03-Feb-12
Firstly, I would like to thank David Miliband for taking seriously the arguments which were presented in my recent article in The Political Quarterly, 'In Praise of Social Democracy' co-authored with Roy Hattersley. Obviously we disagree over the recent past and the future of the Labour Party, but this should be a debate over principles and not personalities.
What does David argue? The implication is that we are being intellectually complacent – lazy even - wishing to retreat into some kind of comfort zone, reassuring ourselves while failing to do what is necessary to win the next General Election. In fact it is the other way around, the complacency comes from David Miliband, and other Blairites in the party who wish to have more of the same, the 'unfinished' Blairite agenda of the pre-2007 era. It is this agenda which seems dated and irrelevant. David is correct, Britain and the world have changed – we are now in a 'post-crash' era - but it is the older Labour values that seem much more relevant now than Blairism.
I wish to make several arguments in response. Firstly, there is no trade-off between principles and power. We should not think, as some on the left have done in Labour's past, that it is better to remain in opposition so as to be ideologically pure but nor is it necessary to sacrifice key principles in order to get into power. New Labour was incredibly cautious not only in the run up to the 1997 election, which is understandable, but afterwards. The feeling of most Labour supporters is surely one of regret. Labour did good things in power but overall the sense is one of a squandered opportunity. The fundamental purpose of a Labour government is to achieve greater equality. In this New Labour failed, if indeed it ever tried seriously to do so. Now the best hope for the Labour Party electorally is to be much more ideological.
Moreover, we should defend the central state. We did not argue that the state can do everything, nor is it perfect. There is plenty of scope for constitutional reform, for more effective central-local relations and for greater international cooperation between nation-states in a more global world. But what we should not forget is that the state is the only thing which can get us out of the economic mess and if there had been more effective banking regulation rather than championing a laissez-faire approach as New Labour did then the effects of the global banking crisis would not have been as severe as they were in Britain. New Labour left the British economy overexposed to financial services, lacking effective regulation and an absence of active industrial policy. This was surely the greatest failure of New Labour in domestic policy and we should never forget this. By saying that we should find alternatives to the central state David continues to miss this crucial point. It is the market - not the state - which should be the primary target for criticism and reform.
The contributors to The Purple Book and those associated with 'Blue Labour' share a commitment to extreme localism. David has re-emphasised that belief in his article this week. However, what is striking about this commitment is how pointless it is as a response to the major issues of the day. Few, if any, banks are based locally - perhaps they should be but they are not. It is incredibly difficult to see how effective economic regulation can be achieved by greater localism. Similarly, David wants to decentralise public services but at the same time fails to explain how this can do anything other than exacerbate the postcode lottery in welfare that Labour has historically sought to diminish. Greater powers can and should be given to local government but this also requires a compact between central and local government. The 'big society' is an attack not only on central government but also local authorities. An essential task for Labour is to defend the state, both central and local.
In the week that David chose to write his article Ed has effectively tapped into the sense of unfairness felt, legitimately, by the British people against astronomical bankers' bonuses. We should have the confidence in our traditional values, not because we wish to retreat into our comfort zone but because they are both right and popular with the electorate.
Dr Kevin Hickson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Liverpool and co-author of "In Praise of Social Democracy".
This was first posted at Next Left.
Related posts:
- Social Democracy In Crisis
- Ed Miliband and the future of social democracy
- Monty Python and the threat to social democracy
- Monty Python and the threat to social democracy
- Goodbye social democracy. Hello economic democracy.
It was inevitable that he had to go – in fairness, it had been coming for some time. The spectre of the court case hung over him, further tarnishing his credibility. Powerful friends and allies had already exhausted their capacity for patience with him. He surely knew the game was up.
Today he was cast adrift. Now the courts must decide whether he is guilty (and therefore banished from public life) or innocent (and perhaps, once again able to return to the fold).
You all assume I'm talking about Chris Huhne, but outside the Westminster bubble, that's how they're talking about John Terry.
Two different conversations. The same words. But a world a difference between them.
They'll be talking about John Terry in your local pub tonight. Facebook (a much more representative online space than Twitter) is awash with discussion and debate about how this will affect England's chances this summer. Funnily enough I've seen little chatter from non-political friends about Huhne, or about how his resignation will affect the government. I'm not expecting to hear about it in the local tonight either.
That speaks to a much bigger problem with our politics than whether or not a (then very minor) politician did or did not try to shirk a speeding ticket. In the court of public opinion, that's a far lesser crime than – for example – misleading the public and tearing up your manifesto. (Huhne's leader and old rival Nick Clegg should take note). There will be few tears for Huhne. Even his own party seemed to think him vainglorious and aloof. Instead, the real concern today should be about how trivial the problems (and solutions) of our politicians seem to such a large chunk of the electorate.
They know John Terry's name. They care (for better or worse) what happens to him. They'd be able to pick him out of a line-up.
They didn't know much about Chris Huhne. For them he's just a politician. They're all just politicians.
The public have an affinity, an interest and a stake in the lives of young millionaires like Terry, but little affection or interest in those like Huhne who are elected to represent them.
If there's any tragedy in Huhne's resignation, that's it right there...
Related posts:
Chris Evans, Labour MP for Islwyn, said:
Ivan Lewis MP, Labour's Shadow International Development Secretary, responding to the Government’s response to the International Development Select Committee's report on Burundi, said:
According to local paper the Express and Star, a Dudley councillor is facing calls to resign after admitting assaulting his wife:
"A councillor has admitted assault after throwing a pudding bowl at his wife's head - sparking calls for him to resign.
Tory councillor Paul Woodall's wife Joanne was left with a one-inch cut to her forehead and blood pouring down her face, a court heard.
Dudley Magistrates was told Woodall, 45, elected two years ago for Kingswinford North and Wall Heath, would sometimes "scare" his wife when he had been drinking."
Councillor David Sparks, Labour opposition leader on Dudley Council, said: "If he was a Labour councillor we would expect him to resign."
No related posts.
Caroline Flint MP, Labour’s Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, commenting on the appointment of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change following Chris Huhne’s resignation, said:
After Ed Davey was announced as Chris Huhne's replacement in the cabinet today, Caroline Flint called on him to "stand up to vested interests in the energy industry":
"David Cameron promised this would be the "greenest Government ever". But on his watch the Green Investment Bank has been delayed, thousands of jobs and businesses in the solar industry have been put at risk and the UK has fallen from third in the world for investment in green growth to thirteenth. The appointment of a new Energy and Climate Change Secretary is a much-needed opportunity for the Government to change course.
"With record energy bills, we need a Government that is prepared to stand up to vested interests in the energy industry and put the public first. Otherwise people will be right to conclude that Ed Davey is just as out of touch with families struggling with the cost of living as the rest of this Government."
Related posts:
Driving home from the train station on the way back from work last Friday night, I nearly crashed. Not because of any obstruction in the road, but because I attempted to throw something at the car radio, so cross was I about seemingly everyone who had an excuse for Stephen Hestor's (then) £970,000 bonus.
Now don't let's hear all this baloney about how much tax he would have paid on this and how this payment would have been good value for money for UK tax payers. We as a Labour movement have to say bank bonuses, or indeed any other bonus when you already earn £1,000,000 a year is grotesque and totally unnecessary. That we haven't spelt this out emphatically before, well the sinner repenteth and this applies whatever our strand of Labour is blue, purple, old or new.
End of story? No. Now we read that RBS executives will be allowed to pocket huge bonuses, despite Hestor's munificent gesture. Contrast this position with thousands of low paid workers on minimum wage with no pension and a seemingly endless pay freeze. Or to the thousands of carers, heroes each in their own right, working endless hours week after week unnoticed. It is impossible to calculate a price for the immense value they bring, but the bonus they will receive? I know not of one.
So what to do? Canvassing on the doorstep every weekend, I hear voters opining for Labour to break with a Tory consensus. In a compelling article, Medhi Hasan offers an alternative to fiscal conservatism, promoting growth and the creation of jobs. Additionally we must also fight to improve the lives of those who struggle on far less than Mr Hester and his RBS executive colleagues. A living wage would be the ideal way to achieve this, building on but braver than the minimum wage achievement. For all those who say a Living Wage is unaffordable for business, then I seem to recall they said the same about the minimum wage - I can't now remember the last time I heard anyone in business decry the minimum wage.
Currently, the living wage is £8.30 an hour in London and £7.20 an hour for the rest of the country. This is comfortably more than the £6.08 minimum wage currently set and for many people will be the difference between choosing between heating or food, and providing their families with these two most basic human rights.
The living wage is a Labour idea in the most classic sense. It rewards hard work, encourages ethical business, and helps reduce the gap between the top and the bottom. What's more, the party does not need to be in government to successfully campaign for its widespread implementation. Legislation, such as a cut in corporation tax for participatory companies, would be a strong incentive, but figures showing that 70% of companies feel the living wage increases consumer awareness of their ethical practices and 80% reporting that the it had enhanced the quality of work by their staff provide more than enough evidence to encourage the campaign's take up without government intervention.
If the opposition's purpose is to do just that, oppose, then Labour have rightly had a promising start to the week. But if it is to inspire debate, challenge the stale status quo and campaign for a better tomorrow, even without the pulpit of government, a Living Wage is even better; positive and practical and most importantly it offers hope to thousands of people the coalition are battering. They might even be tempted to vote Labour too.
No related posts.
With the budget fast approaching, the Deputy Prime Minister's moves on the personal allowance last week make it clear that the government is making a push to be seen to stand on the side of those on low and middle incomes. This is a demographic Ed Miliband has until now been able to make his own, and must now move quickly to reclaim.
We shouldn't be surprised that the government confident enough for a land grab. Ed's own approach on this subject over the past year has been a bit frustrating. He introduced the squeezed middle to our political lexicon, but that is largely where it's remained. Beyond one speech, he hasn't built on it or fleshed out its implications, just flung it into the odd soundbite or interview. Hence it's become a sort of ephemeral buzzword; a phrase used to describe the world, but not change it. Neither is a "blitz of interventions" on it enough, as his aides promised. He needs to put it at the heart of everything he says and does, as the problem which ‘responsible capitalism' seeks to solve rather than just as a point of reference.
This is not because, as some have argued, it is some buzzy catch-all phrase, but because it's a serious economic phenomenon affecting the lives of low-to-middle income earners across the country (e.g couple earning between £12,000-30,000 per year, or a family with three kids on £20,00-48,000). The average wage has been flat in real terms since 2003. The Resolution Foundation's recent findings highlight again that these people are now badly struggling, just about keeping their head above water – most are struggling to pay bills and are having to cut back, and inevitably feel the pain of inflation, wage freezes and cuts even more acutely.
For Labour, the faltering living standards of this group are also a real political phenomenon, spanning the whole of the country, including the South and the Midlands where the party's greatest challenges lay. The much cited Southern Discomfort series found ‘the squeezed middle' "hold the key to Labour's recovery" in these areas; around halve of floating voters say they do not have enough money to make ends meet. While some move up the earnings scale, many stay put - they remain the centre of gravity on the income spectrum.
But what should all this mean in practice? A hazy appeal to these people is not enough - Ed has to put them at the forefront of his strategy, especially on the economy. They need to be at the heart of every reaction to events, every press release, every PMQs, every speech. He shouldn't be afraid to define the group if pressed, but it would also appeal to many others who feel like they work hard, pay taxes, but get little out of it. This would open up space for a distinct and coherent alternative to the Tories, in a number of ways.
- A simple argument on the economy which resonates.
The fact is, most people are broke. Stagnating wages play a big role in explaining this, and are a significant underlying weakness in the economy (as Bill Martin and others have argued) - they have left consumer confidence perilously low, with obvious knock on effects for productivity and employment. Miliband should point out that the Tories' economic approach is failing because the scale of their austerity measures take yet more money out of ordinary people's pocket – the very people who drive the economy - for instance the VAT rise, cuts to child benefits and tax credits. This shifts the focus of the economic conversation away supply-side fetishism and on to what we have - a demand crisis.
