Your Resolutions

This section of the website has been created to demonstrate grassroots feeling towards particular policies. It is also a useful resource for obtaining draft resolutions and for sharing information among activists.

If your CLP, trade union branch or organisation has passed a resolution in line with LRC policy on any issue, please forward the resolution to info@l-r-c.org.uk and we will publish them here. You will need to include:

  • Full text of the resolution
  • Name of your organisation
  • Date the resolution was passed

Resolutions have been passed on the following issues:

Nomination of Labour Party leader

CWU London West End Amalgamated, March 2006

“That the CWU will only nominate, support or encourage members to vote for candidates in the next Labour Party leadership election who support the principles of trade union rights as outlined in the proposed Trade Union Freedom Bill and are also committed to keeping the Post Office in 100% public ownership.

“The CWU will also encourage its sponsored MPs to nominate a candidate who supports these principles.

“The CWU will give prominent coverage to the campaign of such a candidate(s) in its material to members, such as the Voice.”

[The Voice is the union journal]

State Funding of Political Parties

Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, March 2006

“We are appalled that some leading members of the Labour Party are attempting to turn the publicity over undisclosed loans into an attempt to break the Party's link with the trade unions by introducing state funding. We assert the need to retain the current level of trade union involvement in the Labour Party, including affiliated organisations retaining 50 percent of the votes at annual conference”

Education White Paper

Streatham CLP, February 2006

“This Branch welcomes the gains that Labour has achieved in education since 1997, including: reduced class sizes; increased teachers' pay; improved examination results; and improved standards of literacy and numeracy.

However, we are grievously concerned by a number of the proposals contained with the recent Schools White Paper, published in October 2005.

We object to the proposals for private trusts or religious groups to run state-funded schools, and are greatly concerned by the proposal that such organisations will be given the assets of the school and the power to “appoint the majority of school governors”, as this is fundamentally undemocratic and could undermine local accountability, and threaten diversity

We are alarmed that such Trusts will be able to manage their own staffing budgets, which could undermine teachers' bargaining power over pay and conditions. We therefore propose that teachers' pay and conditions are retained within the existing national framework

We further propose that LEAs should retain control the school curriculum and over admissions policies as the best way of achieving fairness.”

Education White Paper

Finchley and Golders Green CLP, February 2006

“This General Committee welcomes the gains that Labour has achieved in Education since 1997, especially improvements in class sizes and in standards of literacy and numeracy. However we are concerned by a number of proposals in the recent Education White Paper, published in October 2005.

We are concerned by the proposal for private Trusts or religious groups to run state funded schools, especially by the proposal that such organisations could 'appoint the majority of school governors' as this is fundamentally undemocratic and could undermine local accountability and threaten diversity and we therefore call on the Government to abandon these proposals.

We are also concerned that such Trusts will be able to manage their own staffing budgets, as this could undermine teachers' bargaining power over pay and conditions

We therefore believe that LEAs should retain control over admission policies and their role as enablers of best practice as the best way of achieving fairness.

Furthermore we are concerned by the threat to withdraw funding from many excellent Adult Education courses currently taught in FE Colleges and widely used and enjoyed by senior citizens and by younger adults too. This could result in steep increases in fees and could cause the closure of many courses.”

Education White Paper

City of Durham CLP, January 2006

“That this CLP is dismayed by the proposals in the Government's Education White Paper for making schools compete with each other, creating a 'market driven' two-tier system in which less popular schools will fail.”

Education White Paper

Leeds District LGC, January 2006

“Leeds District Labour Party calls upon all Councillors and MPs to oppose proposals in the White Paper ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All’ which would allow all schools to become Trust Schools and Parent Schools and replicate the Tory policy for Grant Maintained schools.

Converting our schools into directly funded, trust managed establishments, unaccountable to their local communities is both unwelcome and inconsistent with other government policies such as Area Management Boards.

We oppose all attempts to hand over the governance and control of state schools to private interest groups and organisations which cannot be removed or replaced by the machinery of local democracy.

We affirm our belief that Local Education Authorities are still an essential element in the provision of education and which can broker sectional interests and ensure that the interests of all our children are preserved and promoted.

We ask the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Secretary of State to re-think these proposals and put forward alternatives to restore a transparent, direct relationship with local authorities as the fundamental planning and management process for the delivery of education to our children.”

