Labour - Leading a progressive agenda in Derby

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY BRACED FOR WORSENING 2012

2012-02-14T08:12:00.001-08:00

The latest Construction Trade Survey published today shows that the final quarter of 2011 was very poor for the vast majority of the construction industry, especially SMEs, which continues to be constrained by a lack of finance and sharply falling public sector funding.

This latest survey is yet more evidence that George Osborne’s stewardship of our economy is proving utterly disastrous. Yesterday’s decision by Moody's, the ratings agency, to put the UK on a negative outlook means Britain’s AAA rating could be downgraded by the end of this year.

Yet the Chancellor is in complete denial about the state of the economy and the failure of his policies. Moody’s decision is a significant warning to George Osborne that his deficit reduction strategy isn’t working. He should abandon his ideological fascination for a laissez-faire small state and focus on jobs and growth starting with a boost for the construction sector.

The Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, Noble Francis, was blunt about the impact of the Government’s counterproductive austerity measures. He said: “Cuts to public sector capital budgets had a tangible impact on activity across the construction supply chain, exacerbated by economic uncertainty and a lack of lending.

“As a consequence 2011 Q4 was very challenging for the industry. However, of even greater concern, previously positive workloads in sectors such as commercial and private housing have now become negative. Furthermore, prospects for the industry in 2012 are poor with sharply deteriorating order books and enquiries.

“The only bright spots appear in exports and infrastructure. Yet this is unlikely to be sufficient to offset all the other sectors in which workloads are declining. As a consequence, instead of being a driver of growth in the UK, construction is likely to hinder economic recovery this year unless the Chancellor takes steps in next month’s Budget to stimulate the industry and the economy as a whole.”

Julia Evans, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Builders, was even more scathing. She said: “With energy and material costs up, confidence down and lending conditions set to deteriorate further through 2012, it is hard to see how much of the industry will survive if these conditions are sustained. Marquee projects such as the Olympic Stadium will always give the impression of a vibrant industry but the vast majority of firms will only be able to survive for so long with cutthroat competition for work, unreasonable credit rates and late payment before they join the 2,700 construction firms that went into administration in 2011.’

Only the UK Construction Group found anything positive to say. Its Director, Stephen Ratcliffe, said: “Business conditions remain challenging but there are also still opportunities for the industry. UKCG is working with government to help ensure the pipeline of public sector projects announced at the time of the autumn statement is translated into reality and that we help deliver the best possible value to a cash strapped public sector to ensure some continuity of work.”

Key survey findings include:
• 37% of large and medium sized building contractors, on balance, reported that output in 2011 Q4 was lower than during the same quarter one year earlier.
• The civil engineering workload balance was positive (at +5%) for the first time since 2008 Q1.
• Manufacturers of light side products benefitted from growth in export sales with 37% of firms, on balance, reporting year-on-year sales growth in Q4.
• Enquiries levels to SME contractors were widely reported to be below average, by -30% on balance.
• Nearly half of specialist contractors surveyed reported a quarter-on-quarter reduction in orders in Q4.
• Materials cost inflation and rising energy prices were the main drivers of strong overall cost inflation in the last three months of 2011.

‘TAX CREDITS BOMBSHELL’ AS 1,000 COUPLES IN DERBY COULD LOSE £4,000 A YEAR

2012-02-13T10:43:00.000-08:00

CHANGES to tax credit rules, being introduced by the Government in April, will result in over 1,000 Derby couples with children losing around £4,000 a year.

The move is being introduced as part of the Government’s austerity measures and will affect couples who are working part-time. Couples will need to increase the number of hours they work from a minimum of 16 to 24 hours per week or they will lose all their working tax credit of £3,870 per year.

The HMRC’s website explaining the changes says:

At the moment, if you're responsible for at least one child and working at least 16 hours a week, you can get Working Tax Credit.
From 6 April 2012, the rules for couples with at least one child are changing. In most cases, to qualify for Working Tax Credit your joint working hours will need to be at least 24 a week.
This will mean:

• if you both work your joint weekly hours must be at least 24, with one of you working at least 16 hours a week
• if only one of you works, that person must be working at least 24 hours a week
• If neither of these apply, your Working Tax Credit will stop from 6 April 2012.

Government figures revealed in parliamentary answers to Labour’s shadow Treasury minister Cathy Jamieson MP show 212,000 households across the country could lose out.
A recent survey by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that one in five organisations have cut back on the number of hours that people work as a result of the economic downturn, with just 6 per cent increasing them.

This tax credits bombshell is now just a few weeks away. It is a deeply unfair change from a Government that is increasingly out of touch with parents feeling the squeeze and struggling to juggle work and family life.

Raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast has seen unemployment rise and the economy going into reverse resulting in many employers cutting people’s hours. And it tells you everything you need to know about the warped priorities of the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition.

ED MILLIBAND'S LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS

2012-02-13T05:35:00.000-08:00

Ed Miliband has written to every member of the House of Lords about the Health and Social Care Bill. This is the text of his letter.

Dear Member of the House of Lords

I am taking the unusual step of writing to you and all your fellow peers to share my very great fear for the future of the NHS. I know you are aware that the decisions you have to make over the next few weeks on the Health and Social Care Bill are of huge significance to the NHS and to the country. I can think of few times where the House of Lords has had a role of greater importance.

As it stands, I believe this Bill would undermine the quality and ethos of our NHS – especially Part 3, which seeks to import the model of the privatised utilities into healthcare. I fear it will lead to a fragmented service, pitting doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, undermining the culture of co-operation and collaboration that has made our NHS so great. The reorganisation proposed by the Bill as it stands would also cost a vast amount of money – money that would be better spent protecting the frontline, such as the thousands of nursing posts set to be lost in this Parliament. It is also a matter of great concern that this Bill and its underlying intentions were hidden from the public before the general election.

I know the Labour team in the Lords, led by Glenys Thornton and Phil Hunt, are already working with many of you on this issue. On behalf of my Party, I want to extend this offer to peers of all parties and of none: we will work with you to stop this Bill damaging the NHS.

Recent weeks and months have shown just how widely the concerns about this Bill are shared – not just among patients and the public, but also among doctors, nurses and other NHS staff. The Government would have us believe that those who oppose this Bill are ‘vested interests’. I think that is deeply insulting to people who have devoted their lives to working in the NHS and care about its future.

I want you to know that Labour has made an offer to put party differences aside and work with the Government on reform objectives we all share, such as greater clinical involvement in commissioning and the funding of social care. But ultimately, the NHS is too important to stand back and let this Bill damage it. I hope we can all work together to protect the future of our National Health Service.

Yours sincerely

Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP

ED MILIBAND SPEECH TO THE SHEFFIELD POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

2012-02-10T02:48:00.001-08:00

9 February 2012

It is a pleasure to give this inaugural lecture and open SPERI, the new Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.

The Institute recalls the project of eighteenth and nineteenth century thinking, the era of David Hume, of Adam Smith, of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

A way of thinking which sought to understand politics and economics, the role of state and market in an integrated way.

And, as I’ll argue, a tradition which is in desperate need of rediscovery today.

There has never been a better time to open a centre which thinks about the challenges posed to our economy and our politics by the financial crisis.

As a society, we must respond to the deep lessons of the crisis and find new answers, including by learning from historical and international experience, and this institute will form an important part of that.

It is particularly important that this centre is opening in Sheffield, with its story of manufacturing strength and the example you are setting at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre with business and research going hand in hand.

I want to start tonight with a story.

Early on in my leadership I did an interview on the Today Programme with John Humphrys.

For the sake of clarity, this is not to be confused with the interview where he appeared to call me ugly.

That was a different interview.

And, relatively speaking, a walk in the park.

This one was about a year ago soon after I had written an article about the ‘squeezed middle.’

He thought it was a weakness that the term seemed to refer to a broad majority of the population, so we had a bit of an argument.

To be honest, I don’t think my team thought the interview was a total triumph.

But surprise surprise, a year later the ‘squeezed middle’ entered the Oxford English Dictionary as the word of the year for 2011.

Which is pretty good when you consider it was up against ‘the Arab Spring’ and ‘bunga bunga.’

The reason I tell this anecdote is because it speaks to the condition of Britain, the project of this institute, and the purpose of the Labour party

My argument is that to command consent and to be sustained, the political economy of the country must deliver for the working people in this country.

Tonight, I want to make the case that failure to do that has since the war led to radical transitions in the political economy of our country.

The 1945 welfare state settlement was built in response to the failures of the 1930s.

The 1979 market settlement was a response to the failures of the 1970s.

What you might call the 1997 settlement was a response to the failures of part of that settlement when it came to the public realm.

And now in the period after the financial crisis, we face such a challenge once again.

The failures that led up to the financial crisis of 2007 and with which we are still living today demand a new settlement.

The kind of capitalism we have seen for the last thirty-odd years has simply stopped delivering for the vast majority of working people in this country - the famous squeezed middle.

But the lesson from previous transitions is that this alone is not enough to usher in a new settlement.

The three conditions for change are:

First, the breakdown of consent for the previous settlement.

Second, the ideas which can form the basis of a new settlement.

And third, the political coalition to make it happen.

So I’m clear that the only way we are going to make the change the squeezed middle need is by being honest about the failures, and ambitious about the solutions.

That, after all, is what the Labour Party was founded to do.

Labour’s mission has always been to represent the interests, fulfill the aspirations, and embody the values of working people.

When John Humphrys asked me what I meant by the squeezed middle, I should have said this:

The squeezed middle are working people.
People bound together, now as in the past, by a set of values.

The value of working hard.

Whether it is in a factory, a mine, on a shopfloor, or a barracks.

Whether it is on the railways, at a supermarket checkout, or at a call centre.

The value of making an effort, of taking responsibility for yourself and your community.

A hope that work should earn you the chance to give your kids a better start in life than you had.

And the simple belief that you should not have to battle vested interests which use their power to rig the system, that everyone deserves a fair shot.

To be honest, I’m not sure John Humphrys would have let me get to the end of all that.

But in many ways, the story of British politics since the war has been the story of the changing aspirations and interests of working people, and of how the main political parties competed to show they understood and could deliver on them.

Let me start with the 1945 settlement.

Why did it happen? Because of the catastrophic failures of the previous decade to meet the basic human needs of millions.

Because of the growing sense that the evils of unemployment, poverty and want were not acts of nature but the result of political decisions.

Because of an intellectual revolution based on the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the social reform of William Beveridge and the understanding of society of TH Marshall.

And because of the political demands of millions of servicemen and women who had returned to Britain, full of the optimism that the energy and planning which won the war could now be applied to winning the peace.

They included my Dad who spent part of the war in the British Navy.

The parting words of his commanding officer were ‘Goodbye Miliband. Remember: Don’t Vote Labour’

But he did.

And so did millions of others.

It’s easy to forget now, but the 1945 settlement represented a complete revolution in the understanding of what a government can and should take responsibility for.

The aspirations of working people were for a basic level of provision – a decent home and secure job - and Clement Attlee’s Labour government set about responding to these hopes.

Hundreds of thousands of new council houses were purpose built for families, with new schools going up alongside them.

The new role for government meant full employment and comprehensive social insurance.

And the crowning achievement was the creation of the NHS.

