Over the past two weeks, a real and serious choice has opened up in Labour’s London mayoral selection debate. The issue under discussion has been the Freedom Pass – but it strikes more directly at what kind of party we are and what we stand for.
In hustings in Croydon and then Brent, when asked if there were circumstances that would lead us to support means testing for the Freedom Pass, Oona King and I adopted different positions. Her case was: “If there is a choice, then I want the money to go to the poorest, not to pay for the richest like Prince Charles to go free” and “If you are the London Mayor and you have got less money coming in, you need to ensure the average pensioner can have the same experience or better than those richer ones you need to accept means testing.”
Over the last few days, Oona King’s campaign has sought to show that her position is not the one she set out in Croydon and Brent. I very much welcome it if Oona wishes to change her stance from the answers she gave in those meetings.
Of course, the Mayor’s powers over the Freedom Pass are not always direct – the Mayor has the power to step in if there is disagreement about the future of the scheme, using reserve powers, for example. It is administered by London councils, not the Mayor. Nonetheless, the Mayor exerts great influence over the direction of transport policy and travel concessions and the Freedom Pass directly impacts on the Mayor’s responsibilities.
On July 16, the Daily Mail reported that means testing was under consideration for the national pensioners’ travel concession. “‘More damaging still is that senior Government sources have revealed some ministers also want to introduce means testing for free bus travel – a move that would rob millions of middle-class pensioners of any free transport”, it said.
Cuts like means testing would not hit people such as Prince Philip or Prince Charles. To pay for such a policy you would need to hit many people on much lower incomes than theirs.
In the context of press reports that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition may be considering means testing for the national scheme, we need to be absolutely clear and decisive on these questions when they are raised.
If Labour mobilises public opinion, it can win. It was a mistake for the last Labour Government to go down the road of privatising Royal Mail and it damaged us. As the Con-Dem Government sets out down that road with Vince Cable leading the charge, we need to speak for those employees and those members of the public who benefit from this service. The Royal Mail is a profitable company providing a service that the overwhelming majority of the public want to stay in public hands. If selected as Labour’s candidate for London Mayor, I would use the platform of my candidacy to oppose its privatisation.
In the case of the Freedom Pass, this is a policy that unites people across London. It is particularly crucial in the outer London boroughs, where its take-up is very high. The latest figures show 51,691 Freedom Passes issued in Barnet for older Londoners and 5,903 for disabled people. A total of 43,791 have been issued in Bexley, 63,671 in Bromley, and 48,827 in Havering, for example. Older people make up a significantly high proportion of voters and are therefore vital to Labour’s support.
Over the elections from 1997 to 2010, Labour lost five million votes. We lost four million of those before 2010. Across a whole range of questions – including council housing, manufacturing, student fees, post office privatisation, the 10p tax, the Iraq war – we too often found ourselves occupying positions that dismayed layer after layer of voters who had been with us in 1997.
The cuts that are coming or have already arrived under Boris Johnson impact on middle and low-income earners and will affect the quality of life for all of us. Labour must reach out to everyone who is on the sharp end. That extends way beyond the core vote.
I want London’s mayoralty from 2012 to help shape the agenda for the Labour government I hope will be elected during that mayoral term – one that builds on those
good things Labour delivered after 1997, but also recognises the mistakes and holds together its electoral alliance over the coming years based on a new approach, beyond old New Labour.
