Dear Progress
Against the backdrop of the events which took place in the USA, I would urge the government to play its part in promoting the fundamental principles which are the hallmark of a civilised world.
The government’s decision not to sign and ratify Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be reconsidered. Protocol 12 remedies an important defect in the Convention – the lack of a free standing, autonomous guarantee of equal treatment without arbitrary and unfair discrimination. At present, this guarantee is not available in the UK. Yours Nav Virk, Wolverhampton Southeast CLP
Dear Progress
The recent devastating attacks on the USA by international terrorists calls into further doubt the dubious plans of the Bush Administration for Nuclear Missile Defence systems. If these attacks have shown anything, it is that terrorists, if determined, will always find a way to cause harm and destruction wherever they can. The proposed abrogation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Treaty in the current world climate appears to be both foolish and dangerous.
Furthermore, whilst the Prime Minister should be wholly congratulated for his shoulder-to-shoulder stance with our allies following the New York and Washington attacks, on the subject on NMD he should be concerned that he doesn’t end up on the wrong side of the Atlantic to that of his own party. Yours Wesley Streeting, Hornchurch CLP
Dear Progress
I recently heard a report that the Tories now have more members than the Labour Party. But our plummeting membership does not seem to be causing the party hierarchy much concern. However, it does need to be tackled. This can’t just mean Millbank setting a random target but needs proper thought at a national, regional and local level.
At the moment what are members offered nationally? A magazine and a membership card. There are regional structures out there, but I’ve had very little contact with them. Locally, it totally depends where you live. At the moment I’m lucky to live in an area with a very active CLP who make sure they keep in regular contact, which gives you the enthusiasm to want to help out. Elsewhere though, I know it can be very different.
We need to reverse the trend. To start, don’t take us for granted. Yours Alex Mayer, Exeter CLP
Dear Progress
Following much debate it is clear the party has little taste for Public Private Partnerships. Yet what is the alternative? The path of nationalisation through large and bureaucratic solutions? Clearly not. Instead of dogmatism and public service by ideology, we have policy judged by outcome – ‘what works’ is best.
By focusing on outcomes, the government fails to understand the essential part ideas and values have in creating a workable system. In the case of PPP there are worries that excess profits will be made by driving down wages, working conditions and public safety.
Instead of specifying the end and making sure it happens, the government puts its faith in the private sector to get us there. That faith is not something we all share. The private sector might seek efficiency, but in no way can it be guaranteed to deliver anything approaching equality or social justice. Yours Joel Brookfield, South Derbyshire CLP
Dear Progress
Last edition’s Progress Comment, and its call for more trust and engagement of grassroots activists, could not have come at a more poignant point in time. Now more than ever, we have to ask ourselves what benefits membership confers. Furthermore, activism in the last election campaign seemed to be well down on previous elections. Being a party member must be more than an act of tribal cheerleading, and nor must it be about trumpet-blowing oppositionalism. Our history is built on the foundations that we are a mass, and as such democratic, party. It is not just increased trust, but also renewed structures that shall allow members to feel more a part of the government’s work, and a greater room to expand our membership once more. Yours Joe Goldberg, Edinburgh Central CLP