The day after the NHS came into operation, many working people went to the doctor or the dentist for the first time in their lives.

One receptionist working on that day remembered the queues stretching out of the surgery doors, down the street, and disappearing into the high street.

Whether in housing, schools, welfare, health, jobs or the cost of living, working people would no longer be left to cope alone.

The model of political economy of the period, based on the state providing a basic platform of services and assuring full employment and low inflation, formed a new consensus between the parties.

A consensus that lasted for more than two decades.

Both parties knew how central the aspirations of working people were to election victory.

Although the idea of what that meant was more familiar to some than others.

In the 1959 election, Harold Macmillan reportedly said to an aide:

“During this campaign, I have heard a great deal of talk about the ‘middle classes.’ Can you find out who they are and what they want, and we will see if we can give it to them.”

But of course, by the late seventies, the confident spirit of 1945 seemed to have run its course.

The magical combination of full employment, stable prices, rising living standards and social mobility was no longer available.

What good were wage rises of 15, 20 or 30 percent if prices were going up faster?

The system was unable to meet the aspirations of working people.

And the inability of government to reconcile competing aspirations, including those of trade unions, convinced people that a break was needed.

The new right had an explanation for what was going wrong, inspired by people like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Whereas the 1945 settlement had meant that the government provided a minimum platform of provision for all, Mrs Thatcher promised something very different.

The new bargain was that if the government got out of the way, the market would deliver prosperity and opportunity.

After financial deregulation, it was easier to get credit.

You could buy your council house from the council.

And you could even buy shares in newly-privatised companies like British Airways, British Telecom, and British Gas.

The Labour Party certainly seemed, for a time at least, at sea with these new aspirations.

It took us too long to stop opposing council house sales.

When Madonna sung about being a material girl or Rodney and Del Boy came up with another scheme to get rich quick, they were inhabiting a world that seemed alien to Labour.

But by the early nineties, working people began to ask new questions.

At this moment, people were not questioning the economic fundamentals of the settlement, in particular the dominance of financial services in our economy, and the idea that greater overall prosperity would benefit all.

But they were asking other profound questions.

Why should kids be taught in prefabs, in classes which are so big?

Why did you have to wait so long to get an operation?

It is hard to remember now, but many people were asking whether the NHS could survive at all.

People were also asking, with more women going to work, how could our economy provide quality time to spend with the family?

The ideological impulses of the time were captured in the so-called Third Way, seeking to reconcile economic efficiency and social justice.

And New Labour was the political project that spoke to this change.

And big change was produced.

Change I am proud of.

We rebuilt the NHS in ways that few would have believed possible.

We embarked on the biggest school building programme in generations.

We offered maternity and paternity leave to make it easier to spend more time with the family.

We introduced the minimum wage and tax credits, so that going to work each day brought in more money each month.

And we also undertook more redistribution than any government, including 1945.

But the new settlement was incomplete.

After the banks crashed, and the boom years turned into the toughest times for working people in a generation, a whole set of challenges were exposed.

The first is that working people are being squeezed between stagnant incomes and rising costs.

For thirty-odd years, the bargain had been clear:
Let the economy grow, and everyone, including the low paid, would get richer.

And it worked for a time, partly because of greater productivity, and partly because of changes like more and more women coming into the workplace.

But working peoples’ rise in incomes and living standards over those years was also supported by particular factors – the rise of credit, cheap imports from Asia and tax credits.

But by 2007, it was clear that these factors were not enough to sustain rising living standards for working families.

The basic promise of the 1979 era, that those at the middle would benefit as well as those at the top, began to unravel.

For the five years before the last recession, the economy grew by 11%, but the wages of everyone earning less than average incomes stayed the same.

And on current forecasts, the average worker will be earning the same in three years’ time as they were ten years ago.

The rising tide has not lifted all boats.

The result is an unprecedented squeeze to incomes.

And at the same time, costs are rising, partly as a result of vested interests that are worsening the squeeze.

Fares are going up on some train routes by 20 per cent in the next two years.

Energy bills seem to go higher and higher.

Each year, more families have to choose between paying the rent and heating their home.

Nearly one in five households here in Sheffield are fuel poor.

And if things carry on as they are, in three years the average household in the country will be too.

For too many families the only way they felt able to sustain their living standards was through greater personal debt.

The second unprecedented aspect of the squeeze is that working people have shouldered more risk and are less secure today than they have been for a generation.

Wages aren’t linked to inflation, people, including those in the middle, have no certainty that their job will still be there tomorrow.

And at the same time most people who earn less than the average wage have no pension.

Nearly half say they can’t afford to save £10 a month.

Then there are those who are already out of work in the current economic climate.

More people woke up this morning to another day without a job to go to than at any time since 1994.

For every vacancy in the country, there are six jobseekers.

For every vacancy in Sheffield, there are nearly ten.

The third big challenge is intergenerational.

The basic promise of Britain, the idea that we could be optimistic about our country’s future and expect our children to lead better lives than we did, is being betrayed.

As people in this audience know, young people are leaving home with debts which their parents never faced, because of the cost of tuition fees.

It is harder to get onto the housing ladder.

The average age of someone trying to buy a home for the first time without help from their parents is 37 and is pushing upwards.

And we see threats to the environment that young people will inherit.

And at the same time, many working people are squeezed when it comes to paying for care for their elderly relatives.

Most aren’t earning enough to be able to pay for private care, but aren’t earning so little that they qualify for free or subsidised care.

And if they cut back on work to look after them, it will hurt their own incomes.

They are squeezed by the system too.

So in contrast to a decade ago when there was optimism about uninterrupted prosperity, today the squeezed middle knows the system is not working for them.

The fundamental idea that if you work hard you will get on is being undermined.

At the same time, there appear to be rewards for failure at the top, with top executives’ salaries going up even as their companies’ share prices go down.

The reality is that by the time of the last election, no party answered the new challenges of the squeezed middle.

No party offered them sufficient hope.

No party understood that the very settlement that was supposed to help the middle, was in fact the cause of the squeeze to their living standards.

We lost. And no party won.

Perhaps my party didn’t see what was required because after thirteen years in power, we just couldn’t face up to the challenges to some of the assumptions of the era.

And the Tories certainly did not see what was required.

Those who just wanted to conserve the status quo had a blind spot when it came to seeing the need for a radical break with the past.

They just clung to a faith in free markets.

And that leaves us where we are today.

Consent for the old system has broken down.

Anyone looking around at society today can see that our previous model of capitalism is not working.

When you look at the Occupy Protests, we all know that many people who would not go and camp outside St Pauls, share the anger of those who do.

Anger at rewards for failure in the banks and the squeeze on the 99%.

But as I have argued, anger at the old system’s flaws is not enough to produce change.

It needs the ideas and the political movement to transform discontent with the old settlement into consent for a new one.

As far as the ideas are concerned, I hope and expect SPERI will make its contribution.

I can think of no more urgent project for our country.

Stage by stage, we are taking on this project in Opposition.

Identifying the issue itself, and beginning to set out solutions.

This is the subject of our ongoing policy review, but let me today give some brief pointers to Labour’s agenda.

We know the limits of the previous settlement: just getting the government out of the way won’t work.

We know the economic climate will be far tougher: there will be less money to spend.

And we know that in any case, if Labour wins the next election, it will not be good enough to simply rely on spending money to patch up the failures of the economy we inherit.

A more fundamental change is needed.

From the ashes of the kind of irresponsible capitalism which led to the crash, we need to build a new kind of capitalism, a responsible capitalism.

A capitalism based on long-term productive behaviour with a fairer distribution of rewards based on a new set of principles:

Long-termism not short-termism.

A fairer sharing of rewards not growing inequality.

An understanding that successful firms are those that invest in their people rather than neglecting them

And that the environment is not an enemy of economic progress but essential for it.

In short, an economy that better works in the interests of working people.

So what does this mean in practice?

First, Britain needs a new era of long-term wealth creation.

Both to pay its way in the world and to create fairness in tough times.

We need to use the power of government in new ways.

To set new rules that promote the long-term and fair wealth creation we need.

To share a vision with British industry of how we pay our way in an ever more competitive world with an active industrial policy.

That’s why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so small businesses can invest and grow.

That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking their responsibilities to bring on the next generation.

As a first step, we say no major government contract should be awarded unless companies offer apprenticeships.
We must tackle the historic British problem of short termism in our corporate life.

And it is why we have to end the situation where we have rewards for failure at the top, harming both the company and its workforce.

That’s why Labour has suggested a number of reforms, including an employee on every remuneration committee.

We need real change.

If you will excuse me a bit of politics, the current Government is never going to provide it.

George Osborne says that action to tackle big bonuses is ‘anti-business’.

It is not.

It is pro-business to demand responsibility at the top and an end to the something-for-nothing culture which has damaged our economy in the financial crisis at every level, wrecked businesses and left everyone else squeezed.

By defending an unreformed bonus culture, this Government confuses the interests of the economy as a whole with the interests of an irresponsible few.

We need banks to be lending to small business rather than handing out big bonuses.

Some argue that it is no business of the public what bonuses banks pay.

I fundamentally disagree.

Because even banks which are not publicly owned, implicitly benefit from a taxpayer guarantee, to the tune of billions of pounds.

That is why we need change in the bonus culture across all our banks.

And we need responsibility from top to bottom across our society.

Across the economy we need executives to recognise that exceptional rewards should only be for exceptional performance.

Tackling excessive executive pay and bonuses is not an end in itself but a necessary first step towards a bigger change in our economy in which people get fair rewards for their contribution at every level of society.

Secondly, standing up for the squeezed middle today also means challenging the powerful vested interests which are squeezing working people in this country for every penny they can.

It means standing up to the banks, the train operating companies, and the electricity firms with simple measures to cap fare increases, lower electricity prices, and guaranteeing the cheapest power for the most vulnerable.

We have a Government which doesn’t even notice when the market isn’t working for working people.

In fact they are making the squeeze worse, with an economic policy that has seen growth flatline and tax credits withdrawn.

Third, standing up for the squeezed middle also means always making sure there is a fair tax system and a fair benefits system.

That means everyone paying what they are supposed to, including those at the very top.

It means cutting the 50p tax rate is the wrong priority

And it is why, for example, I have spoken out about offshore tax havens.

And on welfare, I believe in a welfare state based on contribution as well as need.

We need a better welfare state when it comes to issues like childcare and social care.

But we cannot deliver it, unless we continue to reform the welfare state so it delivers high employment and demands responsibility from all.

These are just the start of the changes we need for a new settlement.

Let me say this in conclusion.

The challenge for politics in times like this is to decide whether it is going to leave these problems to stagnate as it did in the thirties, or have the courage to address them head on.

We can hear the creaking of the foundations of the previous settlement.

The families seeing their wages squeezed for a decade know things have to change.

The small business looking for finance know things have to change.

The young person looking for work know things need to change.

All of us looking at the way thing are, know things have to change.

Sometimes people look at this and feel a sense of pessimism and question whether there is anything that can be done.

But the lesson of history is different.

Nobody would have believed in the 1930s that things would change.

From the Left, change did happen.

In the 1970s, people believed Britain would not change.

And from the Right, change did happen.

And again in 1997 we saw change to address the concerns of working people.

