Anyone involved in grassroots Labour politics care to discuss some thoughts?

[MarionCole]

And I know it's tempting but, Tory ladies, please don't contribute. I don't want to hear and I may flounce.

Decided to get back involved at CLP level post-election and I'm finding it quite demoralizing. I'm trying to contribute to some of the campaign material (which is frankly quite shoddy, poorly presented, spelling mistakes etc, plus inconsistent messages, clearly I'm not telling them that so bluntly!) but I'm starting to feel that it is a closed community and, although they are very welcoming, they are not letting me in. All of my (I think, constructive) suggestions are being ignored. It seems that the literature is being passed to the regional office for approval but that they are passing it back as they are too busy to look at it.

I'm close to stepping away, but I feel quite upset that they're not representing my ideals adequately and I think I should stick at it and try to effect some change over time. The bloke they have lined up to be next PPC frankly has no chance, and that upsets me too.

Is grassroots politics generally demoralizing? Or is it just my CLP?

marioncole re blog. the members looking at you like you were talking a different language.It sort of is a different language to them, but they are trying, e.g.want to set up a website. So they may welcome your help.Just need to get over the shock/delight of relative youngster joining and having ideas.
others posts about facebook, twitter etc.
I do know just a few years ago (5ish) older relatives in the party were aware of possible usefulness and keen to try facebook, twitter, websites etc, just needed help/someone younger than them (over 60 -70)to set it up/show them it/do it, as they didn't know much about them

Breathedeeply - you could be in my CLP, particularly re your comments on the railway. Just turned Tory too.

I voted Green for the first time this time, precisely because I too felt Labour no longer represented me. But for different reasons to poster above - not because I felt Labour was too tied to its working class roots but because I felt they'd deserted their core vote ie working people, in favour of those on benefits or Peter Mandelson's 'filthy rich' he was so relaxed about.

I am precisely the kind of 'squeezed middle' that Ed Miliband appears to be trying to reach out to, so I'm hopeful. And I am listening.

oh dear I think Labour need to make it clear that they never deserted working people. That benefits are for working people who need a top up (through no fault of their own) as well as for non working. (Many/vast majority?(who knows?) of whom it is no fault of their own either.)

I hope Ed doesn't forget to reach out to the working poor and middle earners as well as 'squeezed middle' working people. I think he needs telling/reminding.

It's a balance between positive campaigning and pointing out, Labour isn't perfect, but better than the misery and struggle and worry for many people how they are going to make ends meet with the tories in power. And if people vote green because they feel labour have deserted their core vote, they could well end up with a conservative mp or a power hungry libdem-supporting the conservatives. May end up with the conservatives in power. Which may not harm them personally but will harm plenty of decent people. People like that do make me feel despairing. But instead of being (well,don't know what the word is, angry and despairing) , there needs to be a way to listen to what previous labour voters who have changed say, to get them back, to keep the Labour voters and get them out to vote, and to reach other voters, especially if the core voters are 'literally dying off'

How about appealing to people to not just vote according to if they represent them as an individual, but vote according to basic principles of e.g. do you support the idea public services, even the ones you do not personally need or use? Do you realise if you are 'squeezed middle' you may one day need the national health service? Do you support families getting help to pay for child care to enable low and middle earning women to work? Even if you can afford/don't quite qualify and don't think it's quite really fair that someone who earns less than you gets money to help with childcare. (that they pay to the nursery/afterschool, not spend on themselves, and pay a big portion of what they earn to the childcare themselves as well). That sort of thing.

Somehow Labour need to find a way to educate the public electorate on what are the basic ideologies of each party. In a fun, entertaining, easy to understand way. That you are voting for a political party with certain ideas and principles, not a personality. Although I hope Ed can radiate charisma, explain things in an easily understandable way, etc to appeal to the voters. He has a certain charm. (I loved Gordon Brown, he was just unfairly misunderstood, and misrepresented by the media). Now all my support is for Ed Miliband, our hope. I think I'll draft him a letter, plus hope someone better at writing letters sends him one as well. Will it have more effect if it is sent via local Labour party meeting or just posted? Where should it be sent? Labour party HQ? Sorry for long confused post.

ideologies and principles and how these translate into policies.

alb2 - you sound lovely and genuine and I daresay if all our politicians were like you, we'd still have a Labour govt - I'm not sure you're not a rather better person than those you support...