- Bold, short-term policies which also address the party's economic credibility.
Shockingly, most polling shows the views of ordinary voters are not the same as Westminster insiders. Most are not besotted with deficit reduction time-tables (hence 'too far, too fast' polls well in abstract) they just don't trust the Labour party with their money, unfair as it may be. It's this which the Tories have exploited to push their message as the only credible approach. But there are more progressive ways of neutralising this issue. Labour should advocate a cut to the bottom rate of income tax as a means to stimulate the economy. This must be costed; so Ed should suggest partially doing so through increasing the top rate of tax by the same basic amount (e.g 2p on the top for 2p off the bottom) - then challenge the Tories to oppose it. A more vocal campaign for a living wage should be his next step, as a means of making work pay. This, on top of Labour's other work challenging train and energy companies, would hammer home the message that the party's economic priority is the back-pockets of ordinary people, not the wealthy elite. This is the surest route back to economic trust, not trying to out-posture the Tories on cuts.
- Some coherence on cuts
If Ed wants to stick to his underlying position on cuts, there needs to be more logic to those he supports and those he doesn't. Putting those on low-to-middle incomes at the heart of Labour's thinking would mean opposing those cuts which most directly add to the squeeze on these families (for instance child benefits, housing benefits and tax credits) while supporting them in areas where they have the least impact on this group and thus on demand (for example, International Development or Defence). This doesn't obviate the need for touch choices, but protecting living standards should replace the more scatter gun approach adopted thus far.
- Long term vision (which goes beyond just spending)
The squeezed middle also lends itself to a long-term argument for the run up to the next election. At the heart of the this pithy phrase lies the failure of an entire economic model. Even when the economy was booming in 2003-2004, growth had stopped translating into wage gains for many ordinary people. They were working harder, but gaining less. The benefits were increasingly skewed towards the top: while the share of GDP going to low-to-middle income earners steadily declined over the last 30 years, it soared among the top 10 and 1%. For all the growth in the last eight years and in the next eight (if any), average real disposable household income will likely stay around the same. Neither is growth in new industries or technologies per se bound to aid employment – well paid working class and lower middle class jobs have steadily been sucked out of Anglo-Saxon economies (as the story of the iPhone in the US illustrates), replaced by more insecure, lower paid work. It is to this backdrop, to fill the gaps and make ends meet, that many have borrowed up to their eye-balls.
This is the most significant long-term trend occurring in theUKtoday. Finance-led growth, the decline of trade unions, and a hands-off, self-regulatory approach to the market and globalisation have all played a major part in getting us here. For a generation, all of this – the dominance of big money, inequality and excess at the top – has been sold with the promise that the benefits will ‘trickle down'. Now, for the heart of our working population, that trickle has dried up. Livelihoods and the economy at large are being now undermined. New Labour's more redistributive measures mitigated the effect of this, but never re-shaped it. A return to the old growth, in the long-term, won't be enough. The system is broken, and there's an obvious need to re-think the entire way we do capitalism in this country.
Unlike other party leaders, Ed at least gets this, and has a critique of modern capitalism which accounts for it. His ‘responsible capitalism' agenda is a good start, but he needs to state the problem more clearly: it is not an abstract issue of morality, or heart over head, but efficiency, real jobs and building an economy which serves everybody. Neither does this have to all be about spending - to the vogue question, ‘What is Labour about when there's no money?', pre-distribution should be the answer - getting up stream to better shape economic outcomes. Greater economic organisation in the workplace, a more active state ‘picking winners', the separation of casino and high-street finance, national and regional investment banks, the protection of industry from predatory takeovers, new procurement rules, measures to deter outsourcing, and much more all have a role play a role.
But no space for any of this can really exist unless the broader trend it seeks to address is more widely known and prioritised. Inconsistency, not ideology, has long been Labour leader's biggest problem - picking themes up, making a speech, then not building on it. He has done well to redress that over ‘responsible capitalism' and bankers bonuses, but he now urgently needs to build that within a bigger argument about living standards, and hammer away at it day after day. For Labour, the way to the British people's hearts is through their wallets.
Related posts:
At Prime Minister's Questions this week, responding to a question about the Government's top-down reorganisation of the NHS, David Cameron said that hospital "waiting times are down". Yet official figures show that the number of patients not being treated within 18 weeks has soared by 43% since the coalition took office.
This error was a big whopper by David Cameron, but it is not especially unusual for his outings at PMQs. As Jason Beattie revealed in the Mirror last week, when it comes to playing fast and loose with the truth, this prime minister has form. At PMQs on 25 January, Cameron wrongly claimed that "there are more people in work today than there were at the time of the last election". In fact, the Office for National Statistics says there are now 26,000 fewer people in work than at the last election. Again on the 25 January, Cameron wrongly claimed that disabled children would not have their benefits cut, despite a Department for Work and Pensions' assessment on the new universal credit showing that the rate paid to disabled children will fall from £53.84 to £26.75 a week.
It is not difficult to find other recent examples. Last September, the Prime Minister claimed that "since the election there are 500,000 more jobs in the private sector". However, you can only get to this figure by including the whole of the second quarter of 2010, including April 2010, when Labour was still in power. According to the Office for National Statistics, 129,000 jobs were created in April 2010 - before the election. The hard truth for the Government is that over the last three months, for every job being created in the private sector, 13 are being lost in the public sector.
It seems that Cameron either cannot be bothered to do the work and get his facts right, or he is simply happy to be deliberately misleading. This matters because it tells a story about what sort of a prime minister we have. It absolutely speaks to his character. Week after week, at Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron is revealed to be arrogant, disingenuous and out of touch. And if you want further evidence, here are ten more "whoppers" from Cameron:
Ten more whoppers from Cameron at PMQs:
30 March 2011: Getting his facts wrong on university funding
David Cameron said that "because of the system we're introducing we will actually be spending more overall on universities, that's right". In fact, the Spending Review set out a 40% cut in the overall resource budget for Higher Education by 2014-15.
9 March 2011: Getting his facts wrong on per pupil funding
David Cameron said that "the per pupil funding that is in place is not going down and is being maintained". In fact, according to theIFS, rising pupil numbers mean that average spending per pupil will fall in real terms by 0.6% per year, or by 2.15% over four years.
25 January 2012: Getting his facts wrong on bank lending
David Cameron said that the Merlin agreement between the Government and the banks "actually led to an increase in bank lending last year". In fact, the latest Trends in Lending report from the Bank of England said that "the stock of lending to SMEs contracted between end-April and end-November 2011".
9 February 2011: Getting his facts wrong on the Sure Start budget
David Cameron said that "the budget [for Sure Start] is going from £2,212 million to £2,297 million". In fact, the budget he was referring to is falling by 10.9% between 2010-11 and 2011-12.
7 September 2011: Getting his facts wrong on the Winter Fuel Payment
David Cameron claimed that the Government was "going ahead with the winter fuel payment set out by the previous Labour Government in their Budget". In fact, Labour never had the opportunity to set a Budget for 2011/12. George Osborne's March 2011 Budget indicated that the winter fuel payment would revert to £200 for the over 60s and £300 for the over 80s in the winter of 2011-12 - a cut of £50 and £100 respectively.
6 July 2011: Getting his facts wrong on what his office knew about Andy Coulson
David Cameron said that the information his office had been given about Andy Coulson by the Guardian in February 2010 "contained no allegations directly linking Andy Coulson to illegal behaviour". In fact, the information related to unpublished material suggesting that Coulson, as editor of the News of the World, had knowingly hired a private investigator who was involved with corrupt police officers. The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The prime minister's account of why he failed to act on the information we passed his office in February 2010 is highly misleading."
15 June 2011: Getting his facts wrong on benefit cuts for cancer patients
David Cameron said that Ed Miliband was wrong to claim that 7,000 cancer patients would lose out as a result of the Government's proposed changes to Employment Support Allowance, by arguing that "our definition of 'terminally ill' is exactly the same as the one used by the last Government". But in fact, Ed Miliband was right about the impact of the changes. The issue had nothing to do with terminal illness and as his own minister Chris Grayling conceded, it "is not related to recovery times or to estimates of how long it takes to get over cancer".
16 March 2011: Getting his facts wrong on council funding cuts
David Cameron said that Manchester city council's funding is being cut by "less than my council". In fact, for 2011/12, Manchester City Council's formula grant has been cut by £43.26 million, while Cameron's local West Oxfordshire council's formula grant has fallen by £0.71m.
25 January 2012: Getting his facts wrong on children in workless households
David Cameron spoke of "the real shame... that there are so many millions of children who live in households where nobody works and indeed that number doubled under the previous government". In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of children living in workless households fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997 and April-June 2010.
7 September 2011: Getting his facts wrong on child poverty
David Cameron said that "in better economic times, under the previous Government, child poverty actually went up". In fact, according to the latest DWP figures, Labour lifted 900,000 children out of relative poverty and 2 million children out of absolute poverty between 1998/99 and 2009/10.
Michael Dugher is Labour MP for Barnsley East and shadow minister without portfolio
No related posts.
This morning I spoke to the Maiden Erlegh Sixth Form as part of their General Studies. I was assured that Labour and Lib Dem representatives have been invited in to speak at later dates to provide balance.
I spoke to them about the changing landscape of work, where more jobs will have to come from self employment and small companies, as the total number of new jobs available in the public sector and UK based large companies declines. I talked of the huge opportunities the internet and other new technology offers, where a student in his bedsit in Harvard University can set up a business which makes him a multi billionaire in his twenties. I reminded them as an example that the pharmaceutical industry, traditionally a big employer of UK scientists, is now wanting the early research work to be carried out by small sub contracting companies.
There were two main sets of questions. The first were criticisms of Dr Cable's tuition fee and loan scheme, and the second were questions hostile to Middle Eastern wars.
I explained the government approach to universities. The aim of the government scheme is ensure anyone can afford to go to a university, and n o-one has to repay any of the money borrowed unless they have a job with a reasonable salary. It is still a good idea for students keen to use the university experience for their betterment to go, borrowing the money on these sensible terms to do so. The repayment terms have been made easier for people on lower incomes.
I agreed with the general thrust of the criticisms of too much western military intervention in the Middle East, and explained that I have been arguing for early exit from Afghanistan and no military action in Iran.
Yesterday Tim Montgomerie wrote a depressing piece on Conservative Home, reporting the views of Number 10 stating that Conservative victory in the 2015 election would be difficult if not impossible, and that a further period of Coalition with the Lib Dems might be the best outcome. This pessimism was based on the inability of Conservatives to win more than 36% of the vote in the last four elections, and the absence of a way of "transforming the brand" in time for a knock out offer at the next election.
Let us assume Mr Montgomerie did his research well. I have no doubt that the issues raised by Number 10 are serious ones which Conservatives need to address. He mentioned two in particular which do matter a lot. He reported that there are worries the health changes could upset more electors. He quoted a Lib Dem source as saying that Conservative Ministers are not engaged in tackling one of the great evils of our time, unemployment.
I disagree with his statement that there are no people within the Conservative party expressing an alternative which could make a difference for the country, and in due course for Conservative electoral prospects. He is right that there is no figure on the right acting as a challenger or alternative to David Cameron. That is a deliberate choice by some figures on the so called right. They do not wish to be factional, to create an impression of personality based splits. They do not wish to divert the government from its crucial national task of economic recovery and public budget improvement.It is an irony that this is taken by some on the inside as a welcome weakness, rather than as a wise and helpful assistance to a government facing a very difficult set of challenges.