So in our recent history, new settlements have come forward in the face of profound scepticism about the ability of politics to deliver change.

I am in politics because I believe in its power to change working people’s lives for the better.

As a society, it is our task now to turn all our energy and resourcefulness towards a reformed, responsible capitalism,

It is our task to build a new model of political economy, one which delivers prosperity and fairness for the working people of Britain once again.

I look forward to working with this institute to make it happen.

WE’RE RETURNING TO A 19TH CENTURY POOR

2012-02-04T14:34:00.000-08:00

LABOUR Peer, Jeremy Beecham, told me that when he was a young council candidate in Newcastle, the first leaflet he distributed before the 1967 council elections was about rate rebates.

This was a new initiative at that time which had been introduced by the then Labour Government. Fast forward forty five years and we are about to see massive changes in the system, now called council tax benefit.

The Tory-Lib Dem Government is introducing a 10% cut in council tax benefits, which for will leave many people considerably worse off.

Around half the people who receive council tax benefit are pensioners, who, in fairness, will be protected, but the effect will be to double the size of the cut for everyone else. Moreover it will be for councils to decide who gets what out of a capped allocation, instead of drawing down from a national scheme.

So people’s entitlement to what has been a national welfare benefit will now vary according to where they live. Decisions on who should qualify for benefit and how much they should receive will be decided by around three hundred and fifty councils. We sometimes hear about the “post-code lottery” in the NHS. The term will now apply to council tax benefit too.

The Government makes the ludicrous claim that putting councils “in charge of providing support for council tax in England will help more people back into work”. However, ministers have not produced a shred of evidence. After all council tax benefit is paid to people in work, and many other recipients are either incapable of working or unable to find a job. This is hardly surprising as unemployment is soaring.

And while the Government claims it will save up to £480m it proposes to do nothing about the much larger sum, £1.8bn, of council tax benefit which goes unclaimed. Much of this unclaimed entitlement should be paid to pensioners.

Nor is this the only change. Crisis grants and loans hitherto administered as part of the social security system will also be devolved to local councils. Furthermore, there will be no guarantee that the funding will be distributed fairly to areas most in need.

We are, in effect, returning to a 19th Century Poor Law system. Crucial decisions affecting individuals and families on low incomes who are working or unemployed will be made locally and paid out of stretched council budgets.

The very concept of National Insurance is being undermined. The Welfare Reform Bill will have a severe impact on vulnerable families especially those living in the private rented sector.

This year is the bi-centenary of the birth of Charles Dickens. He was all too familiar with, and did much to expose, the harshness and injustices of a fragmented local, and often charity-based system of welfare. By contrast the national system of entitlement related to need, that the welfare state has provided for decades, was introduced when Labour won the first election after WW2.

I wonder what Charles Dickens would have made of Cameron, Osborne and Pickles; perhaps they would be today’s Gradgrind, Wackford Squeers and Mr Bumble?

LETTER TO GEORGE OSBORNE ABOUT THAMESLINK CONTRACT

2012-01-31T07:12:00.000-08:00

I wrote to George Osborne before Christmas about him misleading the House over the Thameslink contract. This is my my response to his reply calling him to ensure the Government upholds the law on this issue.

Dear George

Thank you for your letter dated 14 December 2011.

I am disappointed, however, that your response contains numerous inaccuracies. I can only presume that you have been poorly briefed on this matter as I am sure you would not deliberately ignore the facts to score cheap party political points.

You refer to Lord Falconer’s comments that it was impossible for Bombardier to compete with Siemens. But when the Department for Transport, under the previous Labour administration, compiled the original tender document, it did so on behalf of the train company. As such, it would have been inappropriate to incorporate social benefits to the people of Derby and beyond.

Indeed, the notice initiating this process, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, clearly stated the procurement exercise was one being undertaken by Government on behalf of train operating companies. This view was reinforced by the Department for Transport’s written evidence to the Transport Select Committee. Presumably, as this was not started as a Government contract, the procurement exercise was undertaken in accordance with the procurement rules comprised within The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006.

However, there was a significant modification to the contract, after the OJEU notice was published, converting it from an operator to a Government contract. You will appreciate the significance of this absolutely fundamental alteration. I was therefore delighted that you acknowledged in your letter that this is indeed a Government contract. You will understand that a Government contract could have taken into account the contract’s social effect on Derby and further afield.

This change to the contract should have led to the procurement exercise being re-advertised on the basis of it being a Government contract. Taking it forward using the competitive dialogue procedure of The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 could have resulted in an entirely different outcome. Notably, reasons would have had to be found for retaining Siemens in the procurement exercise, rather than for excluding it.

I know with certainty that this major flaw has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the last Secretary of State for Transport, and the Business Secretary. It has been raised time and again by constituents and MPs representing the Derby area. In addition, questions have been put to the European Commission by members of the European Parliament.

You will also be aware that the Business Secretary has already accepted that the tender evaluation criterion was structured in such a way that the outcome was inevitable.

Yet your Government has repeatedly tried to transfer blame for this fiasco to the previous administration. However, the nineteen page document that resulted in Siemens being nominated as preferred bidder was first issued by the Department for Transport in November 2010. That was a full six months after the last General Election.

You go on to point the finger at the last Labour Government for the delays in this tendering process. But your account appears to have conveniently forgotten that the delays were in fact substantially caused by the effects of the rail privatisation undertaken by the last Conservative Government.

Your assertions about delays are therefore misleading and disingenuous. I struggle to see the logic behind your claim that retendering would put the whole project back by at least another two years. The Cabinet Office Minister has advised Government buyers that procurement exercises should be completed in a maximum of 120 days. If other organisations can procure trains in a few months, why should your Government take a minimum of two years? Just look how quickly the recently announced Southern Trains order for ‘Electrostars’ from Bombardier has moved forward. According to Justine Greening, her department played a crucial role in its rapid completion. So if the DfT can move quickly on new rolling stock for Southern Trains, why should Thameslink take significantly longer?

In your penultimate paragraph you state that planned reforms will in future give suppliers the confidence that they will be able to compete on a level playing field. Can I take this to be an undertaking that, despite what has been reported, you will ensure that never again will the procurement of new trains be based on either Government PFIs or other similar forms of bundled finance. As you will we aware, inferior credit ratings disadvantage British based suppliers against some of their competitors with manufacturing plants on mainland Europe?

In conclusion, it is apparent that this Government contract has not been undertaken in accordance with English Law and the Government is under an obligation to comply with the law. I trust you will therefore urge the Transport Secretary to terminate the process using the powers vested in her by the invitation to tender and start afresh.

GDP DOWN AND WORSE STILL TO COME FOR CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

2012-01-26T05:26:00.000-08:00

This week’s GDP figures, published by ONS, show that the UK economy has fallen by 0.2per cent in the final quarter of 2011. This follows growth of just 0.6 per cent in the previous two quarters.

The main contributors to this fall were the manufacturing and construction sectors, which fell 0.9 per cent and 0.5 per cent respectively.

Commenting on these figures, Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, said: “The GDP figures show that the final quarter of last year was extremely difficult for the economy, in which both construction and manufacturing had a significant effect.

“Unfortunately the prospects looking forward are even worse, as construction is expected to fall a further 5.2 per cent during 2012.”

This will inevitably exacerbate the problems in an industry that has already lost 300,000 jobs, and will severely hinder growth for the economy as a whole. The public sector cuts are having a particularly damaging impact on construction.

Noble Francis added: “Undoubtedly the problems in the euro zone have increased uncertainty in the private sector making investors highly risk averse to investment.

“However, this does not tell the whole story as capital investment from the public sector, which accounts for more than one-third of total construction activity, will have fallen 30% by the end of 2013.

“As construction has been highlighted by government as essential for recovery, the decline is severely harming prospects for the sector as well as constraining overall economic growth.”

CAMERON GETS HIS FACTS WRONG AT PMQs - AGAIN!

2012-01-26T04:04:00.000-08:00

The Prime Minister got his facts badly wrong at PMQs on Wednesday prompting Ed Miliband to write to Cameron asking him to correct the record.

This is the text of Ed's letter

Dear Prime Minister

I wanted to write following this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions to draw your attention to some inaccurate claims you made today.

In an answer to me, you said that “There are more people in work today than there were at the time of the last election”. In fact, the most recent employment figures from the Office for National Statistics show that total employment between May-July 2010 and September-November 2011 fell by 26,000.

In an answer to Lindsay Roy MP, you said that the Merlin agreement “actually led to an increase in bank lending last year”. In fact, the latest Trends in Lending report from the Bank of England, published last Friday, said that “the stock of lending to SMEs contracted between end-April and end-November 2011”.

In an answer to Paul Maynard MP, you 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.

In an answer to Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP, who said that your Government was planning to cut benefits to disabled children, you said that “The Hon Lady is wrong”. In fact, according to page 28 of the Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment on the introduction of universal credit, your policy of mirroring for disabled children the current adult eligibility for Disability Living Allowance means that the rate paid to those disabled children who do not qualify for the highest rate of the DLA care component "would be less than now (£26.75 instead of £53.84)".

I am sure that you will want to take this opportunity to correct the record.

Yours sincerely,

Ed Miliband

DISGRACED TORY MPS USE FLAWED RESEARCH TO ATTACK UNION REPS

2012-01-24T08:24:00.000-08:00

Disgraced right wing MPs are exposed today as using flawed research to launch an ideological attack on trade union representatives, the Public and Commercial Services union says.

New analysis published by the Trades Union Congress shows that for every £1 spent on having union reps in public sector workplaces, up to £9 is returned in benefits to the wider economy.

This 'facility time' - used by reps to negotiate terms and conditions for workers, help ensure workplaces are healthy and safe, and assist staff with training and development - is highly-valued by employers.

The TUC report also shows failings in figures relied on by a group calling itself the Trade Union Reform Campaign - headed by disgraced Tory MP Aidan Burley.

Far from costing taxpayers money, the report 'Facility time for union reps: separating fact from fiction' says that reps could be worth between GBP 267 million and GBP 701 million a year to our economy.

Benefits arise through: lower staff turnover; fewer workplace-related injuries and sickness; and fewer employment tribunals.

Mr Burley was sacked from his post as a parliamentary aide to the transport secretary after he reportedly joined friends who were wearing hired SS costumes when attended a Nazi-themed stag party in France.

Liam Fox MP, who is helping to lead the campaign in parliament, was forced to resign in October from his post as defence secretary following revelations that he gave his friend Adam Werritty unprecedented access to official meetings, with serious questions raised about the funding of Mr Werritty's trips.

Union reps work incredibly hard on behalf of their members, often in their own time and for no personal reward other than to help their colleagues and their employer.

It’s pretty clear from their anti trade union setiments that the current crop of Tories are every bit as nasty as their predecessors during Margaret Thatcher’s era.

START-UP VIDEO GAMES DEVELOPER-PUBLISHERS HELD BACK BY LACK OF FINANCE

2012-01-23T12:26:00.000-08:00

Former Financial Secretary to the Treasury is calling for the Government to look again at Games Tax Relief

TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, revealed today that while 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, there were also 197 closures. Limited access to private and public finance is contributing to the high studio mortality figures. The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting in 2011 of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector.