But to get to your point, above - where I lived, Labour stood no chance, so my vote was a very deliberate 'vote from the heart' - if it had been in an area where Labour could keep a Tory out I probably would have voted Labour for that reason - though have to say I was v effed off with many of Labour's policies. Though I do agree that Labour is fundamentally a more moral party, and I agree largely with the principles you outlined above.

I think where the Labour party lost me was in your first sentence - I don't think working people should need a 'top up' - I don't want my taxes to go igher just so I can be given back less than they took in the first place in he form of a tax crdit. It doesn't make sense in terms of admin costs and it doesn't make sense logically - if I'm poor enough to be deemed to need a tax credit, then why have you just upped my taxes?

The fundamental reason that so many people in the 'squeezed middle' need a top up these days is the cost of housing - I am beyond angry at Labour's record on housing, after Gordon's 'no more boom and bus' comments.

Had Labour not instituted a slew of policies designed purely to keep house prices at artificial highs against the odds and all signs that it could only implode financially, then most of the working poor and the squuezed middle could be quite comfortably off.

We are the first generation who are poorer than our parents (though far better educated) and it is purely own to the high cost of housing. It provides a huge disincentive to the unemployed or low paid to increase earnings, as if they lose their benefits and have to pay for their housing themselves they will actually be worse off.

I am angry at the Mandelson-inspired brown-nosing of the rich, and angry at the fact that in a valiant effort not to disadvantage the poor, they forget that there needed to be some reward for those who do work long hours and don't just give up and rely on the state - or why should anyone bother?

The current finacial situation obviously owes elements to global financial problems, but I do feel Labour's policies (particularly on lax regulation of the banking system and esp re houses) made it worse, not better.

I really loathe George Osborne - please do provide me with an opposition I can feel comfortable voting for again!

a1b2 you sound great - I'll vote for you too.

If you want to get in touch with Ed, I know where he lives .

I delivered a letter to his house on Sat because the cuts are forcing our local council to shut down the whole play service. This organizes holiday play schemes, drop ins and after school clubs - all of which make family and working life so much easier.

I hope he reads it as this is an essential service that needs defending.

I joined the Labour party after the election and found a mixture of people - some old and some very young, but few my age (40). I think our generation was curiously apathetic, once Thatcher was out of the way - too interested in partying in the 90s and too interested in house prices when we got a bit older.

The Labour party is not perfect but the only credible oppostion to the vile scum that have seized power. Although I think Ed is all right, I worry that he is not necessarily the best person to lead in our media obsessed age. I am, however, prepared to give him a chance.

I think this is an interesting time for the Labour party and a great time to get involved in grass roots politics - either at a party or community level.

Thank you mslucy, Play service helps working parents plus drop in is good to keep youth from about 8 years onwards occupied. A certain type of bored youth leads to trouble in the community. So removing drop in is a false economy. And what price do we put on everyone feeling they can walk about in a friendly stress free community, even if there is no way to measure it economically? Plus with drop in I think you get a mixture of well behaved and disafected stress inducing youth. And bullying and anti social behaviour can be dealt with by skilled people.

It is sad that it seems a more interesting time for the Labour Party and to get involved in grass roots politics when in opposition. But I agree now is a good time to get involved, if we weren't before. Better late than never!

granted - I'm no expert, but it seems to me, the trouble with raising tax threshold (if that is what you meant)so you don't pay tax and then claim some of it back as tax credit, is :-

1. Everyone pays tax only on the portion of wages above the threshold. So very rich people who can afford to pay, will pay less tax as well. Leading to less tax revenue. That is why paying tax and claiming it back as Tax credits and means testing needed.

1. There are plenty of people who get more tax credits than they pay in tax. Without tax credits and other benefits, they would not be able to pay for childcare to enable them to work and even if they don't use paid for childcare, their wages would literally not be enough to live on, house themselves and families, heat house, clothe children etc. They won't need this help all their life.