There are a wide range of attractive policies proposed by a range of Conservative backbenchers that could make an appreciable difference to the future of the coutnry, and could boost Conservative poll ratings. Many Conservative MPs do not share the pessimisim about prospects. After all, they argue, the polls were boosted rapidly by using the veto on the EU last December, and were boosted again by the benefits cap policy in January.
There are many ideas bubbling out of the talented 2010 intake on new Conservative MPs, as well as ideas coming from more experienced Parliamentarians. Most Conservatives would like to break the state banks up and get them powering a stronger recovery. Tough action to make the banks work better polls well. Many Conservatives would like a revolution in the energy department, so the UK could offer cheap energy to fuel industrial recovery as well as helping hard pressed household budgets. Polling suggest cheaper energy would be very popular, would relieve the squeeze on incomes and could be delivered by market solutions with private sector investment money.
Many Conservatives want power back from Brussels, as promised in the last Conservative manifesto. Making moves to start to do that would be popular, as the country is now far more Eurosceptic than its Parliament. Tax cuts are always popular. Conservative Ministers should not let Lib Dems pose as the tax cutters, demanding a higher income tax threshold, when Conservatives are yearning for a tax break of any kind and would happily settle for higher thresholds.
Many Conservatives want a Freedom Bill, to reduce bureaucracy to liberate enterprise to get on with creating more jobs. They want better control of our borders, so more of the jobs go to people already settled here, and want sensible welfare reforms to make it more worthwhile to work. Far from being uncaring about unemployment and people's prospects for higher incomes, most Conservative MPs I know would list that as one of the most central tasks they wish to promote. In many cases they would say it is the overriding task. When asked about the government, they are proudest so far of the welfare reforms being carried through.
Conservative MPs wish Andrew Lansley well with the health reforms. They were unhappy about the way the Lib Dems forced a pause and then changes in them. Mr Clegg had after all signed up to the whole package and signed a ringing recommendation of them in the original White Paper. Conservatives have no difficulty with giving more power to Doctors to make choices for their patients. They are becoming more nervous about the bureaucratic changes being forced on the government by Lib Dem and special interest pleading. It would be wrong to think the health reforms were some incubus designed by the Conservative right. Most Conservative MPs are entirely pragamatic about the reforms, wish them well, and do not wish them to do any damage (nor do they do any damage by design). All Conservative MPs I know are wedded to the funadamental popular principle of the NHS, free at the point of need. The government did not embark on these reforms to placate the "right".
All Conservative MPs recognise that the next budget is a crucial event for Conservative and government fortunes. This is the last budget that allows three years to see the beneficial consequences of any of its proposals, and still allows a decent length of time to undertake reform and get it to settle down before the General Election. The budget needs to set the course for faster growth – and therefore for a lower budget deficit – for the rest of the Parliament. The best way to get the deficit down is to promote faster growth and generate many more jobs. If the government does this, the Conservatives could be rewarded with a majority next time. There is no substitute for fixing the roof now it's raining. I will return to more detailed Budget measures in the days ahead.
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party, said today in a speech at the Thomson Reuters Building:
Chris Leslie MP, Labour’s Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, responding to BBC Newsnight reports this evening suggesting that Danny Alexander and David Willetts approved the Chief Executive Officer of the Student Loans Company’s contract, said:
02-Feb-12
Ed Miliband will deliver a speech to City and business audience at Reuters tomorrow morning (Friday) on the need for a new era of responsibility at the top of society and "one nation banking".
The last time Miliband spoke at Reuters in Canary Wharf was at the height of the phone hacking scandal. Then his aim was to sustain momentum, judging by the probable content of tomorrow's speech, it seems that will be the intention once again – focussing on Hester and bonuses, but also seeking to define "One Nation Banking", stealing Tory language in the process:
"One nation banking recognises that banks must not be isolated from the rest of the economy. Because banks and small businesses must succeed or fail together, banks must lend to small businesses so we can get the growth and jobs we need for the future. As things stand, that is not happening enough. Lending was down £10.8billion last year.
But one nation banking also recognises that these institutions cannot be isolated from the rest of society - that we are once again at risk of becoming two nations in this country, segregated economically, geographically, and socially. This is not the kind of society in which I want to raise my children. And it is not the kind of society in which the vast majority of people in this country, including bankers, want to raise theirs."
Miliband will also seek to reconnect the link between the financial crisis, and the current state of the economy – especially cuts – something the Labour leader hasn't always made a habit of:
"This is not about one man, one bonus, or one knighthood. Nor is this about the politics of envy. It is about a culture of responsibility.
"Labour has set out the case for new rules to tackle irresponsibility from the benefits office to the boardroom. Values of fairness matter more than ever when times are tough.
"The consequences of the financial crisis are felt every time a library closes, every time a school can't afford a new book, and every time a policeman or policewoman is taken off the beat.
"The banking sector needs to understand this. People who did not cause the financial crisis are paying the price. Too many of those who did cause the financial crisis are not."
One sentence from the speech jumped out at me though:
"But these moments in our national life should not be the end of the debate. They should be the start."
Ed Miliband believes that this is a unique moment in our politics when real change can occur. Or as Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel once said "never let a good crisis go to waste". If he's to make that more than just words though, he needs to continue seizing and driving the agenda – and get credit for that too.
Related posts:
- The perpetual crisis in British EU membership
- Crisis of credit
- Saatchi? What a waste of money!
- Food waste: don’t let the supermarkets waste on our behalf
- The left and the global financial crisis
From January to December of last year, the total number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance in Edmonton increased by 686 or 16%. As has been well-documented, young people aged 18-24 and those aged over 50 are suffering the most from high levels of unemployment. Throughout the course of 2011, the number of 18-24 year-olds who are long-term unemployed (that means claiming JSA for over six months) increased by 126% and the increase for over-50s in the same period who are also long-term unemployed is 45%.
In the US, Germany and Japan, unemployment levels are now either flat or falling. The Government is trying to convince people that in the UK too the labour market is stabilising but these recent figures only serve to emphasise that we have an unemployment emergency on our hands. The Government's welfare to work programmes are clearly failing, and, meanwhile, the welfare bill is going through the roof.
In Edmonton, every one job is being chased by over 20 JSA claimants. It's a similar picture all over the country. Complacent and out of touch ministers need to wake up to the jobs crisis they're responsible for and take urgent action now.
Clive Efford MP, Labour's Shadow Sport Minister, said concerning John Terry's captaincy of England:
Maria Eagle MP, Labour's Shadow Transport Secretary, said in response to the admission by Number 10 that the Transport Secretary does have powers over Network Rail bonuses:
Shabana Mahmood MP, Labour's Shadow Minister for Higher Education, has written to David Willetts following the Urgent Question which took place in the House of Commons this morning on the pay and tax arrangements for the Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company. Following her letter, she added:
Twenty three years ago ninety four men, women and children went to a football game at Hillsborough and suffered injuries so severe they died, by 1993 the death toll had risen to the final number of 96.
There are many witnesses who say that many fans who died were alive well after 3.15 pm but the coroner decided that all those who died on the day were dead by 3.15.
Fifteen year old Kevin Williams, who lived in Formby, which is in my constituency, died at Hillsborough that day. There are a number of people who say that they were with Kevin up to nearly 4pm. Those people all tried to save Kevin's life but were unable to do so as they lacked the necessary medical training. The people who tried to help Kevin include at least one police officer, yet their testimony was ignored by the coroner.
The suspicion from families, friends and supporters is that the 3.15 cut off is a convenient way of avoiding evidence that lives could have been saved if ambulances had been allowed on the pitch and if police officers had been told to help people out of the Leppings Lane pens. A new coroners' inquest would allow evidence to be presented that Kevin was still alive after 3.15. That in turn would mean that recognition could be given to the families that decisions were taken that denied their loved ones medical care or rescue. Decisions that cost lives. Those who took such disastrous decisions could be held accountable after all these years for causing the deaths of the 96 people who died, deaths which could have been prevented had action been taken as soon as it was clear there was a problem.
Kevin's mother, Anne is one of a number of people who has fought since that day to get the truth about what happened at Hillsborough officially recognised.
A petition was launched by Anne Williams, and successful in gaining the required number of signatures to request a debate in parliament about a new inquest into Kevin's death. Over a 100,000 people signed that petition and a number of MPs asked for a debate to be organised by the Back Bench Business Committee. The Back Bench Committee is given a limited amount of time to arrange debates by the government and has very little time given the range of issues which it is asked to support. The committee gave the time for the previous Hillsborough debate at which the Home Secretary, Teresa May made a number of promises about releasing papers including those from Margaret Thatcher's cabinet about what happened at Hillsborough.
It seems to me that the government should not be asking the Back Bench Business Committee to find time for debates when it made a promise to let people have time in parliament if they gained 100,000 signatures on a petition. That is an issue for another day, but I will be pressing the government to hold a debate in the main House of Commons Chamber at some point.
A number of my colleagues and I have applied for a debate in the second chamber of the House of Commons, Westminster Hall. A debate could be held there as early as next week. However, Westminster Hall is not the same as the House of Commons main chamber and there will not be a vote in Westminster Hall. I believe that a vote calling for a new inquest would be very hard to ignore and I believe that a debate needs to be held in the main chamber of the House of Commons unless a new inquest is arranged. The Attorney General has said he is considering a new inquest. He needs to make that happen. A vote in the House of Commons will show the strength of feeling from MPs of all parties and from the public.
Kevin and more especially his mum, Anne deserves the full support of MPs and so do the other families. Justice must be done and be seen to be done for the 96 and for their families.
Bill Esterson is the MP for Sefton Central.
This post was originally published by The Mirror.
No related posts.
Politicians have found themselves swimming in new shallows this week. With the economy in deep crisis, party political debate is now dominated by Fred Goodwin's knighthood, a couple of percentage points on or off VAT and the prospect of a trade union placeman being out-gunned by some corporate hotshots on a PLC remuneration committee.
Being kind, one could argue that these are iconic issues that reference much deeper disputes about austerity and fairness. Even then, this is still a two-legged stool of a debate unless one incorporates competitiveness. Today's younger generation will not look back and thank Cameron and Miliband for slaying the demons of debt and unfairness while British businesses and jobs disappear in the face of overseas competition.
This is not some "Zombie Blairite" desire to shift debate to the right. We are in extraordinary economic times not just because of the Crash but because powerful companies in Asia are marching into markets that too many in the West arrogantly think belongs to them. Simultaneously, revolutionary changes in the way companies do business, driven largely by the internet, are shaking-up important sectors and opening others up to global competition for the first time. If you want a vision of the future, look at the recent turmoil in the publishing and music businesses and extrapolate that across the whole economy.
If we could be sure that we had a swathe of business in the UK that was up to this fight then maybe the lack of noisy debate on the issue might be excusable. But the truth is the UK economy still suffers from low business investment, weak skills, a very limited presence in the most vibrant emerging markets and a heck of a lot of inefficient small businesses.
There is a particularly heavy burden on Labour to rectify this situation. The Government may do bits and pieces to promote competitiveness but the truth is too many Conservatives and Lib Dems believe these issues are best left to the market to resolve. Only Labour can make the weather on promoting an unadulterated long-term growth strategy that finally resolves the recurrent weaknesses of the UK economy.
The burden, however, is doubled because without this shift, Labour would be failing to learn from its own history. It is rare for anyone in the Party to say something negative about the Attlee Government but the truth is it failed miserably to address similar problems back in the 1940s. Lonely prophets such as Stafford Cripps urged Labour to focus on modernising British business but the decision was taken to concentrate solely on building the welfare state and delivering full employment. The Tories, of course, did nothing to reverse this awful call and the consequence was the collapse of British businesses in the 1960s and 70s as super-efficient foreign competition cut a swathe through many key sectors.
The debate that followed In the Black Labour seems to have just about convinced the Party that talking about fairness without acknowledging the reality of austerity is a recipe for incoherence. Unfortunately, in an unforgiving economic world that difficult move is further complicated by the need for a strong perspective on the global market. But if the Party can really develop an agenda that responds to the synergies and tensions of austerity, fairness and competitiveness combined then it may genuinely have a serious programme for government.
