Proposer: Terry McCormick Seconded by: Peter May, Philip Bimpson, Phil Speakman
Sometimes, no matter how much we may understand something (or think we understand something), we find ourselves fighting an uphill battle when engaging with the electorate.
This is especially difficult when we ourselves have some sympathy for the opinions being presented by the electorate.
Whilst our Ten-Point Programme gives us much to celebrate, there is also opportunity to improve and do everything possible to not ‘lose people’ at the first hurdle.
At the same time, there are some areas of the ten-point programme which we believe are ‘sacrosanct’ and should not be interfered with in any respect. The points mentioned below do not fall into this category.
Congress acknowledges that just as our predecessors have given us a solid foundation on which to build, we (the current membership) have a responsibility to honour and understand our roots, respect the philosophical reasoning for past decisions, but also seek opportunities to further our cause and make improvements where required. In this regard, we propose that a LIMITED review of the Ten Point Programme shall be considered by the NMC, to include the following:
POINT 6:
- Rewording to either remove / change / explain better the inclusion of the word ‘laundries’.
- Change the word ‘women’ to ‘families’ (important because it currently implies that women should be doing the housework, and excludes single fathers and/or same sex couples).
POINT 9:
- Needs clarification what this means.
- Consider adding our stance on identity politics and free speech to this (potential huge vote winner).
POINT 10:
- Explain better what “putting science at the services of the people” means. Maybe needs re-wording.
For reference, the points mentioned above from the Ten-Point Programme are quoted below, in full, in their current format:
“6. Public, high quality laundries, creches and dining facilities that enable women to take part in work and public life without prejudice or physical barriers.
9. Open and easy access to all forms of culture and the media.
10. A government that prioritises giving resources to the solving of urgent problems such as the need to live sustainably and protect our natural environment, putting science at the service of the people.”
I support this motion and think it’s right to have a discussion on refining our ten point programme, not to change it’s character but to simplify and clarify it’s sentiments.
I am opposed to this motion. There is no possibility of a “limited review”, limited how, limited by whom, limited to what purpose? Where you might wish to draw the line is not where someone else might wish to draw the line. Therefore, any review opens up the entire programme.
There is nothing to stop the NMC, the media team, the leadership, issuing variations of the TPP. Indeed the variation on the back of every membership card is a curtailed version so as to fit the space. This is the proper way to use the TPP as a guiding document which can take on various formats.
As for changing “women” to “families” I do not believe this makes the point any more ‘inclusive’, nowhere are single fathers to be excluded. It remains the case that the main burden of domestic work is placed upon women, and removal of women from this point only obscures the fact that women would be the main beneficiaries and that women don’t need to be written out of every demand in a bid to ensure ‘inclusivity’.