Stephen Timms MP, former Financial Secretary to Treasury, commented: “This timely report is a further indication that in Government we were right to recognise the growth potential of the video games industry and propose a targeted tax relief to help the sector to grow and create hundreds of highly skilled jobs in the UK. I urge the Coalition Government to review Games Tax Relief for the forthcoming Budget.”

Key findings from TIGA’s Report include:
• 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, but there were also 197 closures.
• The UK’s share of global investment (venture capital and private equity) in the games industry declined from 10 per cent in the mid-2000s to 3.5 per cent.
• 93 per cent of TIGA members said that a new Games Tax Relief would result in more private investment in the UK games industry.
• 63 per cent of TIGA members said that they would seek private investment in new games following the introduction of a new Games Tax Relief.

Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “Despite an almost record number of start-up studios, the industry’s potential is being held back by limited access to both private and public finance. UK developers are missing out on investment from global publishers and from global venture capital. This is partly because the UK, unlike many of our key competitors, lacks a tax break for games production, which effectively reduces the cost of games development. Access to debt, bonds and equity finance is difficult because of the high levels of uncertainty about consumer demand and the intangible nature of IP in the games sector. In contrast to the film industry which benefits both from a tax credit and from lottery funding, there is negligible public financial support available for video games development.

“Poor access to finance has contributed to a high incidence of business closures in the games sector. The Coalition Government should consider the introduction of a carefully targeted tax break for games production. This would improve the availability of finance for the sector and enable the sector to compete on a level playing field with our overseas competitors. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”

Oli Christie, CEO at Neon Play, said: “UK game developers and digital publishers have the skills, the creativity and the ability to generate new IP. However, our industry is being held back by difficulty accessing finance. A well-targeted tax break for games production would help our industry overcome this challenge and enable us to contribute to the UK’s economic recovery.”

Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The fact that many studios struggle to raise finance beyond the prototype phase is particularly worrying and is contributing to the high studio mortality rate. A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enhance the availability of finance for studios, improve the UK’s attractiveness to global investors and allow studios to grow and retain experienced development staff.”

UK VIDEO GAMES SECTOR AFFLICTED BY BRAIN DRAIN OF SKILLED STAFF

2012-01-21T10:58:00.000-08:00

Derby has a strong heritage of creativity and innovation and was the birthplace of Lara Croft. But Derby’s games industry is not what it once was and the industry is under pressure right across the country. TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, released fresh evidence this week about a brain drain of skilled development staff to overseas jurisdictions. With 41 per cent of the jobs lost by the games development sector between 2009 and 2011 relocating overseas, urgent Government action is needed to arrest this decline in the British games industry.

TIGA has revealed that:

• The UK games industry workforce shrunk by over 10 per cent between 2008 and 2011.
• 41 per cent of the jobs lost between 2009 and 2011 relocated overseas. The majority of these jobs went to Canada, with the next largest territory being the USA.
• Many games businesses reported that the losses were particularly damaging due to the seniority of the positions and the difficulty in replacing like-for-like when competing with packages of salary, seniority and other incentives offered by Canadian companies.
• Former staff of a single major studio (Bizarre Creations) closed by its global publisher owner (Activision) in 2011 indicate that up to 35 per cent of them left the UK, mostly to Canada, and that disproportionately senior staff went overseas versus those that stayed in the UK.The loss of jobs in British games studios has seen the Exchequer receive nearly £100m less direct and indirect tax revenues, while the sector’s contribution to UK GDP has fallen by nearly a quarter of a billion since 2008.
• The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector (January 2012).

Game developers in countries including Canada, France, Singapore and the USA receive tax breaks for games production. Studios in receipt of public support in Canada are receiving support equivalent to 23 per cent of their turnover, giving them a significant competitive advantage. No tax break for games production exists in the UK. Consequently, the UK is missing out on investment and employment in the video games sector.

TIGA advocates the introduction of a well-targeted tax relief for games development, similar to the existing film tax relief. This would effectively reduce the cost of games development in the UK, attract inward investment, stimulate growth in the sector and halt the brain drain.

Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “The UK video games development and digital publishing sector provides high levels of graduate employment, has a high propensity to export, is at the cutting edge of R&D, and has a world class reputation for IP generation. The video games industry is exactly the kind of sector that the Government should be supporting to help rebalance the UK economy.

“Yet our industry is suffering from a serious brain drain. Our competitors in Canada and elsewhere are able to recruit highly skilled developers from the UK largely because they benefit from tax breaks, which effectively reduce the cost of games development. Tax breaks both stimulate job creation in the games sector and provide games businesses with significant financial resources with which they can deploy to recruit staff.”

TIGA recommends that the Government introduce a carefully targeted tax break for games production to enable the UK games sector to compete on a level playing field and to prevent the brain drain. TIGA conducted a snap survey of 27 of its members about the potential impact of a new Games Tax relief.Of those surveyed, 93 per cent said a tax relief in the UK would slow or halt the brain drain abroad while none felt it would cause the situation to worsen.
Dr Richard Wilson added:

“Without a tax relief, the UK runs the risk of losing its leadership position in video games development and becoming a finishing school for the Canadian games industry: with UK universities educating developers and UK studios then honing their skills before they leave for employment in the Canadian games sector. This is bad for the UK video games sector, bad for the Government and bad for the UK taxpayer. We need a targeted tax relief to halt the brain drain.”

Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The UK has a highly skilled development workforce but the brain drain of talented staff overseas is jeopardising this competitive advantage. The evidence from overseas is that the provision of tax relief enables studios to attract and retain high quality staff and to increase employment.

“A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enable UK studios to grow and retain experienced development staff, halt the brain drain and stimulate growth in the games development sector. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”

ANDREW LANSLEY, HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY

2012-01-21T06:49:00.000-08:00

On Thursday the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) moved to oppose the Health and Social Care Bill, arguing that serious concerns have not been addressed during the parliamentary process, listening exercise or political engagement.

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley's response illustrated that he has lost touch with reality. His reaction to the RCN’s move was to say: "They want to have a go at the government … about pay and pensions. The public know we have to do this. It's a purely political operation." (sic).

The RCN, which had not previously opposed the bill as a whole, has taken this decision at this point arguing that the proposals will not deliver on the principles originally set out, and that recent announcements such as the rise in the cap on private patients being treated in NHS hospitals to almost half (49%) make the bill in its entirety a serious threat to the NHS.

Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive & General Secretary said: “Opposing this bill is not a decision we have taken lightly – we have worked hard on behalf of all our members to influence the decisions that have been taken as the bill has gone through parliament. However, it is now clear that these ‘reforms’ are forging ahead on the ground – without the concerns of nurses and other clinicians being heeded. We have sought a range of assurances, but now feel that the reforms as they stand could have the opposite effect from that which was intended. These root and branch reforms are pressing ahead in tandem with the “Nicholson challenge”, which requires the NHS to save £20 billion in England alone by 2014.

“The RCN has been on record as saying that withdrawing the bill would create confusion and turmoil, however, on the ground, we believe that the turmoil of proceeding with these reforms is now greater than the turmoil of stopping them. The sheer scale of member concerns, which have been building over recent weeks, has led us to conclude that the consequences of the bill may be entirely different from the principles which were originally set out.

“The RCN feels that these concerns are so fundamental that we must now oppose the Health and Social Care Bill. Our Frontline First campaign has shown that cuts are being made, 48,000 in England alone at the last count, and patient care is undoubtedly being put in jeopardy. With this in mind, the RCN proposed an amendment to the bill which would guarantee safe staffing levels, but the government chose not to take this proposal forward. Without these checks and balances, and a commitment to regulate the Healthcare Assistants who are so crucial to the delivery of care, these reforms could damage the very system they were designed to improve.

“Most recently, the announcement that the cap for private income would be 49% has left nurses with real fears that the needs of the market could come ahead of the needs of patients. While we are not opposed to the principle of competition in the NHS, recent developments have shown that the balance between competition and quality has become skewed.”

The RCN has set out a number of areas of concern since July 2010. It believes that concerns remain across all these areas which have led to the change in the RCN position.

• Competition, as opposed to competition and collaboration
• Nurse involvement
• Health inequalities
• National pay, terms and conditions
• Staffing levels
• Private income cap
• Public health
• Workforce planning
• Any qualified provider

Dr Peter Carter added: “While we will continue to raise the concerns of our members around all aspects of this bill, our overall view is that the bill as a whole risks damaging the NHS which our members work hard to build and to support. In combination with the financial pressures all Trusts are facing, and with the rising public health challenge of the coming years, we fear the NHS is now facing a very bleak future.”

BADGER KILLING TRIAL IS RIGGED - AND USELESS

2012-01-20T03:52:00.000-08:00

The Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government says its culling trials will be science-led, but it has rigged the pilots from the start. It has chosen two areas “as the most suitable to pilot controlled shooting of badgers”. The next sentence claims the trial will be “part of a science-led policy” to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB).

The Badger Trust says any trial that takes place in a “carefully selected area” only, cannot possibly be science-led and would be useless if the methods were applied to other areas.

No exact whereabouts are given in the official announcement, nor in the Minister’s accompanying statement. Consequently it is difficult for the public, both lay and scientific, to verify any assertions about effectiveness. Furthermore, no indications have yet been provided of how the pilot trials will be adequately and independently monitored to ensure they are effective and humane. There are no details of any plausible means of measuring the effects of shooting over six weeks in areas of at least eight miles by eight (150 sq km).

The announcement refers to the 25,000 cattle slaughtered because of bTB in 2010, but fails to give the context – the total number of cattle slaughtered prematurely. This is has been estimated as at least ten times as many as for bTB, 300,000 from mastitis, lameness, and infertility among the many other reasons for premature slaughter.

The document, is riddled with half-truths, such as a statement by Mr Jim Paice, the Tory farming Minister that: “No country in the world where wildlife carries TB has eradicated the disease in cattle without tackling it in wildlife too”. Firstly, Britain brought it down to 628 in 1979 – without killing badgers. Secondly, there is a world of difference between badgers in the UK and wildlife (unspecified) in other countries (unnamed) and the methods used are not revealed. Crucially, there is a known risk unique to badgers – that stirring up a population increases the risk of bTB transmission (perturbation). No other country has controlled bTB without draconian cattle restrictions and testing regimes.

Another half-truth, in the notes to the statement, was that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) of 1998-2007 showed that badger control done correctly over time reduces the incidence of bovine TB in high incidence areas. It also said (but the Minister did not): “After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain”.

Yet another was a reference in the statement to the 16 per cent benefit over nine years, which tends to support rather than contradict the RBCT’s conclusion. The figure was in a report of a meeting between Defra’s Chief Scientist and scientific experts in April, but not published until four months later.

The Badger Trust and its legal advisers are studying this and any other statements that may be forthcoming before deciding whether or not to start legal proceedings.

ED MILIBAND TAKES ON RIP-OFF BRITAIN

2012-01-18T00:31:00.001-08:00

Labour leader, Ed Miliband has identified at least six areas for immediate attention in his bid to tackle rip-off Britain, including:

* Savings fees: Pension firms should set out how much they are charging savers to invest their money. Research presented to the Treasury suggests up to 16 fees and levies can be applied toprivate pension schemes. If charges do not fall, Mr Miliband proposes capping total charges for pensions.