Adam Lent is co-author of In the Black Labour and was formerly Head of Economics at the TUC. Follow him on Twitter: @adamjlent
No related posts.
Douglas Alexander MP, Labour's Shadow Foreign Secretary, commenting on the Government's announcement on Afghanistan today, said:
Maria Eagle MP, Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, in advance of next week’s Network Rail General Meeting which is set to approve a new bonus package, said:
Those of us who have suggested David Miliband's latest political intervention may have – let's say – ulterior motives have received a bit of flak. Must he stay silent just because any public pronouncement may be misconstrued by the media? Why can't he contribute to the debate about the party's future like anyone else?
The problem with this position is that there is the tricky issue of precedent. Back in 2008, David Miliband wrote a similarly ambiguous, cryptic article that was widely interpreted as making a pitch for Gordon Brown's job. Oh no, it was claimed, he was just adding to the debate about the party's future. We now know that wasn't true; from Alistair Darling's memoirs and other sources we know he was on manoeuvres, but never quite had the bottle to take the final step.
I struggle to see why, therefore, it is so extraordinary to imagine his latest piece should not be seen in a similar light. David Miliband is an exceptionally bright and capable politician with years of front-line experience: he is certainly aware of how this piece would have been received in what was otherwise his brother's most successful week as Labour leader.
Superficially, the piece is a polemical response to Roy Hattersley. Is David Miliband really re-emerging from the shadows with his biggest political statement since the leadership contest – to take on someone who stepped down as deputy leader of the Labour party two decades ago? Does anyone seriously believe this?
The piece is written in David Miliband's trademark wonkish style which should give pause to those who believe he would have made a more effective communicator. But in it, he makes a factionalist attack on a constructed grouping he calls ‘Reassurance Labour'. Again, would he really bother aiming fire at this alleged tendency if he didn't believe it was exerting a powerful influence over the party's direction?
Essentially, it is a catch-all term embracing those believed to be committed to old-style statist social democracy, or what he calls the "political dead-end of the ‘Big State'".
Given he's brought it up again, it's interesting to note how criticism of supposed statism emerged in Britain. It was barely heard of before the financial crisis, when unions and activists were angrily attacking the creeping privatisation and marketisation of public services under New Labour.
What happened was after Lehman Brothers went under is that the Tories turned a crisis of the market into a crisis of public services. The deficit soared here – as elsewhere – above all because of bank bailouts, tax revenues collapsing in the aftermath of financial meltdown, and soaring spending on welfare because of rising unemployment. The Tories – who had backed Labour's spending plans pound for pound until the end of 2008 – cynically spun the deficit as the consequence of Labour "overspending", or big government if you will. Labour failed to effectively challenged this myth and, with the help of allies in the media, the Tories constructed a consensus.
Debates have since raged about how to effectively reduce the state, to move on from a fictional New Labour "statist" approach, and to focus on concepts of community instead; Blue Labour is one prominent example. Would David Miliband and others be making these points about the dangers of statism if it wasn't for how the Tories had framed the terms of debate? I doubt it.
He argues that, with social democracy, "Growing the pie and distributing it more fairly should be mutually reinforcing." Agreed – which is why Labour needs a coherent alternative to Tory cuts which, after all, has sucked growth out of the economy. That's why a strategy for growth – not cuts – should be our priority. Miliband argues the party has been united over "arguing that the Tories' austerity plan is economically dangerous", so it would be interesting to know how far he feels a softer austerity should go under Labour.
He argues "we need to continue to modernise the party itself". He doesn't mention the unions here (or anywhere in the article – which itself speaks volumes), but this is often New Labour code for breaking the union link. He certainly wants to bring in primaries, opening the door to a US system with expensive contests manipulated by wealthy donors; and undermining a democratic membership party in favour of an amorphous mass of largely passive supporters. In the US, voters in primaries are even more socially unrepresentative than those in normal election contests.
He talks of needing to "establish far more clearly what needs to be defended about Labour's record in government, not just join the blanket Tory denigration". Perhaps he shares the bemusement of those who – like myself – were staunch critics of New Labour, and now find ourselves fighting a lonely battle about the myth of Labour's "overspending" causing the deficit. It is a battle that all too many senior Labour figures are unwilling to fight. But he really appears to be echoing the Blairite mantra that Ed Miliband has rubbished too much of New Labour's record – "we should also insist that the list of gains far outstripped the mistakes".
He quite rightly refers to the 2010 defeat as "disastrous, Labour's second-worst in 70 years". And it is – I'm sure we all agree – important to properly understand why Labour lost, and which supporters abandoned it. Labour lost 5 million votes between 1997 and 2010, but the Tories only gained a million in the same time. Over 80% of those voters disappeared under Tony Blair's leadership – that is, by 2005, when Labour formed a government with just 35% of the vote, the lowest share of any successful party in the history of British democracy. The old New Labour triangulation strategy was that the so-called "core vote" had nowhere else to go, but relatively affluent swing voters were key to electoral success. But while Labour lost just 5 points of support from the ABs – the professional middle-classes – between 1997 and 2010, it haemorrhaged 21 points from its C2s (skilled and semi-skilled workers), and 19 points from the DEs at the bottom.
In other words, the old New Labour formula lost the party millions of working-class votes. "The core vote became the swing vote", as Ed Miliband put it during the Labour leadership contest. It is not a point that David Miliband addresses.
He ends the article by attacking what he calls the "Reassurance Labour tendency", not just for minimising the chances of electoral success, but because "its vision is too narrow, its mechanisms too one-dimensional, and its effectiveness too limited."
But who – other than some bloke sitting in the House of Lords who left front-line Labour politics two decades ago – does he mean by this "Reassurance Labour tendency"? Who are its leading figures? Because – again – why would David Miliband break his silence with his most high-profile political intervention yet to aim fire at it if it was not a pretty powerful bunch?
This is – in reality – a proxy attack, not a serious polemical response to Roy Hattersley. It would take impressive powers of self-delusion or naivety to believe otherwise.
David Miliband identifies the division in the party as between modernisers like himself, and the ‘Reassurance Tendency'. But I see the division as a bit different: between those who want a coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda, and those who accept the essentials of what the Tories are doing and only quibble with the details. I call the latter the "Surrender Tendency".
And before I'm accused of factionalism, I'm only talking in the same terms as David Miliband.
Related posts:
- David, "Ed" and a media narrative
- Milibands to team up and expand Movement for Change
- If the Milibands work together, we can win the next election
- Milibands at war: 8 in the morning – September 16th
- Alastair Campbell on Abbott, Balls and the Milibands
Time: 05:38 More in News & Politics
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): This is rightly difficult territory. I am relieved to hear that Ministers have reconsidered the transitional arrangements, and I am pleased that the Opposition welcome that. In the noise and heat of the debate, important truths are getting lost or ignored. We are not generous enough towards the disabled, and I was pleased to hear that they are completely exempted from the proposals, which should be widely welcomed across the House. The exemption of war widows, who often have very little to live on and whose former husbands sacrificed so much to help our country, is extremely welcome, as both parties in government have asked their loved ones to go into battle on our behalf.
I am also pleased to hear that anybody in work is exempted. The Government's case revolves around something with which I believe the Labour party normally agrees: working should always be worth while. In today's debate, there has been more heat than light. If the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party all believe that it should be more worth while to work, we need such a provision to achieve the desired effect. It comes down to the last-minute proposal that there should be some regional differentiation of the cap. We are no longer arguing for or against caps--we all now believe in that type of headgear--but Labour believes that there should be different fashions of cap across the country whereas, on the Government Benches, the passion is apparently for uniform caps.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to set a cap if one is not prepared to name a level for it?
Mr Redwood: My hon. Friend is ahead of me in my argument. So far, I think I have carried an expectant and worried Labour party with me. Labour agrees with all the exemptions, agrees with the delayed transition and agrees that we need to make working worth while.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill) (Lab): I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was about to propose himself as the head of Ofcap in practice.
Mr Redwood: No, I like representing my constituents and I suspect that the two jobs would not be compatible. I am very grateful for the kind offer, however, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman prefers the name Ofcap to Doffcap. As Labour has not yet put forward proposals to deal with the people it describes as fat cat landlords, I think it might well be a case of Doffcap to the landlords, as we seem to be discussing how much money we will route to the landlords through the housing benefit mechanism.
I suspect that if I strayed into the subject of proposals for the housing market and landlords, you would rule me out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps that is a debate for another day. There might be common ground on how we can get better value for the public money being spent while ensuring that we do not cut off the supply of housing, which would be a very stupid thing to do by clumsy intervention. We need more housing at an affordable level for people on modest incomes.
We are talking about a group of people on very modest incomes, and it ill behoves people on decent incomes, such as Members of the House, to be too mean about it. We have the conundrum, however, that we always want to make it worth while for those people to work. We all accept that there will be a cap, but, if it is to be a regional cap, before deviating from the Government's proposal to the Labour proposal we would need to know what Labour has in mind for the total costings and how the proposal would work fairly within an area as well as between areas.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): One thing that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned is that when we compare the working family with the non-working family, all too often in this debate we are not comparing apples with apples. The working family would have child benefit for their children on top of the wage that is constantly mentioned and, depending on the number of children they have, they might well qualify for child tax credit. We are not comparing properly, so simply saying that the situation is unfair to those working families gives the wrong impression. Does he not agree?
Mr Redwood: I thought it was now common ground that for a large number of people on certain kinds of benefit, work is not worth while. We are trying to solve that problem, so despite all those things that the hon. Lady truthfully reports to the House, we still have that problem, with which both parties are wrestling. That is why the Labour party is not here today saying, "There is no problem: we are going to vote against the whole thing," but is here with an alternative proposal at the 11th hour--the last possible chance to consider this.
Let us go back to Labour's argument on the regional cap. If it had come with a properly costed and working proposal, I might have been sympathetic to it, but we do not yet know from Labour what is the total package of money available. We have not even been told whether it wants to live within the budget that the Government have come up with for the proposal or whether it thinks the overall proposal is too mean. If it wants to spend much more, it will not solve the "Why work?" problem because provision will become too generous again and it will have a public spending problem.
Mr Byrne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the budget actually is because although we have heard some figures from the Minister today, he has not set out, for example, whether the grace period will cost any money?
Mr Redwood: Ministers are very capable of setting out their own figures. I do not have, at the top of my mind, all the detailed figures the right hon. Gentleman wants, which are properly things for Ministers to report to the House, but they have detailed the total savings overall and they are trying to live within that budget. As has rightfully been reported to the House today, they have given up some of the savings to accommodate the transitional period. It is entirely fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is a specialist, as is the Minister he shadows, to tell us how much difference there would be in his proposals. Clearly, Labour has not yet thought through what the total should be.
There is another, very difficult, issue to consider with regionalism: there are big divergences in house and flat prices within, as well as between, regions. We should recognise this point, which in some ways makes this policy a bit easier to stomach than some on the Labour Benches suggest. I heard a former Westminster councillor saying that she had done some work on the situation of families who would be caught by the cap in Westminster. Naturally I was worried and wanted to hear what her answer was. She said she had found a considerable number of properties that she thought would be suitable for those families, quite close to where they were currently living, which happened to be rather better value than those in which they were currently living, supported by benefits. That seemed rather good news to me. Members from London constituencies will know that within London there is a huge variety of cost in property--often street by street, not merely borough by borough--so I do not think the proposal is quite as penal as some on the Labour Benches suggest. That makes it quite difficult to set a regional cap because such a cap might be no more appropriate as an average than the national cap.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making this point, which a number of Opposition Members from Northern Ireland have concerns about. I represent a Belfast constituency and there are massive disparities between rents in the Greater Belfast area and those in more rural constituencies. If this sort of regionalisation was driven down to a very local level, it could distort people's ability to seek work in the city or outside it.
