New Hope for Britain, the document on which Labour's general election manifesto was based, was greeted with predictable hostility by the media and their Tory allies. the family and women's rights did not escape their critical attention and for gooa reason since on certal Issucs ll represents a definite advance, reflecting the hard work of women activists within the party and the growth of women's organisation (a doubling of the size of the Labour women's conof thinking represented by Beveridge and no radical measures proposed women's role in society, and thus provide a real alternativé to the Tories' view of the isolated tamiv unit.
choice between staying at home to work. Men and women should be able to share the fights and responsibilities The problem lies not so much in these sentiments but-in the lack of realise them. While it is progressive to suggest that men share responsibility for domestic work the document does not explain how this is going to be filscated to them, but that that dii ana woner sion only grew up on the basis of their we coll surp tem ol dell sesis content giving men and women equal opportunities to step into ether role the roles and breaking down the division of labour between the two sorts document to challenge this framework which leads into weaknesses in specific areas of policy. The antithesis of the family wage concept is to treat But while the manifesto proposes the abolition of the married man's tax allowance it does not situate this correct reform within the context of an overall strategy for a guaranteed inwork of equal value is an indispensable concept which the document takes on board, but this is meaningless without a statutory minimum wage which deals with the low pay ghettoes into which women are torcwere three million low paid workers in walll women: if part time workers, young workers, and homeworkers are added it totals nearly 6 million of whom the Labour's Programme '82 has gone in favour of a discussion with the TUC on the possibility of such a measure. As the TUC is overwhelmingly hostile to the laea is an interterence with its role in the free collective bargaining process (with the honourable exception of the National Union of Public redistribution of wealth within the family. It does not eclipse the aim of cano woner Indropping the idea.
Aolnen Programme manifesto is the parent families.
realistic answer which will reflect the tact that untı universal child care is provided by the state the allowance must be sufficient for the child's needs and those of the caring parent.' promise of mandatory provision of Nusenes plement' tor one parent families.
not appear in the campaign document and the promise nursery care is hedged with the pro- Labour leaders only give in under pressure.
Impoltanl advance in '82 not present in the relaton lo single ty control.
Programme '82 explained: 'We will introduce the only have the poverty which many one parent families live; an adequate one parent family benefit trom society, states that:
respect NHS facilities and abortion, This commitment, along with the represented an important break with Beveridge: a firm commitment for the state to extend its sphere phasis). of duties and in the meantime to provide a decent living rather than a 'supof the 1967 However this commitment does advance of mandatory viso that this should be 'as soon as possible'. But nowhere is the retreat from the advances in Labour Party policy over the last three years more pronounced than in relation to fertiliThree Labour Party conferences enaorscu tree ADO LUl request. Yet the document, clearly indicating pressure on all wings of the reachonal y forces 'While continuing to defend and the absolute right individual conscience, we will improve for family planning including counselling and day care; and we will remove barriers to the implementation of the existing right of choice for women in the termination of pregnancy' (our emThis refusal to move further than the limited and vulnerable provisions tion.
Act signals a. worrying timidity by the Labour leadership to the interests of women.
However such timidity is consistent with the limited scope of the document in relation to the amendment of the the laws of consent, on prostitution and of rape.
On the issue of rape the document suggests that in power Labour will: 'Give more support for victims of rape and provide urgent review of police and court procedures in cases of rape and violence against women.' Basic steps such as making rape within marriage a criminal offence as moved by John Tilley MP in the last parliament are not even discussed The sum effect of these deficiencies within Labour's programme is a retreat from any fundamental effort LO Conne lu grips with the crisis ot the family. While this is true to Labour's decades-old strategy, it corresponds neither to current problems nor to the responsibility that has to champion women's rights to liberapolicy has to be developed which, rejecting the principles of Beveridgism accepts the need for an alternative to the nuclear family if women are to be truly liberated from ties burdens experienced wIn Is Commes