Education White Paper

Islington North CLP, November 2005

“This branch notes:

  1. The Government's White Paper on education, presented to the House of Commons on 25th October 2005
  2. In particular, the proposals to allow all schools to link directly to a Trust supported by external charitable Trusts
  3. The basis of the policy in the reforms that provided for specialist schools and academy schools
  4. Concerns from the National Union of Teachers that “The idea of employers setting up schools to meet their own perceived skill shortages contradicts the purpose of education and creates a service which is about fitting each child to meet the needs of that employer.”

This branch believes:

  1. In the provision of state education via LEAs, which can ensure that schools develop in complementary rather than competitive directions to offer pupils and parents real choice
  2. The provision of education is not best served by the “ethos, support and drive” that external partners such as KPMG and Microsoft (highlighted by the Department for Education and Skills) value in their operation as private companies. The branch is particularly concerned at the proposals affording private companies the ability to “appoint the majority of the Governing Body and for all the schools within a Trust to vary the National Curriculum to suit their circumstances and ethos.”
  3. As with academies, existing successful schools will be the first to form links with a Trust and “encouraging expansion” of the most successful Trust schools will result in two-tiered, or multi-tiered local education provision
  4. That such a tiered system will not introduce more “choice”, but replicate the struggle for admissions to the schools which appear to have the highest examination results
  5. That admissions' policies should be decided by LEAs and not by individual state schools. This branch believes we need a national, fair and objective admissions policy which does not permit schools to be selective on grounds of academic ability or aptitude

This branch resolves:

  1. To oppose the White Paper proposals to turn Local Education Authority schools into independent Trusts
  2. To oppose the current policy of publicising school “league tables” based on examination results
  3. To write to our representatives on the NEC and NPF, as well as the Education Secretary to raise our concerns
  4. To write to Islington education trade unions to share our concerns with the proposals

Education White Paper

Isle of Wight CLP, November 2005

“This GC welcomes the gains that Labour has achieved in education since 1997, including: reduced class sizes; increased teachers' pay; improved examination results; and improved standards of literacy and numeracy.

However, we are concerned by a number of the proposals contained with the recent Schools White Paper, published in October 2005.

We are concerned by the proposals for private trusts or religious groups to run state-funded schools, and are greatly concerned by the proposal that such organisations could “appoint the majority of school governors”, as this is fundamentally undemocratic, and could undermine local accountability, threaten diversity, and therefore we call on the Government to abandon these proposals.

We are also concerned that such Trusts will be able to manage their own staffing budgets, which could undermine teachers' bargaining power over pay and conditions.

We therefore believe that LEAs should retain control over teachers' pay and conditions, school curriculum and over admissions policies as the best way of achieving fairness.”

Education White Paper

Islington South and Finsbury CLP, November 2005

“Historically school education was put under public authority in order to provide equal opportunities to all children irrespective of their parents' social status and conditions. The present initiative of the government to put schools under the authority of parents, to encourage differentiation in education and to establish a market for school education is likely further to deepen the social divide in England which has been growing in the past three decades. The GC urges the government to leave schools under the authority of elected government and withdraw all its plans which favour privatisation and more parent choice.”

Labour Party Conference

Brent South CLP, October 2005

“Following the physical ejection from Party Conference of an 82-year old member with over 50 years of Party membership, and his detention by the police under Anti-Terrorism legislation, this Party calls on the NEC to conduct a thorough review into internal and external security procedures before the 2006 Conference.”

Labour Third Term

Sheffield Trades Council, May 2005

“That this Sheffield Trades Union Council, whilst welcoming the re-election of a Labour Government, is appalled that Tony Blair is now attempting to consolidate his position and that of New Labour, rather than learn the lessons of a bruising election campaign which greatly reduced the Government's majority. In spite of the verdict of the electorate calling for a more progressive and inclusive agenda in Labour's Third Term, Tony Blair's New Labour agenda looks set to intensify with the following:

  1. £3 billion budget to purchase services from the Private Sector for the National Health Service, divorcing schools from local accountability and control by setting up City Academies controlled and financed by the Private Sector
  2. going ahead with legislation to introduce identity cards and other authoritarian proposals and, going ahead with proposals that young offenders be placed in 'chain gangs' and clothed in uniforms of distinctive colours
  3. to introduce social security 'reforms' and other so-called modernisation measures designed to further undermine the Welfare State
  4. to continue a right wing foreign policy agenda in support of US President Bush in Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Colombia, to further global militarisation by supporting US President Bush's star wars programme