Mr Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
I am conscious that others want to speak so I shall not extend my argument further. I just want to make the point that in order to consider fairly what is an interesting proposal from Labour, the minimum we would need to know is the overall cost in comparison to the Government scheme and how these difficult problems of judgment within areas or regions would be settled. That is an important consideration.
Mr Byrne: Presumably, the fact that homelessness will not be created, which is what the Secretary of State has argued over the past year, is the reason why he has had to find another £80 million--to solve a problem that does not exist. In direct answer to the challenge put by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), our amendment suggests that the right place to start this debate is by having a level for London and a level for outside London. That would begin to address the problem he is highlighting.
Mr Redwood: That is something we need to think rather more about, but unfortunately we have little time to do so. That suggestion might have been helpful, but there is also the problem of the big variety of levels within London. We need to know the extent to which the Labour party wants to validate the current high rents and whether there might be some other solution to the problem of very high rents that lies behind some of this difficulty.
The conclusion I must come to is that the best offer on this issue at this late stage is the Government's. Something must be done to move things in the right direction and make it more worth while to work. All of us, on both sides of the House, a
Jack Dromey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister, has written to the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, following the exchanges over rent levels at Communities and Local Government Questions on Monday:
Yesterday Boris Johnson announced a 1% cut in the Mayor's share of council tax, saving Band D taxpayers in London just £3.10 a year – not even enough to buy a pint, or the equivalent of an onion a month.
Chicken feed, you might call it...
As Fabian General Secretary Andrew Harrop noted earlier on LabourList:
"If it is, as the Evening Standard asserts, an attempt to "trump" Ken Livingstone's Fare Deal campaigning, Boris has played the wrong card."
Ken Livingstone's "Fare Deal is predicted to save the average Londoner £250, nearly 100 times the £3.10 Londoners would save from Boris Johnson's "onion cut". Sometimes for a comparison of this nature, only a bar chart will do:
No related posts.
Boris Johnson's announcement of a 1% cut in the City Hall component of Londoners' council tax has been met with astonishment verging on ridicule (see Labour AM John Biggs' "onion argument"). It reduces the average household payment by the staggering figure of £3.10 per year. At a time when people across the capital are coping with squeezed incomes, Boris' pledge to cut the tax liability of London householders by less than a penny a day seems almost satirical.
In a typically grandiose press release issued by the Mayor's Office, Johnson describes his "pride" in "taking this step towards easing the burden" and in an interview with the Evening Standard lauds this as "the end of an era where arrogant politicians showed contempt for London taxpayers".
But how can we reconcile this soaring rhetoric with the measly reality?
Readers with long memories will perhaps be reminded of the furore that greeted the 1999 budget when Labour announced its 75p weekly increase in the state pension. Attacked vociferously by Conservative opponents and questioned by older people's groups, no-one could realistically say this was the Labour government's finest moment of political management. Fast-forward almost ten years and Gordon Brown embarked on his ill-fated abolition of the 10p tax rate, prompting dismay on all sides of the House of Commons.
At the root of the problem in those two cases was the same division between rhetoric and reality. To struggling pensioners the stark reality of a 75p per week increase jarred with the overblown statements of ministers. The abolition of the 10p tax band clashed with Brown's promise to "ensure working families are better off" and deeply damaged his credibility. Both served only to reinforce New Labour's association with spin and dissimulation.
Could this be Boris' "75p moment"?
It's certainly a lame-duck policy. It offers hardly any relief to Londoner's struggling in these straightened economic times. If it is, as the Evening Standard asserts, an attempt to "trump" Ken Livingstone's Fare Deal campaigning, Boris has played the wrong card.
In last month's YouGov London mayoral poll, only 13% of those polled thought that Boris Johnson "was in touch with the concerns of ordinary people" (in comparison with Ken Livingstone's 40%). A headline-grabbing announcement that promises so much but delivers so little for Londoners will only exacerbate this.
Related posts:
David Cameron is not very good at politics. I realise this is counter-intuitive but it's true. He's good in the moment. He can fly by the seat of his pants like few other politicians. I'd call him agile, but he's not good enough at hiding his emotions for true agility. He's also extremely lucky. That's not a quality to be underestimated in politics. He's also quite charming. On the one occasion I met him, he was extremely personable if a little patronising. This too has got him a long way.
Cameron has been well served by his luck and charm.
He was lucky that he was elected leader at the point where the media were desperate for a change in narrative and charming enough to convince even some in the left wing press that he really meant his hoody and husky hugging rhetoric. He was lucky to oppose only the ragged, beaten and past his best Blair and charming enough to make a pleasant contrast to the dour Brown. He was lucky to fluke becoming Prime Minister despite not winning an election and charming enough to continue to convince enough Lib Dems to commit electoral hara-kiri to keep him there.
All this hides Cameron's biggest problem: He's mind-bendingly, buttock-clenchingly, arrogant.
His arrogance exhibits itself in a number of very interesting ways, some mundane, some less so. From a man known to go to great lengths to cover his bald spot to refer to another man as "Baldemort" exhibits not just the playground bully type of arrogance that we've seen Flashman resort to so often, but equally the arrogance of "one rule for me..." that more serious flaws like his weekly lying to the House of Commons also expose.
But while his arrogance is directed at Labour members, it can be passed off at the cut and thrust of Punch and Judy politics (and let us not forget who swore to end that...). But this time, his swagger has been directed at his own member and cheerleaders in the press. And they don't like it. Not one bit.
The arrogance here is the irony of a PR man who has started to believe his own puffery. He Has never had much time for his own backbenchers, and as a result, never really got to know them or understand them. He has never understood the depth of the Tory obsession with Europe, and gambled first that they would relish power enough to stop them pulling down his house of cards, and secondly that they'd be satisfied with a taste of red meat, and wouldn't demand to see the whole cow.
He underestimated them, because they didn't count enough in his world. Boy did he underestimate them.
See that's the thing about obsessions, a taste is never, ever enough. Obsessions can't be appeased. People don't stop obsessing just because they've been given a little. They want more. More and more.
Briefly, the Tories managed to convince themselves and the country that Dave's temper tantrum really was a veto. They also convinced everyone that a veto was a great and important thing. The danger for Dave is that the long term effects of his hubris could be extremely damaging for his relationship with his Party.
Back in 2007, Gordon Brown, who started off as a popular Prime Minister, let an idea get carried away until it was too late to stop it being part of the public imagination. When it then transpired he had no intention of holding an election, it was that lack of action that eventually defined him.
Cameron embraced the concept that he'd vetoed the European Fiscal Union. He delighted in the warm embrace of his backbenchers and revelled in his poll bounce. It was Christmas come early. But like Christmas, it couldn't last.
The January blues are hitting the blues. The dream is over, and the waking up is not pleasant. What was always obvious to some is becoming obvious to those who didn't want to see it before. That includes not just the usual suspects in Cameron's own party, but also the media who are feeling bruised after their premature celebrations of what turned out to be ephemeral at best.
Gordon Brown didn't lose in 2010 because he didn't call an election in 2007. But that did start to change the narrative around him and around his opponents. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Ed's "best ever week" is gaining narrative traction just as Cameron's star is starting to dim.
We can't count Cameron out. Luck and charm are still two qualities that will take you far in politics. But as Cameron hits a losing streak, and as his charm fails more and more to mask his arrogance we may come to see what Dave has really got when times get tough. Myself, I wouldn't bet on it being any more substantial than his veto.
Related posts:
Yvette Cooper MP, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary, said in response to the publication of the HMIC report into police undercover operations and structures:
"It is clear from this report that serious reform is needed to the oversight of undercover policing to put proper checks and balances are in place.
Chris Bryant MP, Labour's Shadow Immigration Minister, said:
David Miliband has written an article for the New Statesman. You're probably aware of it by now – either because you've read it, or because you've seen the Daily Telegraph's shrieking front page (more on the Telegraph later).
If you haven't read the article in full yet, I'd recommend taking the time to do so. Like so much that comes from David Miliband, it's a thoughtful and weighty contribution. There is much in it to agree (and disagree) with. His analysis of Labour's need to move beyond the state chimes with aspects of Blue Labour thought – and the debate around Labour's purpose when there's "no money left". But it also reflects a very mainstream debate in the party, and one that has raged on LabourList often in the last 18 months – whether some in the party and the movement are too comfortable with opposition. Emma Burnell's rip-roaring post two weeks ago was just the most recent example.
Yet to read the media coverage around the intervention of the elder Miliband, you'd think this was a two dimensional, direct attacks on his brother and the party. The Telegraph, showing extraordinary clairvoyance, and mind reading prowess, describes David's essay as "an attack on his brother Ed's Labour Party" and "a thinly coded assault on the leadership of his brother". That's despite four (by my count) explicit positive reference's to his brother's leadership of the party. There's reading between the lines, then there's working around the lines that don't fit the story...
Unfortunately clairvoyance isn't everything. Central to the Telegraph's thesis is that David has referred to his brother not as "Ed" but as "Ed Miliband". You can see their point. That sounds cold. What a distance there must be between these two brothers. Except that's not the case. The original version of David's article referred to "Ed" not "Ed Miliband" – it was changed, as per the Statesman style guide, to differentiate Ed Miliband from Ed Balls.
If only someone had taken the time to check (like we did, it didn't take long)...
Similarly confused is the attempt to spin David's article as an attack on the leadership, when the criticisms are aimed at what he calls "Reassurance Labour" and Roy Hattersley (or perhaps Neil Kinnock), who hasn't formed part of the Labour leadership for decades. I know we talk about how this country are taking the party back to the 1980s, but I didn't think we were being literal. And even the most ardent supporter of Ed Miliband would struggle to argue that Ed Miliband has been "reassuring" Labour supporters recently.
What is pleasing, and should not be overlooked, is that David Miliband is starting to feel comfortable enough to make a cautious return to domestic political debate. Thats something that I'm genuinely delighted about. David wasn't my first choice for leader, but months ago I was calling for him to return to frontline politics. Most activists I speak to – regardless of their personal politics – want Labour to have a team of all the talents. That includes David Miliband.
Fortunately this won't be David's only intervention in the domestic debate this month. Next week David will be launching a major report from ACEVO on youth unemployment which will give the press an opportunity to look at the substance of what he's saying. We're also hoping that he'll contribute to the debate on LabourList too.
I hope that in these and future interventions, the substance of his argument, rather than the intervention itself, is what gets the column inches. I long for the day when David Miliband commenting on the future of a party he has served his whole adult life is no longer treated as a exercise in political tittle tattle.
And I have a feeling David (and Ed) might feel the same way...
Related posts:
Owen Smith MP, Labour's Shadow Exchequer Secretary, said in response to reports about the pay and tax arrangements of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company:
I can fully understand the frustrations many feel about the turn of events in the EU.
Many Eurosceptics thought that once a new Treaty proposal came along, all the UK Prime Minister had to do was to table a series of amendments and opt outs for the UK so we could loosen our relationship, as our price for signing up to let the others move forwards to yet more closer union. After all, they argued, the previous Conservative governemnts had managed to negotiate effective opt outs from the social chapter, the common borders, the criminal justice provisions and the single currency. Labour has now given most of those away, and most Conservatives want to get control back over vital matters like borders, criminal justice and the economy.
The proposal for a new Treaty came along quicker than the government had expected. Mr Cameron asked for less in exchange for UK consent to the others going ahead with more integration than I would have wanted, but had even his modest demands turned down before Christmas. He rightly decided to veto the EU draft Treaty, and renewed that veto this week.