*Car-parking charges: Railway companies have dramatically increased the cost of parking at stations, with South Eastern recently hiking costs by 16 percent at 50 stations. The cost of parking should be capped – along with season tickets and other fares.

*Airline levies: Travellers face a wide array of charges from low-cost airlines for baggage, paying with a credit card and even checking in without printing out a boarding pass. These fees would have to be disclosed upfront with the cost of actual travel to avoid consumers being misled when they come to pay for a fare.

* Bank charges: Mr Miliband says his biggest concern is the £2 billion which banks make from unauthorised overdraft fees. He backs plans to give a new consumer watchdog the power to intervene and outlaw excessive fees in the finance sector.

*Consumer helplines: The Labour leader draws attention to the unacceptable practice of people being charged “50p a minute just to complain”.

*Energy companies: Labour have already outlined plans to break up the country’s energy firms and believes transparent pricing to enable proper competition is essential.

GOVERNMENT’S MISTAKES WILL LIMIT FUTURE ACTION BUT LABOUR WILL STAND FOR PEOPLE AND STAND UP TO VESTED INTERESTS

2012-01-16T12:47:00.001-08:00

By Ed Balls MP

Times are tough right now. Jobs are being lost, bills are going up and tax credits are being unfairly cut.

If Labour was in government now we’d be making different choices.
We wouldn’t be cutting spending and raising taxes as far and as fast as David Cameron and George Osborne.

Because their reckless plan has done exactly what we warned – choked off the recovery and put more people out of work which means £158 billion more borrowing than planned.

We would tax bankers’ bonuses and use the money to get 100,000 young people into work.

And we’d have a temporary VAT cut to help people struggling with rising prices and help kick-start the economy.

But even with Labour’s five point plan for jobs, there would still need to be some cuts and tax rises to get the deficit down.

And the reality is that this Tory led government’s failure on the economy means tough times are set to continue. Incomes will continue to be squeezed for both public and private sectors workers.

But in tough times the priority has got to be getting people into jobs rather than people in work being paid more. That is why Labour cannot oppose the decision to cap public sector pay rises at an average of 1 per cent. But it should be done fairly – tougher on those at the top to help protect those at the bottom.

And I’m afraid that three years before the next election Ed Miliband and I cannot make any promises now to reverse spending cuts or tax rises. After five years of the Tories we don’t know how bad the economy will be.

We cannot duck the reality – this government’s mistakes mean tough choices for the next Labour government. Cameron and Osborne are getting it badly wrong. They should change course and put jobs first.

DAVID CAMERON CHALLENGED OVER HIS VIEW ON HUNTING ACT

2012-01-15T09:06:00.000-08:00

The League Against Cruel Sports is questioning David Cameron’s commitment to repealing the Hunting Act following his comments on the issue on this evening’s BBC Countryfile. The Prime Minister used his interview to repeat his pledge to bring forward a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.

However, the League is challenging Mr Cameron’s commitment to this given his reluctance to act on it since coming into power in May 2010. The PM told Countryfile ‘I think there should be a free vote in the House of Commons, I think that the House of Commons should make up its mind about this.”

League chief executive Joe Duckworth said ”David Cameron is the one man who can make a vote on repeal happen yet he doesn’t appear to want to put his money where his mouth is. He is happy to state he wants a free vote yet very reluctant to make it happen and one has to question why this is. The obvious answer is because Mr Cameron knows repealing this legislation would be a deeply unpopular move and flies in the face of public opinion. It also goes against the will of the Parliament where there is currently a majority in favour of keeping the Hunting Act in place.

In the interview to be aired on Sunday evening the Prime Minister also voiced concerns at the forthcoming badger culls. He said these would be fraught with difficulties.

Commenting on the badger cull Mr Duckworth added: “There is absolutely no dispute that action is needed to tackle bovine TB but the proposed culls do not offer a solution and could in fact make matter worse. Culling is not the answer and it’s not too late to reverse the decision and implement a solution which does not involve the needless slaughter of badgers and will actually improve the situation across the country.”

A NEW VISION FOR LABOUR

2012-01-10T07:32:00.000-08:00

Ed Miliband has today set out a new vision for Labour. Only the Labour Party is capable and willing to deliver a fairer Britain in difficult economic times.

This is the text of Ed’s speech

“Labour will deliver fairness when there’s less money around. And only Labour can

Thank you for that inspiring introduction Richard, and thank you for everything you do to showcase the great things young people do across our capital city.

And thank you all for coming this morning.

It’s great to see so many members of Citizens UK here.

Every day, you take action to change communities for the better, from the CitySafe initiative to campaigning for the Living Wage.

Thanks to you, the cleaners at the Queen Mary University are earning a Living Wage.

And they’re not the only ones.

From KPMG to the Olympic Delivery Authority – working men and women are now being paid enough to cover the essentials of life.

Citizens UK don’t just read about problems in society, you get organised and lead change.

You know that with a bit of optimism, coordination, and persistence, we can change the world around us, one fight at a time.

Those are your values, and they are mine as well.

The Challenge to Labour

A lot of people will hear me talk about values and say:

“welcome to the real world: values cost money, but right now the government just doesn’t have money to spend.”

A lot of people say:

“These are tough times. It’s easy to talk about fairness, but how are you going to achieve it when there’s less money around?”

That’s the challenge for Labour.

And it’s a challenge for me as the leader of the party.

A challenge I relish.

Yes, we live in tough times.

Yes, in the years ahead there will be less money to spend.

But however tough the times are, I believe a simple truth:

Politics can always make a difference.

The Labour Party stands for fairness and fighting injustice.

Those commitments are more important now than ever.

Tough times are to continue

But my argument starts by recognising that tough times will continue.

The government wanted to eliminate the deficit before the next election.

That was the foundation on which their entire programme was built.

But they didn’t understand that you can only eliminate the deficit if the economy is growing.

So they failed.

Last November was a defining moment.

George Osborne admitted that his plan to eliminate the deficit in one Parliament had crumbled.

He wanted to get us to borrow less.

But he bled so much demand out of the economy, that he will have to borrow more.

Much more.

Over five years, £158 billion more than he promised.

Not borrowing to get people back into work, but paying them to be out of work.

That’s the price of George Osborne’s failure.

Of course he’s got excuses.

He’ll blame the Eurozone.

But it’s not as if he wasn’t warned.

As Ed Balls said, if there’s a global hurricane brewing, you don’t rip out the foundations of your house.

But that’s what George Osborne has done.

We always said the deficit had to be reduced.

But in a steady and balanced way.

We warned that trying to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast would make it harder to get that deficit down.

The Government’s failure in eighteen short months has proved the point.

And the consequences of that will be with us for years to come.

The failure of George Osborne’s economic policy creates a different landscape for the 2015 General Election and whoever wins it.

Whoever is the next Prime Minister will still have a deficit to reduce, and will not have money to spend.

Whoever governs after 2015 will have to find more savings.

The Blair/Brown Approach

It means that the Blair/Brown approach will not be enough.

Those governments achieved great things.

Ask the parents who drop their kids off every day at the schools we transformed.

Ask the patients being treated in the new hospitals we built.

Ask people who see more police on their streets.

We should all be proud of that.

Fiscal Constraints Argument

But we could only do it because the economy was growing.

Each time New Labour won an election, it won at a time when business was prospering.

When entrepreneurs could set up new firms and be confident of a return.

When companies knew that there were markets for their goods, and consumers ready to spend.

That growing economy meant that there were tax revenues to invest in our infrastructure, to help hardworking families, and to protect the most vulnerable in our country.

Next time we come back to power, it will be different.

We will be handed a deficit.

We will have to make difficult choices that all of us wish we did not have to make.

So we must rethink how we achieve fairness for Britain in a time when there is less money to spend.

There are some who say that fairness is a luxury we cannot afford in tough times.

That it is inevitable that this country must become:

More unfair.

More unequal.

More unjust.

That fairness is something for good times, and nothing more.

I believe that is profoundly wrong.

When there is less money to spend, the choices are starker.

So our values matter even more.

And if you don’t believe me, talk to the low paid working families who are losing the most, thanks to this Government’s priorities.

Talk to the school-leaver, joining a queue of one million young people looking for work.

It’s Labour’s responsibility to find a new approach for tough times.

So we will be a different party from the one we were in the past.

A changed Labour Party.

The ideas which won three elections between 1997 and 2005 won’t be the ideas which will win the election in 2015.

And not just out of necessity, because there’s less money around.

But because we have to recognise some of the things we didn’t achieve.

The last Labour government did more to tackle poverty than any in British history.

Yet, inequality between the very top and the very bottom still grew.

The last Labour Government saw many jobs created.

But too many people found themselves stuck in low skilled, low wage jobs which offered neither satisfaction, nor time to spend with the family.

New Labour’s answer, tax credits, made a real difference.

But they weren’t enough.

Sometimes in government it felt like, instead of building a new economy, we were spending money to patch up the failures of the economy we inherited.

Fairness wasn’t hard-wired into our economy and society.

That, as well as the deficit, means Labour needs a new approach.

Short term

We have already set out what we would do to get the economy growing again immediately.

We would tax bank bonuses and use the money to get young people back to work.

In short, where the Government is stripping demand out of the economy, we would go less far and less fast.

We call for these things not because we aren’t interested in dealing with the deficit.

We call for them because we are.

The sooner growth and jobs return the easier it is to reduce the deficit we face.

That action to get growth moving must be combined with balanced cuts.

And to get Britain’s budget back into balance and the national debt back on a downward path, we will set out tough new fiscal rules.

But as I said earlier, the deficit will persist well into the next parliament, well beyond 2015.

Long term

So today I want to focus on that horizon.

I want to explain the principles which will guide the Labour Party under my leadership.

I want to set out a new approach.

To demonstrate once and for all that Labour is a party for all times, not only a party for good times.

So in the future, how we deliver when there is much less money available is going to have to be different to the approach taken by Labour in the past.

That means three new ways of delivering fairness in difficult times.

First, reforming our economy so we have long-term wealth creation with rewards fairly shared.

Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze the living standards of families.

And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority.

Long-term wealth creation

So first, Britain needs a new era of long-term wealth creation.

Both to pay its way in the world and to create fairness in tough times.

Too often in the past we ended up with wealth creation which was built on unstable foundations.

With excessive rewards at the top and everybody else seeing their incomes squeezed.

The New Labour approach focused on how government could act to address the consequences of this failure.

But it didn’t focus enough on stopping it happening in the first place.

Not enough on dealing with the roots of our economy’s problems:

Poor quality jobs;

The over-reliance on finance;

And the squeeze on living standards.

The school-leaver in my constituency who years ago would have gone into mining or manufacturing but who now faces an insecure, low-paying job.

The young engineering graduate who is told she is better off designing derivatives than helping British firms design the aeroplanes of tomorrow.

And the workers wondering why their living standards are squeezed and their company is struggling, when the people at the top seem to be getting ever greater rewards.

So what is Labour’s new approach to addressing these problems when there is less money around?

To use the power of government in new ways.

To set new rules that promote the long-term and fair wealth creation we need.

To share a vision with British industry of how we pay our way in an ever more competitive world.

To nurture a growing, thriving economy which creates better jobs, new companies and innovative industries.