We therefore call for:

  1. a broad and united campaign to ensure a speedy replacement of Tony Blair
  2. the withdrawal of UK armed forces from Iraq
  3. an abandonment by the UK Government of the Bush Doctrine, including the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq
  4. an end to the current attacks on civil liberties
  5. the end of the privatisation and fragmentation of our public services, particularly health, education, transport, and energy
  6. the repeal of all anti-trade union laws”

Prevention of Terrorism Act

Streatham CLP, February 2005

“This GC is appalled at the detention without charge of the suspects detained under the 2001 anti-terrorism laws at Belmarsh and agrees with the decision of the Law Lords that their detention without trial breaches the EU Convention on Human Rights. We also agree with the Law Society when they say that the proposals for house arrest constitute an ‘abuse of power’. We therefore demand that the Government abandons those provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism laws that allows the Home Secretary to make arrest without charge and re-commits itself to the European Convention on Human Rights and allows all cases against individuals suspected of plotting acts of terrorism to be heard in closed session of the High Court. This GC calls for this resolution to be sent to Keith Hill MP, Charles Clarke and the General Secretary of the Labour Party.”

Labour Party conference policy and Labour's General Election manifesto

Islington North CLP, February 2005

“This INCLP notes decisions of the 2004 annual conference and the commitments made when Partnership in Power (PiP) was agreed in 1997, namely that the policy decisions of conference (including NPF minority positions taken through the complete policy-making cycle) would be taken on board by the parliamentary leadership when drafting the Labour Party's next General Election manifesto.

This CLP believes that if the leadership does not honour those undertakings, confidence in PiP will be further damaged, and the efforts to retain, recruit and mobilise members in the run up to the forthcoming General Election will be undermined. This CLP therefore calls on the leadership when formulating the Party's manifesto, and the Clause V committee when finalising the Party's pledges, to include the decisions of conference in the following areas:

  • the workplace reforms and protections against privatisation agreed with the trade unions at Warwick;
  • returning the whole railway system to public ownership;
  • giving council tenants a so called 4th, or in-house, option when voting on ways of obtaining more resources for home improvements.”

Iraq and members right to freedom of expression

Islington North CLP, February 2005

“In relation to Iraq, this INCLP believes that to motivate members to work in the General Election campaign for a 3rd term the Labour Party must recognise the right of members to freedom of expression.”

ID cards

Streatham CLP, January 2005

“This Constituency calls on the Government to abandon plans for the introduction of ID cards. We believe that:

  1. They will not help to deter terrorists
  2. Crime could be cut more effectively by spending the money elsewhere
  3. The cost to individuals is unfair
  4. The Government record on large computerisation projects is a cause for concern.

We instruct the CLP Secretary to send the above resolution to the Home Secretary, our MP Keith Hill and the General Secretary of the Labour Party.”

Royal Mail

Hornsey and Wood Green CLP, November 2004

“This CLP notes that:

  1. The Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd provide a public service. This service is crucial to the availability of good communications to all; it administers governmental licences and taxes and also provides community support.
  2. A universal public service is unlikely to generate profits; market forces tend to take resources and good service away from less affluent customers. A monopoly postal service contracted to deliver good standards, and resourced for that purpose will serve the public well. However, the introduction of private competitors will erode standards in general provision and be more costly.
  3. The government grant, supplied to Post Office Ltd. to help fund redundancy payments to managers of sub post-offices that could be persuaded to retire, was misjudged. It allowed the reduction in sub post-offices without evidence of over-provision. At the same time costs of providing postal services were being driven down.

Therefore this CLP recommends:

  1. That POSTCOMM's planned introduction of competition within postal services be abandoned in favour of Royal Mail remaining a monopoly service. (as backed by Russell Lawson, for Federation of Small Businesses in Wales)
  2. That down-sizing and the inappropriate use of agency staff should cease and subsidy be granted where necessary to maintain standards.
  3. That the proposed sale of Clapham Common Crown Post-Office to a private company (Lilac Rose Ltd.) be abandoned.
  4. That the advice of postal workers and their union CWU be respected.”