Instead of bringing the rest of the EU round to offering the UK a better deal, it led directly to their decision to create an inter governmental Treaty between up to 25 states. The unresolved issue between Mr Cameron and some of his Eurosceptic critics, is could the UK find a way which works to stop the 25 (or however many finallly sign up if they do) from using EU institutions to develop and enforce their enhanced co-operation in these budget and economic matters? Some think he could. He himself says he will watch it vigilantly and take legal action if need arises.
He clearly cannot see an easy way to stop them using the EU facilities as they choose. Ultimately for the other members these issues anyway will be settled by the European Court of Justice, a federalist court. Labour signed the UK up to Treaties which introduced "enhanced co-operation" and special treatment for Euro members enforced by the EU institutions, undermining the UK position.
So what are the other options from here? The UK could hold a referendum on continued membership, and on the terms of membership, preparatory to seeking a renegotiated settlement or exit if that is the wish of the electors. The UK government could notify its EU partners of its intention to hold a referendum and seek negotations of a better deal to put to the UK electors prior to a referendum. Both these routes have been firmly ruled out by a decisive Parliamentary vote against a referendum when we recently engineered a motion and vote, thanks to the overwhelming wish of Labour and Lib Dem MPs to back Coalition Ministers.
The UK could make proposals for piecemeal repatriation of powers that have some cross party support. The idea of repatriating a third of the EU budget by opting for national control of regional and structural funds described here recently might attract such support. If it did so the government would have to take it up in the EU. Proposals this week that have come from Parliamentary sources to repatriate the lost criminal justice powers would probably attract less cross party support.
The government could take the advice some of us are offering them about the need to play tough on the issue of the use of the court and other institutions to enforce the Treaty of the 25. If the EU intends to use its legal and institutional architecture against us in pursuit of a Treaty of 25, the Uk could counter by legislating in the UK to modify our adherence to EU law in a way which offset or compensated us for the extra legal reach the 25 were asserting. There are all sorts of legal arguments about whether the UK could or should undertake unilateral legal action. Some of us think it is the obvious answer to moves by other EU states to circumvent EU agreement by having a Treaty amongst a lesser number of states, yet continuing to use EU legal process.
I understand many of you just want to leave the EU. As I need to remind you, very few UK voters vote for that view in UK General Elections, so none of the 3 main parties has it as a policy, and the Lib Dems and Labour make a virture out of being federalist parties. This means that it is not about to happen. If this Parliament will not vote for a referendum, it is certainly not going to vote to leave the EU.
That is why come out Eurosceptics have to unite with moderate Eurosceptics to try to reverse the tide of powers flowing to the EU, and to get us a looser relationship. As the last week has shown, even that is going to be very difficult. It is, however, important that for the first time the rest of EU has demanded a Treaty and the UK has refused to sign it in any form. All previous Prime Ministers have signed up to all proposed Treaties, some willingly, some after opting the UK out of important bits. We have to work with the Euroscepticism that there is in Parliament, as whatever Eurosceptics in the country want, it all hinges on Commons votes. People in the country who are very frustrated by the never ending march of EU power can help and can make their voices heard. They need to lobby all those MPs who do not vote in the Commons for less EU control of our lives, or for a new relationship for the Uk with the continental powers.
01-Feb-12
Andy Burnham MP, Labour's Shadow Health Secretary, said in response to the Royal College of Psychiatrists opposition to the Health and Social Care Bill:
Cathy Jamieson MP, Labour’s Shadow Treasury Minister, said in response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ comments on the Government’s child benefit changes today:
Liam Byrne MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, responding the welfare debate in the House of Commons, said:
This is about you!
If you are aged 14-18 and are a budding Norman Lamont or Gordon Brown and already have opinions on taxation and spending policies then how about you have a go at being Chancellor and give old George a run for his money?
Interested?
You've got until 20th February to enter the Citizenship Foundation's 'Chance to be Chancellor 2012' national competition. Not only do you get the chance to share your opinions on the Youth Budget, you could also win prizes (like an iPad - oooo!) and visit the Treasury. That's not a bad place to start.
If you need a little help to get your cogs whirring then why not take a look at the video below which shows some of last year's event? (If you've got a sharp eye you may even catch me in it, but blink and you'll miss it!)
London Labour Party have named Christine Quigley as their newest candidate for the 2012 London elections. Christine, originally from Dublin is Vice-Chair of the Labour Party Irish Society and a former chair of London Young Labour.
Christine was selected as a reserve by the London regional board in 2011 and takes the list place previously held by Seema Malhotra. Seema is stepping down from the list to concentrate on her new role as parliament's newest MP, following her election to the Feltham & Heston seat in December 2011. Speaking this afternoon, Christine said:
"I am delighted to join the Labour slate for London 2012. Young Londoners have been hit hard by Tory policies and cuts, and I feel passionately about the issues that affect my generation and my community. After four years of a Tory Mayor who represents the 1% it's time we returned a Labour team to City Hall who will ensure that the interests of ordinary Londoners are always put first."
Related posts:
- Feltham and Heston candidate selected
- NEC candidate team backed by Labour First and Progress announced
- Labour announces London Assembly candidates
- Labour begins London Assembly selection process
- Why are London Labour attacking Young Labour democracy?
I'm almost feeling sorry for Fred the Shred. ‘Humbling of Mister Godwin', mocked the Daily Mail; ‘Goodwin is shredded' (geddit?) bellowed the Daily Telegraph; ‘Once A Knight Fred', echoed the Sun, a newspaper always keen to win the most imaginative pun stakes.
It's more than tempting for the left to jump on this populist bandwagon. After seething with anger as those who had nothing to do with the crisis have been expected to pay for it, finally, one of the those responsible for the current catastrophe has been held to account in some small way.
But this is where the left should have a different approach to the right. The crisis was not caused by a few "bad eggs"; the odd greedy banker who can be treated as a fall guy, and then we can all move on. It was a system – not a few individuals – which plunged the world into economic catastrophe. This is a crisis of unfettered capitalism, red in tooth and claw, not the unfortunate consequences of some cock-ups by the likes of Fred Goodwin. We forget this at our peril.
I'll give you an example: James Dyson, a businessman who gave his name to the pioneering vacuum cleaner. He was once hailed as leading a renaissance in British manufacturing, until he shut his British factory down and upped sticks to Malaysia in 2003. It's not because he's a bad person, or morally questionable: it's because capitalism is about making profit, rather than putting the good of society first.
In short, a good slogan could be: "Socialism, it's nothing personal." The left stands in opposition to the way society is currently structured, not to the fact there are greedy or selfish individuals running the show.
Apologies for quoting myself, but in the introduction of my book Chavs I wrote: "We are all prisoners of our class, but that does not mean we have to be prisoners of our class prejudices." I could be accused of hypocrisy here: after all, like others, I've railed against the fact that we currently have a government of multi-millionaires, and the fact that Parliament is full of middle-class professionals. That's not to say the well-heeled have no place in politics whatsoever: but unless working-class people are properly represented, their interests will not be properly championed (as indeed they're not). When I asked Hazel Blears why New Labour had let 5 million people languish on social housing waiting lists, for example, one reason she gave was that there simply hadn't been anyone sufficiently interested in housing. Yet if there were people in Parliament who'd actually experienced the housing crisis, the odds of something being done about it would dramatically increase.
It should be how we understand politics, too. Some on the left offer a lazy critique of New Labour, effectively arguing that the Labour leadership swung to the right in the mid-1990s because a coterie of right-wingers (led by Tony Blair) made it that way. But New Labour was really the product of a whole range of factors: the rise of the New Right, the battering of the labour movement in the 80s, repeated electoral defeats producing massive disorientation and desperation, and the capitalist triumphalism that followed the end of the Cold War.
It's easy, too, to castigate Ed Miliband personally for the concessions the Labour leadership has made to the Tory cuts agenda. But, again, it is in large part a product of the weakness of the left (which barely exists as a coherent political force).
That doesn't mean individuals should not be beyond criticism: after all, we're not all robots – we all have agency. Attacking a politician for hypocrisy is completely legitimate. For example, I wrote a pretty blistering attack on Liam Byrne on LabourList back in January. But it was a political, rather than a personal point: if you demonise some of the poorest people in society who receive money from the state while wrongfully claiming far larger sums yourself, then you should expect to face accusations of hypocrisy.
But because the right believe that the left is motivated by personal hatred towards those from privileged backgrounds, there's nothing they like more than going for "posh" lefties. If you're from a middle-class background or above and have anything other than a commitment to naked self-interest, then you're a hypocrite, or so this line of attack goes.
Sometimes this is taken to absurd lengths. For example, one senior right-wing journalist attempted to pressure his fellow columnists to write a piece about the fact my ex-boyfriend was privately educated. I don't mind right-wingers taking pot-shots at me – it's what I expect – though I do object to others being dragged into it; at the time, I had to explain to him that he might be about to be publicly outed while he was being treated for cancer. Unpleasant, but the point that the journalist was trying to make was – "oh look, here's a left-wing journalist who rages against privilege, but look who he's sleeping with".
My whinge aside, there's always been a long tradition of people from relatively privileged backgrounds in the ranks of the left, such as George Orwell and Tony Benn, for example. And as long as they don't crowd others out, and make sure they defer to working-class experiences, then there's nothing wrong with it.
Above all, the left's beef is with a system that is as unjust as it is irrational. Taking pot shots at the odd banker, or those who had no say over which school they went to, misses the point. After all, socialism is nothing personal.
Related posts:
- We need to talk about Socialism
- Socialism and Crowdsourcing
- Socialism is democracy
- Andy Burnham launches "Aspirational Socialism" manifesto
- Who's afraid of ‘socialism?'
I am relieved that Mr Hesker decided to waive his bonus at RBS. I have been unhappy for sometime about the remit the last government gave to RBS, and the remuneration offered to senior Directors to carry it out. I have been lobbying the Coalition government to change both the task set the Board, and the way we pay for it to be carried out.
I have no objections to successful Directors and executives in the private sector being well rewarded. That is a matter for their shareholders and for them. Government cannot get into the business of setting levels of pay throughout UK companies , especially as they have to compete in a global market where talented people and successful companies can take themselves elsewhere if government interferes too much. Government has enough to do, without trying to decide what is fair or reasonable for a Director to be paid.
I do have objections to a few employees in the public sector being paid much larger salaries and bonuses than most others in public service out of taxpayers' money. I do not think it a good idea to pay large sums at RBS to senior people before they have delivered the profits and the dividends to shareholders that we would like. I am pushing for the government to require the RBS Board to split the RBS Group up , creating a range of new banks and financial service businesses out of the empire they preside over, and sell these on as quickly as possible to the private sector. So far the government and Board has come round to the view that they should sell off the Investment banking businesses, which is a welcome start.
I would reward the Directors at private sector levels for doing this, once they have succeeded. Their bonuses should be based on what they return to the private sector and how much money to get for it. I do not believe for one moment that even Mr Hester can get back all the taxpayers money poured into RBS. We are into damage limitation, into getting the most we can for it, into cutting taxpayers' risks as quickly as possible. Ministers are not cut out to be bank shareholders. Taxpayers will not take kindly to more losses from the state owned banks. We need a stronger policy to get them off our payroll.
Part of the reason for my proposal is the knowledge that we need more banks, more banking competition, and more willingness by High Street banks to lend to small and medium sized enterprises and to solvent individuals. The current state of our nationalised banks is holding back recovery. That's why the government needs to do more than breathe a sigh of relief about a £1 million bonus waived.
Thankfully, the Government have seen sense on this one and have decided to axe their reckless plan to cut the frequency of MOTs. It was frankly insulting for ministers to have expected motorists and others to welcome a move that would have left 800,000 dangerous cars on our roads, increasing insurance premiums for the responsible majority.
Call it a U-turn; call it yet another Government flip-flop; or just call it a victory for common sense.
It's that time again, when we conduct our "State of the Party" survey - the number one monthly barometer of how Labour people feel about their party. Make your voice heard, and vote on how your party is performing.