That means we have to end the situation where British employers want their companies to invest but can’t find the finance to do so.

That’s why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so small businesses can invest and grow.

It means we have to end the situation where an industry knows it is in its long-term interest to invest in the skills of its workforce, but each firm doesn’t act because it isn’t in their short-term interest.

That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking their responsibilities to bring on the next generation.

And government must play its part.

That’s why we say that major government contracts should only go to those who offer apprenticeships.

It means we have to end the situation where the chief executive wants to make decisions which will benefit his company in five years, when some of his shareholders are only interested in results in the next two months.

That’s why Ed Balls will shortly be announcing our review of short-termism in British corporate life, like quarterly reporting.

All of this is an agenda for responsible business that our business leaders already champion.

It is the one they urge me to address as I go around the country talking with entrepreneurs, visiting factories.

It’s not anti-business it’s pro-business.

Government also has a particular responsibility when times are tough to ensure that rewards go to those who work hard and do the right thing.

That is why we have to take on irresponsibility wherever we find it.

At the top and at the bottom of society.

We have to end the situation where we have rewards for failure at the top — harming the company and its workforce.

That is why we need real change.

Like an employee on every remuneration committee so that top executives have to look an ordinary member of staff in the eye before they award themselves a pay rise.

We are determined to reform our welfare system too, so that it rewards those who do the right thing.

That’s why I’ve said that those on the waiting list for council accommodation should move up that list if they are contributing to their communities, being good neighbours, and seeking work.

We need an economy that builds long-term wealth creation, fairly shared.

Vested interests

But we also need to act on the vested interests that squeeze the living standards of vast numbers of people across the country.

Does anyone doubt that people are feeling squeezed?

The price of food is going up.

The price of gas and electricity is going up.

And the price of getting around, getting to work is going up.

And when there is little money to spend, fairness starts with how you are treated when you spend the money you have.

We need a big change in approach from government.

When big companies use their dominant position to charge too much, we mustn’t be afraid to intervene.

No company that is engaging in predatory behaviour should be too big to challenge.

Take train fares.

This month, some are going up by as much as 11%.

Next year and the year after, some are going to go up by as much as 13%.

And that at a time when so many peoples’ wages are falling.

Some train companies have jacked up prices so much that some season tickets are now a fifth of the average salary in this country.

So much that some parents are giving up jobs because they can’t afford a child minder and a season ticket.

And what are the Government doing about it?

Nothing.

They are afraid to take on the train companies.

In fact they are making it worse.

Just ask a commuter coming into London from Basildon or Basingstoke.

The Government are giving the train companies more freedom to rig the system of fares, so that the busiest routes get the biggest fare increases.

That’s got to change.

I’d make sure the rail companies followed a really simple rule.

The limit for fare increases should apply to every regulated train fare, not just the routes fewer people use.

And it’s not just transport we need change.

Take energy.

Everyone here today who has enjoyed Christmas and New Year with their family has had the central heating on.

But it’s expensive.

And we all know that particularly with the rising costs of energy, there are a growing number of people, many of them elderly, who find it difficult to afford.

We introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance for all pensioners, and we gave specific help to those who were struggling with fuel poverty.
Great Labour achievements.

But what’s going to happen in the future?

As energy gets more expensive, how can we offer the help people need when there is very little money to spend?

The Government has already cut the Winter Fuel Allowance so that it provides less support.

That cut may be something we cannot reverse.

With the economic outlook that we face, we’ll find it hard to do that.

But that doesn’t mean we give up.

Instead our new approach starts by looking at the root of the problem – the way our energy market is letting British consumers down.

We’ve got six main energy companies in Britain.

Competition should be good for consumers.

But the way that the current market works is disadvantaging them.

The tariffs are so complicated at the moment that 80% of people are overpaying for their gas and electricity.

Eighty per cent.

And we know who the most vulnerable are.

Those least able to find the cheapest deal, or to be online.

Often the elderly.

Offering different products is a good thing.

But if those products end up taking advantage of older people – that is wrong.

So I’ll give the energy companies a simple rule.

By all means put different products out there and for different kinds of consumers.

But we will ensure you give pensioners over seventy-five the lowest tariff on offer.

You make it happen, or we’ll put it into law.

There may be less money around.

But for those four million pensioners, Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times.

So we need action against these vested interests.

Priorities

But these new straitened times also mean that the next Labour government will have to have a clear sense of priorities.

In the past, the proceeds of a growing economy gave the last Labour government greater room for manoeuvre.

You could cut capital gains tax and reduce child poverty.

It was easier to avoid tough choices.

But that era is gone.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be political choices about the balance between taxation and spending, and about where our priorities are.

But in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means finding the money from somewhere else.

When someone wins, someone else loses.

And for Labour, that means there are no easy choices.

That’s why when we say invest money in our young people to make university more affordable, we also have to be clear that means not giving the banks the corporation tax cut this Government has planned.

Bringing the cap on university fees down to £6,000 would make a real dent in the awful levels of student debt this Government is going to impose on families.

Let me give you another example.

Everyone is now joining us talking about the squeezed middle and the next generation.

But it’s not enough just to talk about them.

If you want to make taxes fairer for those on middle and low incomes, your priority can’t be to scrap the 50p rate for those earning £150,000 or more.

In the years ahead, we will be focused on how we can make the right, tough, long-term decisions to help those on lower and middle incomes succeed.

Building long-term wealth creation, tackling vested interests, and being clear about our priorities – that is how we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around.

It’s my agenda for a fairer country and a more responsible capitalism.

The new approach – only Labour can deliver

When I talked about that in my conference speech, you might say I wasn’t overwhelmed with support from other political parties.

Some even said that I was anti-business.

But in the last few months something strange has happened.

Suddenly, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are falling over themselves to say that they too are burning with passion to take on “crony capitalism.”

A Prime Minister who six months ago was gagging to scrap the 50p tax rate now tells us he will keep it for a few more years.

And the same Prime Minister, who said I was anti-business when I called time on undeserved rewards at the top, now claims he’s desperate to stop them too.

I say to the Prime Minister, who are you trying to kid?

No-one is ever going to believe you’re the man to take on crony capitalism.

No-one will believe this is what gets you out of bed in the morning.

But now that you have accepted that this is the battleground of politics, I say:

Bring it on.

Because my message today is not simply that Labour can deliver fairness when there is less money around.

But that only Labour can.

Because the core belief of this Prime Minister is that we can solve the problems Britain faces by government getting out of the way.

His answer to the problems thrown up by the economic crisis, is simply more of the same.

My answer is different.

Different to this Prime Minister.

And different too to the previous Labour Government.

Conclusion

My Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help, that there are no choices to be made.

My Labour Party is going to show that we can deliver fairness even when there’s less money around.

And in the end, once the savings have been made and the deficit has been reduced, the question is this:

What is your vision for this country?

This Government doesn’t have one.

But we do.

Because we understand that a responsible economy is also a stronger, growing economy.

Our vision is for an economy based on sustainable wealth creation.

Where rewards are more fairly shared.

Where we take on the vested interests that squeeze people’s living standards.

Where we stand up for the hard-working majority with the choices we make.

That is the basis on which Labour will govern.

That is what Labour stands for.

That is where Labour stands.”

PILOT BADGER CULLS FLY IN THE FACE OF SCIENCE

2012-01-04T13:52:00.000-08:00

The New Year greeting to England’s cattle farming industry could be an even bigger bill than they expect for badger culling in attempts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (bTB). This is why.

The NFU is likely to propose that badgers could be killed over trial areas from 250 to 450 sq Km, up to three times the Coalition Government’s minimum, according to a report in the Farmers’ Weekly. Cattle farmers collectively could have to pay for a full-scale culling programme if the trial was considered effective and humane. The larger areas would be equivalent to squares of 13 miles by 13, but it is not yet possible to estimate the scale of the actual operations because the locations have not been revealed.

However, as a hypothetical example of the work that would need to be undertaken the Badger Trust has been analysing the Cambridgeshire constituency of Mr James Paice, the farming minister. It is described as being “centred on Ely” and a square of 450 sq Km with Ely at its centre contains almost 3,000 fields, not counting gardens and woodlands which could also be a refuge for badgers.

The size of the culling problem in such an area would be this:

FIRST, all the badgers would have to be counted. Contractors would then have to prove that at least 70 per cent had been killed - in a humane manner - over 70 per cent of the territory.

SECOND, only then could the projected benefit be a possibility: a mere 16 per cent fewer herds affected over nine years as estimated on data from the £50-million Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). The Coalition Government has stated that this is the only sufficiently rigorous trial to be taken into consideration.

THIRD, this benefit would need the conditions to be in line with the RBCT. That involved the smaller task of killing in areas of about six miles square over only a few days – not the six weeks announced in the Commons last year nor over larger areas.

FOURTH, synchronising the killings is essential; it would be much harder over the six weeks.

FIFTH, no comparisons with the RBCT results - including the estimated 16 per cent benefit – can be inferred because the effectiveness of free shooting badgers at night has not been rigorously substantiated. It is not comparable with the humane and accountable method of cage trapping followed by shooting in broad daylight as in the RBCT. Furthermore the trials will not produce any reliable data about the effect on bTB.

SIXTH, farmers would have to meet an even more massive bill for sufficiently expert staff to cover larger areas for four years.

Badger culling, if it comes to pass, will represent a triumph of prejudice over science, a triumph of the feel-good factor over commonsense and a triumph of political expediency at the expense of a gullible industry.

PAYDAY LOANS USED FOR HOUSING COSTS IN TORY DICKENSIAN BRITAIN

2012-01-04T02:29:00.000-08:00

In the new Tory Dickensian Britain, almost one million people have taken out a payday loan to help pay their rent or mortgage in the last 12 months, according to a new Shelter survey.

The survey also reveals that almost seven million people in total are relying on credit in some form to help pay their housing costs, using payday loans, unauthorised overdrafts, other loans or credit cards.

These results show the spiral of debt that people are falling into in order to keep a roof over their head.

Shelter is warning that the New Year could bring with it a risk of homelessness for people who are struggling with their housing costs.

They are urging anyone worried about their debts to seek early debt advice as their New Year’s resolution.

Campbell Robb, Shelter’s Chief Executive said: "These shocking findings show the extent to which millions of households across the country are desperately struggling to keep their home.

"Turning to short-term payday loans to help pay for the cost of housing is totally unsustainable. It can quickly lead to debts snowballing out of control and can lead to eviction or repossession and ultimately homelessness.”

GLOOMY PREDICTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2012

2012-01-03T03:02:00.001-08:00

The construction industry is a barometer of how well the economy is doing – and as everyone knows, it’s doing very badly under the stewardship of this Tory-Lib Dem Government.

Forecasts out today show more gloomy news for the industry in the coming 12 months. Public Sector construction is set to fall by a further 18% up to 2014. Education construction is predicted to plummet by one quarter in 2012, while health construction is set to decrease by 15% this year.

The only light at the end of the tunnel for the construction industry is that infrastructure construction should see an increase of 20% by 2015 and energy construction a threefold rise over the same period.

But overall, construction output is forecast to fall by more than 5% this year and remain flat throughout 2013. It will be 2014 before the industry is expected to see any significant signs of recovery, by which time output will be 12% lower than at its peak in 2007.