I don't know how the government can prevent rise in house prices. (Apart from investing in providing social rented housing, which pays for itself eventually, (thus preventing high rents wanted by private landlords pushing up house prices for would be homeowners)). I honestly would like to know if anyone could enlighten me.

I do agree that our parents could buy houses whereas the next two generations (and future generations will) struggle more than they did, (or cannot buy at all).

Did Labour policy used to be more member-made? (re. Eleison's comment at the top)

This is interesting reading. There's obviously been a fair amount out there in the mainstream press over the years about how Labour under Blair and beyond ignored the grassroots. Seems like the Tories under Cameron are doing much the same thing. And as a non-party (any party) member that it's a self-defeating policy in the long-term. You have to hope that Ed or one of Ed's team is reading this & makes some changes sharpish.

I was wondering the same, "did policy used to be more member made?"

How was policy member made through conference in the past?(Eleison's comment?) Did local branches send their views on policy to conference so it could be looked at by the leadership before the conference, then at conference someone (delegate?) stood up and read out what the grassroots in their area thought or something? Was a vote taken? And is a vote taken now?

Was conference more private so members could argue properly, without the media saying there was infighting? i.e. did it used to be genuine discussion and is it now more of a show?

Could local branches take a vote, then use the result of that vote, to vote on Party policy?

What are focus groups, how long have they exhisted and how much notice is/was taken of them?

gingercat got an email asking for feedback on policy. Did members used to get a letter, discuss at local meeting and send feedback to leadership?

How much influence is it a good idea for local branches to have? There are many ideas that I haven't the foggiest idea what they mean, let alone what I think about them. I'm sure I cannot be alone on this but equally sure there are people that do not really have enough knowledge, (not stupid, don't have particular knowledge/understanding of implications, that is a different thing) but will have a strong view on it anyway.

oops, "did Labour policy used to be more member made"(vesela)

alb2 - re taxation, I think you need to think outside the straitjacket that Labour has imposed on your thinking. For example, your idea that if you raised the tax threshold (which wasn't actually what I was referring to, but I do think would be a good idea), then the rich would pay less tax too - needn't be the case, as you can easily adjust down higher rate tax thresholds, so the rich pay the same as before, whilst the poor get to keep more of their earnings. I certainly think the removal of the 10p tax band was a big, big mistake.

Re houses, I can only assume you got onto the property ladder pre-1997, or you'd realise how rntirely Labour screwed over those wanting to buy their first property, and how angry we still are.

Govt policy can affect house prices incredibly easily - Labour deliberately pushed house prices high and kept them there against the odds by:

• tax advantages for BTL landlords,
• encouraging/not regulating on lax lending standards - houses inevitably cost the maximum people can borrow - that's why the credit crunch brought house price falls
• allowing the shocking lack of regulation for private tenancies and short-term tenancies introduced under the Tories to continue - thus making BTL increasingly attractive, and pricing would-be owner occupiers out of the market (and see 1st point)
• failing to build more social housing, despite the huge demand for it
• failing to end the Right-to-Buy policy, or at the very least ensuring that any money received through was put back into housing

etc etc etc. I could easily go on for several pages.

Labour is definitely not innocent in all this - don't forget Tony and Cherie and their multiple BTL properties, and the number of MPs with their fingers in the trough, as the expenses scandal showed.

I will need to be convinced that Ed Milliband, another millionaire, has any real understanding of ordinary voters' concerns over housing.

granted I have seen concerns like yours re taxation from other people, e.g. on newspaper comment forums as well. What were you refering to re taxation? Was it the parcentage of tax taken? Or were you refering to something else? Just wondering what you would see as the solution? (btw, I do not mean that in the context of "don't come to me with problems, offer me solutions" a demand I think is a bit nasty and not helpful at all).

As a completely separate question - What is the Green's policy on taxation? (It would be quicker for you to tell me than to search for that info.) Then I will search for greens info again when I get time.

I didn't get my idea re tax from a "straightjacket imposed by Labour".

Thank You for the info on how govt can influence house prices.