Our 2011 survey saw support for Ed Miliband declining, and gained a great deal of media coverage. Will Ed bounce back this month?
We also want your take on some of the biggest issues in the party at the moment:
- Was Ed right to focus on Stephen Hester's bonus?
And of course we're asking who is your Labour MP of the month?
How's Ed doing? And who do you rate in the shadow cabinet? It's your party, don't miss the chance to have your say.
No related posts.
David Cameron has just lost another opportunity to create Jobs and Growth in the UK. In December, he came to Brussels and annoyed a lot of our friends and allies – and helped advance British interests not one jot – when he used a so-called veto. At the end of January the European Leaders met once again at a summit designed to boost Jobs and Growth. Together, they failed to deliver the growth strategy that we all need.
What Europe needs now is a massive boost to the economies – instead we got a damp squib. It may be better than nothing, but all the Leaders agreed on at their January summit was to re-direct EUR82 billion in previously unallocated EU funds. The EU is by no means perfect but as all our European economies are now linked, our Leaders should have given us a major plan for growth, not more austerity. Faced with a world economic crisis three years ago, Gordon Brown, in contrast, came to the European Parliament in Strasbourg and then went to South America and North America and led the world in a global solution to the global economic crisis.
What do we get from Cameron? Just more austerity from him at home, and, together with right wing governments across Europe, stifled growth and rocketing unemployment, particularly among the young.
His empty rhetoric this week was about the need for jobs and growth. Even if he meant it, how could he deliver? With no friends or allies we are not the major player we should and could be, as a direct result of his December walk-out.
The next few months are critical not just for the future economic health of the Eurozone but for Britain too, and unfortunately we no longer have a seat at the decision making table. What an utter disaster.
Many other countries had misgivings about the need for a new treaty in December, but nonetheless they are there around the table. It may be that they do not in the end all sign up to the treaty, or even that there is no new treaty agreed at all, but they will all have been able to defend their interests more effectively than simply by commenting from the sidelines.
David Cameron's veto was not so much about the interests of British business, and the sixty five million British people, it was more about protecting his own back from a few Tory MPs who are now desperate for a referendum. His veto has given the hounds a taste for euro-sceptic red meat and, somewhat inevitably, they will crave more.
Glenis Willmott MEP is the leader of Labour's MEP.
Related posts:
- The Osborne Effect: Growth halved in just 12 months
- Austerity is political
- Osborne on growth – a reminder
- Budget for growth (may not include any actual growth)
- Government urged to postpone austerity programme
Luciana Berger MP, Labour’s Shadow Climate Change Minister, has criticised Energy and Climate Change Ministers for spending over £70,000 on away days to private members clubs, hotels, Fulham FC’s Craven Cottage Stadium and the London Wetlands Centre.
In many ways the past 7/8 days have been Ed Miliband's best as Labour leader, at the very least they have been his strongest period of sustained momentum since the phone hacking scandal.
Yesterday's response to the PM's statement on the EU treaty veto that wasn't an EU treaty veto was one of his best performances as Labour leader, and thee was a legitimate concern that Ed had peaked too early this week. That may have been the case, but he still did enough to best a muddled Cameron today.
The Labour benches were boisterous as the PM rose to his feet in the final Wednesday session before the recess. The Tory benches, in contrast, seemed rather sullen.
Cameron didn't get off to a strong start. In response to a question on the cut in frontline police, the PM responded that the percentage of police on the frontline increased. As the speaker noted rightly later in the session, the PM received an excellent education. Surely he knows the difference between percentage and total number. A poor start.
Miliband led off, predictably, with bonuses, having scored a significant win over the weekend. Cameron blustered and bumbled. It was Labour's fault, he cried. But a change of tactics seemed to be emerging from the Labour benches. Cameron is a friend of the rich, the bankers. Not class war exactly, but the politics of class difference. Bluster again was the order of the day from Cameron, discomfort reigned on the Tory benches.
After a 4-2 question split (a change of plan from a riled Miliband in an attempt to sustain momentum), Ed went on health, listing all of those health organisations that oppose the government's plans – including 98% of GPs. Cameron glibly tried to shrug it off. All reforms receive opposition he moaned. By that logic any reform is good reform. Even reform with near unanimous opposition. No wonder the Tories came close to scrapping the Health Bill this week.
In an attempt to turn things around, Cameron had a quote. He loves a quote. It's a wonderful substitute for detail, or preparation. Even better, thought Dave, it was a quote from Blair, to whom he wishes to be heir.
The quote fell flat, he fumbled the ending. There were no cheers. A loss for Dave. Two in a row at PMQs. Two in a week to Ed Miliband. And dare I say it...momentum...
P.s. – however, the Tories still have an advantage in parliamentary tactics though. More on this later...
Related posts:
- PMQs verdict: Desperate Dave and the Mystery Medic
- PMQs verdict: Cut the gags, Ed
- PMQs verdict: Miliband lets Cameron off the hook
- PMQs Verdict – Scratching The Paintwork
- PMQs verdict: An unedifying spectacle
Jack Dromey MP, Labour’s Shadow Housing Minister, responding to Grant Shapps speech, said:
Maria Eagle MP, Labour’s Shadow Transport Secretary, said in response to the Government’s decision to abandon plans to cut the frequency of MoTs:
Rachel Reeves MP, Labour’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in response to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Green Budget, said:
Jim Murphy MP, Labour’s Shadow Defence Secretary, responding to the release of the Government’s White Paper, ‘National Security Through Technology: Technology, Equipment and Support for UK Defence and Security’, said:
Imagine a major British political figure, like the Mayor of London or the First Minister of Scotland, in the middle of a political scandal which everyone thought he would go down for. At the last minute a jury finds him not guilty by one vote, amidst accusations of jury-nobbling, and the man walks, to the amazement of everyone. Meanwhile, the internationally-respected judge who first investigated the case is being tried on a apparently trumped-up charge of overstepping his judicial authority, brought by - wait for it - the BNP.
This bizarre plot sounds like the stuff of a daytime TV drama, or a 1970s banana republic. But no, amazingly, this is what's happening in our modern, vibrant, long-democratic European neighbour, Spain. Francisco Camps, President of Valencia's regional government, resigned his post to "clear his name" after a typical corruption case was brought about accepting gifts of a few expensive suits. Last week, he was unexpectedly cleared of the charge. But cleared his name he has surely not, the trial having uncovered a deep links between the Spanish conservatives, the PP, and a group of businessmen awarded government contracts, a fact acknowledged even in the more sympathetic sections the right-wing press. As a La Vanguardia editorial noted, with generous understatement:
"...it will be difficult to forget what was demonstrated during the trial, through multiple taped conversations that became public during the sessions: a way of administering power which was far from exemplary".
Meanwhile, having just taken power nationally, the PP leadership is shamefully congratulating Camps on his acquittal over the suits, papering over the cracks and pretending that the rest never happened. Move along, nothing to see here.
The jury vote - a fairly uncommon event in Spain, where most cases are tried by judges - was won 5-4, leading to speculation that jurors had been intimidated, or bribed. A conspiracy theory? Perhaps: but look at the facts. Firstly only one in ten jury cases fail to get convictions, and this was one, which makes it highly unusual, especially for one so high-profile. A disturbing coincidence was that one of Camps' close associates, a young star of the PP's youth wing who was observing every session of the trial from the gallery, was also photographed having breakfast on the same terrace as the jury on the morning of the verdict, just a few minutes before they arrived. Finally, no serious commentator on the trial thinks that Camps is left untainted: in any event, acquittal on the relatively minor-scale corruption of the suits is just the tip of the iceberg. There will now be an appeal and possibly other prosecutions.
And finally, meet Baltasar Garzón, Spain's most well-known judge, celebrated for bringing the dictator Pinochet, Camps and other Spanish politicians, and many members of ETA to trial. More recently, he had been fighting to allow the families of Civil War dead, buried in mass graves, the right to a proper burial. This case, for which he is currently being tried, was brought by Manos Limpias, an odious but well-funded organisation of the far-right, which is concerned at what might be uncovered about the Franco era if the graves were to be reopened.
Now, sadly, corruption in Spain is nothing new in all political parties. And even fairly impartial observers agree that the Spanish judicial system is over-politicised: many such constitutional loose ends got left over from the transition to democracy thirty years ago. But this is a new low. If Garzón were to be convicted, it would be an astonishing miscarriage of justice with reverberations across the world, as this New York Times editorial showed last year:
"Spain's best-known investigative magistrate, Baltasar Garzón, is now being prosecuted in a politically driven case that should have been thrown out of court."
If you lived in a country with twenty per cent unemployment and in the middle of a harsh austerity programme (so as not to go the same way as Greece in the euro crisis and thereby bring the whole thing crashing down), you might think that the last thing you needed was not to be able to trust politicians or the legal system. It is a dizzying inversion when the thoroughly dubious politician walks free, while the stellar judge who indicted him sits in the dock. You start to understand the feelings of the "Indignados", who occupied various buildings inMadrid last year, fed up with the self-serving Establishment.
But the worst thing about all of this is that if Garzón were to be convicted, not only would it mean the ignominious end of an inspiring career, which helped secure justice for Chilean and Argentine families after their dictatorships. It would probably also, with tragic irony, put paid to the hopes of many similar victims' families in his own country of putting their ghosts to rest.
And leave a sad and shabby stain on the international reputation of one of the world's great nations, not to mention its governing party.
No related posts.
Speaking before the return of the Welfare Reform Bill to the commons today, shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne attacked the government, accusing them of "snatching away" support from cancer patients and disabled children:
"We are determined to stop a Government which seems hell-bent on snatching away support from cancer patients and children with disabilities."
"We believe welfare to work needs jobs – and this bill doesn't create a single one. Instead it cuts support for people trying to do the right thing like mums trying to go back to work and families trying to save, and quite frankly it crosses a line of basic British decency."
"This Government now seems relaxed about giving giant bonuses for bankers but resolute about axing help for cancer patients and disabled children. That tells you everything you need to know about their values."
Related posts:
Today, at 12.30pm the welfare reform bill will return to the House of Commons.
Let's be very clear – it is a dangerous, incomplete bill based on flawed evidence and unpleasant ideals. It is vast and impenetrable - most of the ministers arguing for it have very little understanding of the detail within it. Yes, that's right, they don't understand the details or effects of their own policies.
The welfare reform bill will affect every one of us, not just the "feckless scroungers" the government have led you to believe. Child benefit will be cut, tax credits for "hard working families" will be cut, tax credits for disabled children, NI credits for disabled children, we will all eventually be transferred onto Universal Credit where both parents will be expected to be in full time work when their children reach the age of 12. Everyone will face sanctions.
Make no mistake – this bill fatally erodes the already inadequate social security provision we have in the UK. For all the big numbers the government like to toss around, we have the lowest levels of benefits and the toughest sanctions of any developed nation. This bill is the tipping point. People are going to die and we've done everything – and more – that we possible could to highlight the most dangerous areas.
The House of Lords is described as:
"A forum of expertise, making laws and providing scrutiny of Government"
And so we've found them to be. The Lords is packed full of ex-CEOs of charities, disabled members and those who have enjoyed full and varied careers before becoming peers. They analysed every line of this bill carefully and thoughtfully. They were concerned by the same areas that concerned campaigners and charities alike - the dangerous parts. In fact, they were concerned by many, many more aspects of this bill and only the most disgusting, pointless, cruel clauses have been overturned. Many amendments were argued for passionately yet withdrawn after reassurances from the minister.
And we are still left with a dangerous bill. It may just be slightly less dangerous than it was.
-What has been amended? Well, if you fall desperately ill, you will now have at least 2 years to recover instead of 1. Frankly, that's pathetic, you are just as likely to be ill with Parkinson's or MS after two years as you are after 1, but it's something. (Time Limiting contributory ESA)
-The most disabled children, who will never work will keep an entitlement to NI credits if the Lords amendments stand. This makes the difference between a degree of independence in adulthood or total dependency for the rest of their lives.