Michael Ankers from the Construction Products Association says: “For the construction industry to return to growth there needs to be a strong private sector recovery, but this is just not happening. Continuing uncertainty about the future of the euro zone and a lack of consumer confidence in the UK are holding back important investment decisions. As a result the largest area of construction activity - private commercial work- is forecast to fall by a further 5% in 2012 and remain at that level in 2013.

“At the same time the cuts in public sector construction activity are really beginning to bite, with construction work on schools, hospitals, and other non-housing work forecast to fall by 23% compared with 2011. Despite the encouraging announcements on public sector investment on infrastructure projects in the Autumn Statement, capital spending on construction will still fall 30% by 2013.

“Although new housing starts in the private sector are set to continue their slow recovery, in the short term these are more than offset by the sharp fall in public sector housing. As a result the number of new homes started in 2012 is forecast to be 5000 fewer than this year, and at just 113,000 this is less than half the number of homes needed to accommodate the additional number of households expected to be created over the next 12 months.”

This is yet more evidence of the disastrous economic path being pursued by George Osborne, which is undermining growth and failing to reduce the deficit or the national debt. The Government needs to embrace a Plan B – and quick – or the implications for unemployment and community cohesion will be terrible.

BOMBARDIER CAMPAIGN WILL CARRY ON IN 2012

2012-01-02T04:17:00.000-08:00

There are still a few apologists lurking in the undergrowth, making excuses for the shameful decision by the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition to sell British train manufacturing down the river.

Nobody has argued that the tender specification for Thameslink wasn’t flawed. And yes, the previous Government is culpable for signing off a defective document.

But in spite of its shortcomings, the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation still insisted that the successful bidder provides: “...rolling stock that exploits advances in technology and adopts world class proven solutions in one package”.

Siemens fail that test because they have not yet developed a lightweight bogie.

Furthermore, bidders were required to demonstrate the deliverability of their technical proposals. There is a real question mark hanging over Siemens' ability to deliver the required technical solution within the timescale available.

Remember it took Bombardier 10 years to develop their lightweight bogie.

In assessing the bids the ITT states that: “The score for deliverability of the Overall Programme will be allocated (out of 100%) on the basis of:

(i) 20% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 152 vehicles by the later of July 2013 or 39 months from Contract Award;

(ii) 30% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 452 vehicles by the later of June 2014 or 50 months from Contract Award; and

(iii) 50% for demonstration of the ability to deliver the full fleet by the later of December 2015 or 68 months from Contract Award.

When the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition was formed, the process had not gone past the point of no return, as implied by the dwindling band of apologists. It is not therefore a question of the Government reneging on a decision taken by the previous administration, because no such decision had been made.

Indeed, before the General Election, the Conservative Party's shadow transport minister, Theresa Villiers, said she intended to review all the major rail contracts. More than a year passed before this Government then appointed Siemens as the preferred bidder.

The buck therefore stops with this Government and not the previous administration.

Claims that starting the process again would delay everything by two years or more is also wrong. The truth is a new tendering process could be concluded in six months as used to happen before and for many years after rail privatisation.

So attempts to absolve the present Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government of any blame are well wide of the mark because they have, well and truly sold Bombardier down the river.

Nevertheless, it still isn’t too late for the Government to reverse its decision. We are still at the preferred bidder stage, and in view of the huge question marks about Siemens’ reputation and its ability to deliver on time, Bombardier could, and should, be awarded the contract.

Remember Bombardier has been retained as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink deal.

So my focus in 2012 will be on continuing to press Ministers to do the right thing for Derby and the future of the British train manufacturing industry.

BLEAK 2012 IN PROSPECT BUT LABOUR OFFERS HOPE

2011-12-31T12:36:00.000-08:00

Polly Toynbee wrote in today’s Guardian that in her political lifetime, she “has never seen a more callous or inept crew in charge.” I couldn’t agree more.

The New Year will see even more cuts and the prospect of the country lurching into another recession looms large.

The callous incompetence of this dreadful Tory-Lib Dem coalition makes a toxic governmental cocktail that is plunging Britain into a modern-day Dickensian era.

The rich kids in charge at the top of our Government have never wanted for anything in their lives. The pandered brats have grown into adult brutes dishing out misery on people less fortunate than themselves.

They lived their childhoods and adolescent years in a cocooned world where their whims were indulged and their privileged adult lives are a million miles from the rest of us.

And yet they continually spout their Orwellian mantra that “we’re all in it together”. What utter tosh!

Even Margaret Thatcher’s reign was not as cold-hearted as these Bullingdon bully boys and their obsequious quisling collaborators in the Lib Dems.

With almost 2,000 people losing their job every day and pitiless benefit cuts coming into effect, 2012 will be a bleak year indeed for the victims of Messrs Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.

That is why we must stand up for the role of "the state" in generating economic growth and regulating capitalism. The ‘state’ AKA ‘big government’ is despised by those advantaged Tory Ministers but it provides a lifeline to millions of ordinary people.

Let’s remember ‘big-government’ is doctors, nurses, teachers, park keepers, police, fire-fighters, tax collectors, social workers, street cleaners and others occupations that make our society a decent place to live.

Let’s remind people that Labour Governments use the state to improve life for most people. From lower crime to reducing NHS waiting lists and better chances for more children to improved security in old age.

Labour must offer hope in 2012 and with more local authorities likely to go Labour in May’s council elections, Labour in local government can act as a bulwark against Government excesses.

Mr Cameron might well have secured a short term bounce from his EU veto, but as the cuts bite even harder in 2012, the cruel Tory truth will emerge. That is why Labour must remain the standard-bearer for fairness in the New Year showing people there is a better and a fairer way forward.

TWO THIRDS SAY NO TO REPEAL OF HUNTING ACT

2011-12-26T01:33:00.001-08:00

A poll commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports has shown that a free vote on repeal of the Hunting Act is the least popular pledge on animal related issues by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition. YouGov polled 2,126 adults between 14th - 16th December

The results released today, the most popular day on the hunting calendar, show that just 6% of people ranked bringing forward a free vote on repeal, as the most important pledge among a selection of animal related commitments by the coalition Government.

Almost half of people asked (48%) rated it as the least important.

Targeting irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs was seen to be the most important action with nearly a third of people (32%) saying they believed this to be the top priority from a choice of animal welfare commitments.

The poll by YouGov found support for the Hunting Act remains consistently strong with 69% agreeing that the ban on hunting wild animals with dogs should remain in place. Just 22% said they disagreed with this while 9% said they didn’t know.

It comes as no surprise that the public has shown there is no appetite to waste parliamentary time on voting to repeal the Hunting Act. The figures speak for themselves and poll after poll show that the public support for the Hunting Act is overwhelmingly high.

The vast majority have absolutely no desire to see wild animals being legally abused, chased to exhaustion and then torn apart in our countryside.

The League recently published a report showing the extent of artificial fox earths being maintained in areas known to be used by hunts. An undercover operation has recorded undisputable evidence that individuals, believed to be from the hunting community are encouraging foxes in artificial earths.

League investigators have found evidence of earths which have been built or renovated since the passing of the Hunting Act where food and water is being supplied. The evidence has been passed to relevant local authority trading standards departments and where appropriate, the police where investigations are ongoing.

.

FEARS FOR BRITISH BUSINESS IN DERBY AS UK LOSES VITAL INFLUENCE AFTER EU SUMMIT

2011-12-20T06:29:00.001-08:00

As the ramifications emerge from David Cameron’s decision to walk away from the negotiating table and use the UK’s veto at the recent European Council, it is increasingly clear that British business is now worried.

There is uncertainty for business looking to plan for the long-term. There are concerns over the impact on exports, on inward investment and whether global firms will put their operations in Britain. There are worries over our influence of the operation of the single market, the biggest market for British firms.

Business leaders have asked what it will mean for Britain’s economy. The CBI’s Director General John Cridland has said that we are in “uncharted territory” and has questioned whether, given the UK’s increasing isolation, whether we will “still be in a position to stop new financial regulations that come about as the eurozone becomes more integrated”.

These concerns have been echoed by the body representing British manufacturers, the EEF: “it's going to affect how we engage with our EU partners on a daily basis”. Sir Martin Sorrell, boss of FTSE 100 firm WPP, has said: “I’d prefer to be inside the tent not outside. Change is easier to achieve from within. It seems to be more about politics than economics.”

The Prime Minister claimed he used the UK’s veto to protect the financial services sector. However, no safeguards were won. Financial regulation is decided by qualified majority voting at European Councils - this was true before the Prime Minister’s veto, and afterwards - and the UK has never lost a vote in this area. But following recent events, the fear is that Britain’s ability to marshal a majority has been compromised and we will be shut out of discussions on financial services regulation. In short, our ability to defend financial services in the UK has been hampered, not enhanced.

The implementation of the Financial Transaction Tax – another ‘justification’ for the veto - wasn’t on the agenda of the Council meeting and in any case a Financial Transaction Tax could only have been implemented following a unanimous vote by all member states of the EU. This was true before the meeting and is true after. Again this questions the rationale of David Cameron’s decision.

But there are now real concerns being expressed by British businesses that firms will lose out following the UK’s loss of influence in the single market. They say Britain’s ability to attract inward investment could be weakened and global corporations could be less likely to set up operations or European headquarters in the UK in the future. Businesses are worried about the uncertainty that has been created.

On top of this, the Prime Minister’s decision has done nothing to tackle instability and the lack of growth in the Eurozone which, as our main export market, is crucial for our firms.

These are challenging times ahead for firms and that is why I‘m going out talking to local businesses, including larger firms with operations and offices in our area, to understand their concerns so I can press the Government on what this means for jobs and growth here in Derby.

STOP THIS ECONOMIC TAILSPIN BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

2011-12-15T00:14:00.000-08:00

HOW much longer is this Government going to pursue its catastrophic economic experiment that is having such a devastating impact on jobs and prosperity?

More families are facing Christmas without a job than at any time since the Conservative Party was last in power in the early 1990s.

Last month saw unemployment hitting a new high and the depressing fact is that there is no end to this misery in sight. In the last three months alone, for every job created in the private sector 13 jobs were lost in the public sector.

But what is so extraordinary is that the Government continues telling us that there is no alternative, even though its policies are going so spectacularly wrong.

Youth unemployment is up by 54,000 and now stands at 1,027,000. Long-term unemployment among people aged 50 plus has gone up by 21.3% since January and the number of unemployed women is the highest it has been since 1988.

The truth is the country is crying out for a different approach. Labour's five-point plan for jobs and growth offers a way for the Chancellor to halt the frightening economic tailspin the Government's policies have caused.

On Wednesday, the House of Commons debated a Labour motion urging the Government to reconsider its refusal to adopt our plan.

We argued getting people back to work was a better way to reduce the deficit and secure Britain's future economic prosperity.

But the combined voting strength of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs meant that Labour's motion was defeated.

The five-point plan includes creating 100,000 jobs for young people and building 25,000affordable homes using funds raised from a tax on bank bonuses.

It also incorporates bringing forward long-term investment projects, temporarily reversing January's VAT rise and a one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements.

These measures would generate jobs and growth, as would our proposal to give small firms, which take on extra workers, a one-year national insurance tax break.

