They will be rightly hungry for power. Let us make sure we have the policies and organisations to turn that anger into change worthy of Socialists.

[chewi]

Sh*t now his mates in New Labour are out of power. Billy finds his concience. STOP THE PRESS. This is just "we're out, they're in " bull. If , and it's a big if, he was actually a socialist why didn't he stick up for his membership when they were being stitched up by Mandlevort etc.? Before it's raised I have never voted Tory and would, indeed, cut my throat first.

It becomes very clear. If you want change, then move your three piece suite into the middle of the road. By the way I have been drinking alchohol

[stokes11eg]

'We must prepare to fight to defend public services' EH?? Is this man for real? Who would stand behind him now?
Billy, you've lost all credibility with the postal workers at least. You worked with the government to destroy at least one public service!

[smokerjim]

I just couldn't get past these two lines ( lines 11 & 12 respectively )

...Whilst we shouldn’t mourn the demise of ID cards, we shouldn’t place these matters higher than the living standards of tens of millions of people.

So for me, the next step for Labour is beginning the defence of public services...

What should be placed higher than the living standards of tens of thousands of postal workers, Bill? A place at the top table at RM HQ, Ivory Towers? Even if that place is underneath management bums?

Why should Labour be beginning the defence of Public Services - they've had ample opportunity over 13 years to defend Public Services and that time has not only been squandered, it appears to have been spent making the way easier for the Tories to resume the journey...in fact, the question isn't why should Labour be beginning the defence of Public Services, but why should I trust Labour to defend Public Services?

[pendley]

poor old billy,like many others, he confuses old labour with new labour. if hes so concerned with saving public services,he might have started with ours(rm).from thatcher onwards,anything resembling a public service industry has been systematically broken down,the profit making areas sold off,the rest left to fend for itself.its taken hayes and co 30years to respond.a fraction quicker,and he could have guided us to a better deal.