-Tax credits for disabled children would not be halved if the Lords amendments stand.
-Cancer patients would not have to look for work while suffering through chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
-Single parents would not be fined £100 to gain access to the Child Support Agency.
-Child benefit would be excluded from the Universal Credit benefit cap so that children are not penalised for the decisions of their parents.
Do you see how pathetically modest these changes are??? Can you believe we're even arguing about whether to send cancer patients to the jobcentre or not? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about this bill?
If even that doesn't convince you, then remember, the entire disabled community are united against this bill. Not just a few campaigners, but every national charity, every campaign group every church group, every poverty group, everyone who actually knows the details of it. They represent an electorate of millions and every MP going in to vote today will have received thousands of pleas not to overturn these amendments. The Government claim to be working with disabled people. They are not. They are meeting with disabled people, their groups and charities, and then ignoring them. Scope, Mind, Mencap, Macmillan, Sense, Papworth Trust, RNIB, The Disability Alliance, the Disability Benefits Consortium... the list goes on and on and on. No-one with any real knowledge supports this bill.
The crossbenchers in the Lords are not political. They heard the "evidence" presented by the government and they heard our evidence and overwhelmingly, on every issue that was overturned, they voted with us.
So what sickening arrogance is it that says "We don't care and we will do exactly what we like"? What kind of people believe that in a bill of over 175 pages there is no room for improvement at all? Most disgustingly, what kind of people look at the very modest changes above and believe that "We can't afford it" is a valid argument? Seriously? What kind of people? What kind of brains are so weak, so unimaginative, so mis-guided and dull that they cannot think of anywhere but cancer patients and profoundly disabled children to save a few pounds??? Should we not have looked everywhere else first? Should ministers not be refusing their bloody salaries before they take money from disabled children??
Yet today, the DWP expects Conservative and LibDem ministers to saunter into the house of commons, without having heard any of these arguments and vote as they are told to. To vote with a few misguided DWP ministers against the will of the entire sick and disabled community. Against sense, against reason, against safety. The painstaking work of 18 months of reasoned argument all undone in an afternoon – if they're lucky they might even get away for a quick 9 holes before supper!!!
It disgusts me.
This is not democracy, this is utter cowardice. This is not sane it is utter madness. This is not safe.
And so, as you might expect, I implore MPs to vote with their consciences. Not to follow the party whip but to think of loved ones who have suffered terrible illness and ask themselves if that loved one could certainly have returned to work within a year? To ask themselves whether or not they could look for work if they had a child so profoundly disabled that they needed 24 hour care? Do not inflict on us what you would not accept for yourselves or your families, please.
I promise you, now, today, that this bill will be an utter disaster. It is like watching a slow car crash. By the next election, hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people are going to be affected by it and the headlines will be unremitting. At the very least, those of you who vote to keep the Lord's amendments today will have gone some very small way to making it less of a disaster.
And those that don't? Well shame on you.
Related posts:
- Government slash benefits for Disabled Children
- A vote for AV is a vote for Labour’s values
- Don’t let Labour’s faint hearts put us off a progressive pact
- Why vote Labour?
- Why vote Labour?
After yesterday's EU inspired attack on the PM from Philip Davies MP, and some feisty questions from his backbenchers yesterday, Caneron is under renewed attack today, this time from the post boy of the Tory hard right Dan Hannan.
In an article for the Guardian entitled, "David Cameron has allowed Europe to say FU to its people", Hannan says:
"In one important sense, we are now in a worse position than we were before December. We have set the precedent that, if some integrationist states want to go further but fail to gain the approval of all 27 EU members, they need only sign an intergovernmental accord among themselves and carry on using EU institutions. This, in effect, means that there can never be any more vetoes - ever."
No related posts.
It was typical of Mr Miliband that he used a good phrase out of time and when it was not true. Mr Cameron used the veto , refusing a UK signature on the proposed new Treaty before Christmas, and then renewed the same veto this week. He has made it crystal clear that the UK will not sign the proposed Treaty, will not surrender more powers, will not submit its budgets to Euro style controls. I for one am relieved Mr Cameron was doing the negotiating rather than the Labour leader. Labour in office gave away huge powers at Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.
Some smell treachery nonetheless, saying that Mr Cameron should also have made sure the ECJ will not adjudicate in matters arising from the Treaty of the 25 proposed this week. Labour, of course, negotiated the UK into an arrangement under the existing Treaties where the Euro area requirements of the 17 are under the ECJ and serviced by the EU, even though 10 other states are not members. They allowed the idea of "enhanced co-operation" to become established. This means they do already have Treaty powers to run a club within the club.
I and my colleagues have no wish to see new powers gained by the ECJ as a result of a Treaty of the 25. We have been told by Mr Cameron that he has placed a veto on any new ECJ powers over the UK, and would resort to legal challenge if the UK felt the ECJ was acting incorrectly in pursuit of a non EU Treaty by the 25. Many of us will be watching progress on just this.
Some of us will also be very surprised if this Treaty comes to pass in anything like its current form. It will presumably need the referendum approval of the Irish and maybe others. The front runner for French President says he wants to scrap the current version and wants fundamental revision. Other countries are keeping a low profile but may have ratification problems ahead if it comes to that. The Czechs have jumped ship since Christmas.
This one will run and run. It is good that the UK has consistently placed a veto on any of this applying to us. The UK now needs to play its hand well over any extension of ECJ power over other members.
31-Jan-12
No related posts.
Andy Burnham gave his first major speech as Shadow Health secretary today about mental health and well-being. In it and an accompanying interview with the Observer on Sunday he outlined a number of potential dangers of Cameron's 'happiness agenda'. Much of what he says I strongly agree with, apart from the suggestion that the well-being approach to policy is owned by the Conservatives. The opposite is in fact the case.
It is true that happiness is all too often believed to depend on wealth and possessions. But while consumer culture (and some right wing think tanks) continue to encourage this belief, evidence from well-being research shows that it is far from the case. Money increases the well-being of those on lower and middle incomes, but those who are already wealthy do not get much happier by earning more money. In fact the opposite can sometimes be the case; too much materialism is sometimes associated with lowering well-being. The policy conclusion is clear: governments should aim for a more equal distribution of income, to ensure that people are earning neither too little nor too much.
It is also true that for those with mental health conditions the social pressure to be happy can be damaging. Indeed aiming to be 'happy' in the traditional sense of the word can often be counter-productive. Our research suggests policy aims should be to help people flourish. This includes experiencing the right balance of positive to negative emotions (not feeling happy at all times), but pursuing meaningful activities, having a sense of control over one's life, and participating in strong social relationships (and we have argued the government's survey should be measuring this last point). Wearing a constant smile is not the aim.
Burnham suggests resilience should be a focus of mental health policy. He is right to stress its value: it is a crucial personal resource which people need to deal with the circumstances of their lives and we should indeed aim to help people develop it. But resilience complements rather than replaces well-being. Positive emotion creates a virtuous circle, making you more resilient over time. But resilience alone is a defensive goal: the aim is simply to avoid the bad. High well-being, is a positive goal across the society. People want to feel their lives are going well, whatever their income or current circumstances.
There is a bigger point at stake here. Andy Burnham's comments reflect the views of many in the Labour Party that the well-being agenda is a Conservative one, focused on individualistic outcomes and preferences. But viewed as a whole, Well-being research provides a new justification and new language for goals which Labour already has, as Michael Jacobs has argued convincingly elsewhere. My own research suggests that many of the findings of happiness studies don't just support our politics, making the case for a fair distribution of income and stronger public services, they provide a robust challenge to the Conservative agenda. It's time to talk more about happiness, not less.
Charles Seaford is Head of the Centre for Well-being at the new economics foundation (nef)
Related posts:
Reacting to the news that Fred Goodwin is to lose his knighthood, Ed Miliband said:
"It is right Fred Goodwin has lost his knighthood but it is only the start of the change we need to see.
"We need to change the bonus culture and we need to change the rules so we see real responsibility across the board.
"As I said in my conference speech we should not have given Fred Goodwin a knighthood but this should not be about individuals, it is about taking the right steps now to create a more responsible capitalism."
Related posts:
Anyway, this is not a list of my new year's resolutions. Instead, this is a list of the debates I've spoken in and answers I've sought since Parliament returned from Christmas recess on 10th January. My apologies for grouping them all together in this manner but I'm behind and would be here all night if I was to give each topic the time it probably deserves on this blog. But please ask if you want me to elaborate.
First up, not one, not two, not three, not four, but five questions on the train service running from Enfield into Liverpool Street. You may be aware that some changes have taken place and the Greater Anglia franchise has been awarded to Abellio. My concern is that there will be a resulting reduction in fleet size, which will have a knock-on effect on timetabling and overcrowding. The minister claims that these will not be issues, however. My other queries concerned ticketing barriers on our route and whether there has been an increase in revenue from installing additional barriers, but the Government had no specific information on this.
Next up, a question on what the Government is doing to strengthen the Electoral Commission's role to ensure that the large number of unregistered voters does not increase in the future.
Then, moving on to young people, a query exploring the numbers of juvenile offenders in Enfield who have been held in secure children's homes, secure training centres and young offender institutions. And a further question on a recent HM Inspectorate of Probation inspection of youth offending work in Enfield.
Next, a range of financial questions: one on social impact bonds; one on dormant bank accounts; and one on community investment tax relief.
Then a very timely question on unemployment and what the Government is doing to reduce the rapidly rising numbers of people without a job (more on unemployment to follow in a later blog post).
And finally, a question on why the Government is dismantling the powers available to local authorities to deal with empty homes above shops when the need for homes is so strong.
And now, I think, we're up to date. Phew! Please do shout if you'd like more of an explanation about anything.
Andy Burnham MP, Labour's Shadow Health Secretary, in a speech to the Centre for Social Justice, said:
Kevan Jones MP, Labour's Shadow Defence Minister said:
Kevan Jones MP, Labour’s Shadow Defence Minister, responding to reports that Sir Philip Mawer, David Cameron’s independent advisor on ministerial interests, was frustrated not to have been asked to investigate Adam Werritty’s links to Liam Fox, said:
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party, said in response to news that Fred Goodwin has lost his knighthood:
"With this prime minister, is veto is not for life, it's just for Christmas."
That was a good line, and a funny joke. Definitely "political" funny anyway. Potentially "real world" funny. And a massive improvement on "Ed Miliband" funny. I've been critical of Ed Miliband's sub-standard gags before, but fair play to him, there were a couple of really excellent zingers thrown at the PM today. Miliband's withering sarcasm contrasted well with the PM's tired, overwrought and sometimes desperate attempts to describe an agreement between 25 of the 27 EU nations as something other than a treaty. Miliband bested Cameron with ease today, and even had the PM laughing at some of his gags. A good start for Ed's new chief of staff.
This was a world away from what we've been used to from the opposition leader in the house.
Or was it?
Miliband may not be the best PMQs performer (although he suffers in comparison to Blair, who was something of a master of the art), but as a Parliamentary performer more broadly, he's far better than he's given credit for.
His best performances, as we witnessed today, come in the prepared responses to Prime Ministerial statements. He won plaudits for his responses on phone hacking, Libya and the riots off the back of similarly polished statements, which – crucially – were delivered well. They lack the hesitancy of his weekly Wednesday dispatch box encounters, and they show the Labour Party the candidate who was able to come from behind to win the leadership contest.
If this Ed could somehow be coaxed into appearing regularly at PMQs, we'd be in business...
Related posts:
Time: 02:29 More in News & Politics
Helen Goodman MP, Labour's Shadow media minister, said in response to today's decision to go ahead with the framework to set up local television local TV channels in the UK:
