Comments on: What motions should we table to autumn conference?

By: Sue Farrant

Sue Farrant — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:19:20 +0000

I’ve had more emails about academy schools than anything else so it is definitely something that excites interest. I’d welcome a motion aimed at making them fully accountable and making them demonstrate that they have an intake that reflects the demography of the community they serve. I’m less bothered about what they teach than who they teach.

My personal hobby horse is making sure that every person in this country has a decent standard of housing, with enough bedrooms if they have children and the ability to move to another home if they choose. Until we treat housing with as much seriousness as health and education we will never achieve social mobility. We have extensive rights to justice, to health care, to education but very limited rights to a home. The Housing Minister doesn’t even have a Cabinet seat, for heaven’s sake. How about something radical along those lines?

By: Social Liberal Forum » Autumn Conference motions 2 – feedback from comments so far:

Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:11:14 +0000

[...] is a clear priority, although local, government, housing and tax also score quite highly. Prateek Buch advises against making any decisions before budget day and while there is certainly merit in that, [...]

By: Rabi Martins

Rabi Martins — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:17:10 +0000

I agree with Stuart’s suggestion re affordable housing.

I would also suggest a motion on developing more poers to local government. Both Clegg and Cameron are on record as being committed to this. A motion based around specifics and seeking a start to the process within specified time frames would be worth pressing for

By: Chris Brice

Chris Brice — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:47:42 +0000

Given the huge emphasis in ‘Re-inventing the State’ on Richard Wilkinson’s work on Inequality, and the very wide coverage given to his and Kate Pickett’s latest book ‘The Spirit Level’ on the pernicious and growing destruction caused by rising economic inequality in the UK, I think we need something that urges government policies that address this issue.

It is frankly obnoxious to hear privileged and very wealthy leaders such as Osborne and Cameron claiming that we are all in it together as we face unimaginably savage cuts from which thy and their families, because of their wealth & privilege, will be immune. We need to press the government, in the light of the new revelations of the scale of the cuts, to introduce progressive income tax increases as a matter of urgency to ensure that the brunt of the pain is experienced by those most able to bear it – the rich – through taxation aimed at re-distributing their wealth & thereby reducing inequality, and not by the poorest and most needy having both vital services cut, & also having to bear the disproportionate burden of unfair VAT increases. There is now a very strong case indeed for large progressive income tax increases, as a fair way of reducing the proportion of cuts to be born by reduced public spending on vital services. Without this progressive increase in income taxes aimed at the wealthy, economic inequality rise very significantly, as in the Thatcher years, and, a la Wilkinson and Picketts research, the poor such as those on the council estate where I work will suffer hugely: becoming iller more frequently from preventable diseases, dying even younger than they do at present, suffering even more violence, having more of their children and parents committed to prison, experiencing ever higher levels of addiction and mental illness, and feeling ever more excluded from education, employment and society. We have to get the government to recognise this and hugely redress the balance between imposing cuts and progressively increasing income tax in favour of the latter. Only in this way can we maintain investment in the public sector and the kind of services that the people on my estate need desperately , whilst also reducing the deficit.

By: Martin Tod

Martin Tod — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:04:39 +0000

Completely agree on the need to go after the half-baked Academy Programme.

Trident? Or has that horse bolted?

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:46:34 +0000

graduate tax would be a good one, at a low rate for basic rate tax payers. Also bring academies into some kind of proper locally based democratic control, local government or directly elected schools boards, admissions to be done by LAs, insist on pupil premium, absolutely vital. By school too as atm wealthy schools in big cities send to get more per pupil than schools like the one where my husband works which is very deprived, but in a rural county. Lastly decent sixth form colleges everywhere. Proved to be the best way of getting good results from a low cost and best at social mobility – getting students from non traditional and less privileged backgrounds into elite universities and courses. They tens to be open to all unlike the oversubscribed schools.

By: Andrew Duffield

Andrew Duffield — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:57:24 +0000

Re-nationalisation of the water industry. There remains no effective competition in water supply. In all such monopoly situations, public ownership should apply.

A similar case could be made for re-nationalising the money supply – monopoly privilege to create 97% of sterling in the hands of a few private banks. Madness!

Or an easy one; CPI to include housing costs as a truer measure of inflation. Might help delay the certainty of the next boom-bust.

Unless we get serious about LVT of course…

By: Stuart Stockdale

Stuart Stockdale — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:33:38 +0000

I would support ‘any of the above’.
I’d also like to see something on affordable housing. It looks like centrally imposed housing targets will be abandoned. This will certainly mean fewer houses built. My local council (Lichfield) is one of the worst in the country for providing social housing. We have below average earnings and above average house prices. What we need locally is affordable housing so local youngsters have somewhere to buy or rent.. What we will probably get from the local Tories is more £500,000 houses with several bathrooms and huge double garages, sucking in more commuters from the Birmingham conurbation.
I know we believe in localism, but I would still support a minimum quota for social housing, if only in ‘failing’ authorities.

By: Mick Taylor

Mick Taylor — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:09:51 +0000

I am putting forward a motion on Political and electoral Reform on behalf of Leeds Central and Leeds West. This includes STV for European and devolved and local council elections, weekend voting, ending postal voting in favour of the ‘moving ballot box’ and requiring voters to produce some form of identity to prevent fraud.

Any other suggestions?

Mick

By: Kirsten de Keyser

Kirsten de Keyser — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:06:18 +0000

I agree with Prateek. The emergency budget will do the job for us!