But if the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats won't listen to Labour, they should at least take account of the considered view of the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF has said if the economy continues to stagnate the Government should slow the pace of cuts and tax rises.

However, it seems this Tory-led Government is determined to plunge us into a new Dickensian era. There are parallels with Charles Dickens novel 'A Christmas Carol' and George Osborne seems to be doing his best to emulate Ebenezer Scrooge.

People will remember Scrooge was a cold-hearted, tight-fisted and greedy man, who despised Christmas and all things which gave people happiness. The evidence of the last 18 months suggests that Scrooge would have certainly fitted the job description for a modern-day Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.

But in the end, Scrooge did at least redeem himself by changing his ways and I hope Mr Osborne will do likewise. I have just sent him copy of 'A Christmas Carol' in the hope that he adopts the moral of this Dickensian tale. Time will tell if he does.

TORIES LIVING IN FANTASYLAND ABOUT EU TREATY

2011-12-12T15:44:00.000-08:00

BUDGET CONTROL
Tory myth: “We didn’t sign the treaty because we do not want our tax and spending decisions to be made in Brussels.” (Michael Fallon 10 December 2011, BBC: “Michael Fallon.... said the UK did not want its tax and spending decisions to be made in Brussels”)

Truth: There was never a suggestion that countries outside the Eurozone be forced to follow tax and spending rules set by anyone. The Statement is signed by the Euro heads of state or government, and the provisions for a “fiscal stability union” explicitly apply only in the Euro area. The countries outside the Eurozone that have agreed to sign the treaty will not lose any fiscal policy control as a result of this treaty, and the summit statement commits them only to “indicate the possibility to take part in this process after consulting their Parliaments when appropriate”.

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX
Tory myth: “We didn’t sign the treaty to prevent the other 26 EU countries from imposing a financial transaction tax on Britain” (Daily Telegraph, 9 December 2011, “Tories fear an enhanced euro group could try to impose a financial transactions tax on Britain”)

Truth: The EU summit changed nothing. We have always had a veto on new taxes that would apply in the UK, ever since we joined the European Economic Community nearly 40 years ago. We had a veto on Thursday and we have a veto now.

THE NEW TREATY AND EU INSTITUTIONS
Tory myth: “We didn’t sign the treaty to prevent the new treaty from being justiciable under EU institutions.” (George Osborne’s claim: "We've protected all these industries from the development of eurozone integration spilling over and affecting the non-euro members of the European Union.”)

Truth: Not signing the treaty has made no difference to whether or not the treaty will use EU institutions, and in particular whether the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction and be able to build case law based on the treaty. Article 273 of the EU Treaty says “The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.”

PROTECTING FINANCIAL SERVICES
Tory myth: “We didn’t sign the treaty to protect the City of London from destructive European regulation in the future.” (David Cameron, repeatedly)

Truth: There is not a single reference to financial services in the 16 paragraphs of the Euro heads of state conclusions published on Friday. Irrespective of that, by not signing the treaty, we have failed to secure a single safeguard for UK financial services going forward. We have no assurances about whether financial services will be discussed by the new monthly meetings of the 26 EU countries.

SINGLE MARKET AND MAJORITY VOTING
Tory myth: “We didn’t sign the treaty to protect the City of London against majority voting in the future.”

Truth: Financial services, like all other aspects of the single market (except tax), have always been decided by qualified majority voting. David Cameron’s proposals were not about the future treaty but about undermining the existing treaty: his proposal was to unpick the rules of the single market that have been in place since Margaret Thatcher’s Single European Act was passed 25 years ago.

David Cameron’s vision of the single market is incoherent. The single market is overwhelmingly in our national interest, and – as Lord Cockfield and Margaret Thatcher understood – it requires majority voting among the 27 countries to function properly. If every country could carve out protection for their chosen industry, there would be no common rules across the market in which 60% of our exporters do their business, and the single market would fall apart.

THE SELFISH CITY WON'T REPAY A NATIONAL SACRIFICE

2011-12-11T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Independent published this excellent article on Saturday 10 December 2011 by Nicholas Faith

Let us hope that the City – and above all the hedge funds which contributed so generously to the Tory war chest – are happy.

For in the early hours of yesterday, David Cameron made it clear that the well-being of London's financial community was a vital element in Britain's economic well-being. So crucial, in fact, that it formed the key reason – or was it just a convenient excuse? – for the decision to ruin our relationship with the European Union, and above all with its dominant forces, France and Germany.

Cameron's veto of the EU treaty change needed to save the euro could prove an exceedingly expensive gamble, politically and economically for him – and indeed for the whole country. It also turns the spotlight on what the City can do in return for the Prime Minister's loyalty. In theory, it should lead the City to help the rest of a country that has taken such a risk on its behalf. But this would set a historic precedent in 2,000 years which, unfortunately, show that London has always been a selfish, insular place invariably independent from the rest of the country, looking abroad for its living, and perfectly capable of ignoring the wishes of successive governments up-river in distant Whitehall, let alone the needs of the wider economy by providing funds for industrial development.

The City's neglect is based on a fundamental inability to think long term, for the Square Mile has always been a home for traders rather than investors. The tradition of trade and finance has been reinforced by a steady stream of immigrants reaching back over the past two millennia. In Roman times, they came from as far as North Africa. Since then, the City has always flourished because of incomers, Dutch and Danes, Huguenots, Jews – and, today, as many as 300,000 young Frenchmen.
For centuries, the greed and short-sightedness of the City's denizens have made them a target: in the 18th century, Jonathan Swift described the jobbers as "traders waiting for shipwrecks in order to strip the dead". Alexander Pope was just as sharp: "There's London's voice, 'get money, get money'."

The industrial revolution emphasised that the rest of the country lacked any real business connection with London. In the 19th century, great manufacturing cities – Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesbrough – boomed thanks to local finance. The biggest absorbers of capital, the railways, were originally financed by Quakers in the north east and by what was called the "Liverpool interest". As soon as the City got involved, there was the usual pattern of recurrent financial crises. For most of London's company promoters were crooked. During the 19th century, the London markets became steadily less connected with commercial reality. As the great Nathan Meyer Rothschild put it: "I am no trader in goods." By the end of century, the City was investing money everywhere from US railroads to the railway networks of Argentina, often with disastrous results, rather than at home.

There has been one previous attempt to fill the historic finance gap left by the City's reluctance to rally round. In 1945, the newly elected Labour government founded the ICFC (Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation), funded by the clearing banks. The corporation aroused intense hatred in the City; the clearers declared that it was unnecessary, while the merchant banks hated it because it undercut their fees. Nevertheless, it provided a lot of money to worthy industrial borrowers.

In the early 1970s, the City taught a previous Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, not to rely on it – indeed, demonstrated clearly the damage that it could do to British industry. The damage was the work of a horde of adolescent asset strippers whose antics – mostly in the form of insider trading – destroyed many "ordinary" companies which provided actual goods and services. The leader of the pack – Jim Slater of Slater Walker – put their attitude clearly: "Let's face it: none of us here are interested in management." Their antics infuriated Ted Heath – and contributed to his downfall. As Anthony Sampson pointed out, by the 1980s "the Square Mile of the City has become like an offshore island in the heart of the nation".

Not surprisingly, the Thatcher years led the ICFC astray. In 1987, the banks sold their shares. It was renamed 3i, floated on the stock market, abandoned its former role and mutated into just another private equity fund investing more abroad than at home. Its story shows clearly how the very success of the City in the past 30 years has merely accentuated its irrelevance to the vast majority of British businesses. The City's inhabitants simply became richer, greedier – and more arrogant – fleecing any business foolhardy enough to look to place its shares on the stock market, or simply for capital for investment purposes.

If history was anything to go by, the arrival of a Labour government in 1997 should have helped. Sadly, Gordon Brown took his personal reaction against Old Labour to an extreme degree. Worse, he was obsessed by the City, which he saw as the only possible saviour for the economy and Fred Goodwin of RBS as his beau ideal of a businessman, and we know what that led to. Not surprisingly, barely any manufacturing jobs were created in the West Midlands, traditionally the heartland of the country's manufacturing sector, during his decade at the country's economic helm.

It was only in January 2009 that the improbable figure of Peter Mandelson resuscitated the idea by allocating the pathetic sum of £75m to a new enterprise fund. In the past year, Messrs Cameron and Osborne, the sons of a leading stockbroker and a wallpaper manufacturer respectively, have provided financial help to Britain's small and medium-sized businesses in the form of £1.5bn grant to the regional growth fund. But this was only a pilot scheme which will require the City to put up far more money to salvage manufacturing.

In theory, this week's demonstration of the City's power should at least persuade it to change the habits of two millennia and make a positive contribution to the economic welfare of the majority of the country which provides the nine-tenths of British economic life for which the City is not responsible. There will be an early test of a possible new relationship as the Government tries to persuade investors to provide long-term finance for long-neglected crumbling infrastructure. But the City is such a short-termist community that it may well not show any such gratitude. In fact, its inhabitants may even resent Cameron's support. Just remember the old saying: "Why do you hate me? I have never tried to help you."

CAMERON SELLS BRITAIN SHORT ON EUROPE

2011-12-09T05:44:00.000-08:00

By Ed Miliband

This is the most important European summit for a generation and its outcome is looking increasingly worrying for the UK.

We have warned consistently that an isolated David Cameron has been on the sidelines of Europe for months, out of touch abroad in the same way as he is out of touch at home.

He has been hamstrung by the divisions in his own party, imprisoned by the Eurosceptics and his failure to confront his party over the last five years.

There are simple lessons to learn from the Prime Minister's failure last night. If you get out of the deal-making room as he has done over the last year, you end up losing influence. Having no allies is a sign of weakness, not of strength

There are serious questions to answer.

We need an assurance that Mr Cameron has not allowed a deal to emerge that means 25 of the 27 will rewrite the rules of the European economy without the UK in the room.

Will the signatories to the new treaty be able to impose economic barriers to those in the EU but outside the new treaty?

Will this new treaty be run by the EU institutions, and be enforceable in EU courts?

Will the UK have a seat at the table when vital economic decisions are taken?

Have we now got the two speed Europe Britain has always opposed, but without any of the safeguards the Prime Minister promised to deliver?

And for all the talk of treaty change, where is the plan for growth and jobs that should have been the other focus of this EU summit?

The list of questions are long and the answers will affect the jobs and lives of all British people.

We should have ensured an agreement that reflected a simple principle: decisions affecting all 27 members of the European Union must be made by the 27.

There is clearly a case for deeper cooperation by the Eurozone countries, but at the heart of British foreign policy, at the heart of our commitment to the EU, must be a basic principle that the future of the single market and future European cooperation is shaped by all the countries who are part of it, not just those who share the single currency.

The lesson for the Prime Minister is that to treat Europe as merely an excuse for the failure of your economic policy, or a problem to be negotiated with your backbenchers, serves us ill.

It makes us marginal to the big decisions on Europe. It is no way to run a foreign policy. And it lets down our country.

PROSPECTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WEAKEN AS NEW ORDERS FALL

2011-12-04T08:12:00.001-08:00

The prospects for a recovery in construction output has weakened still further. The latest new orders figures from the Office of National Statics for the third quarter showed a fall of more than 5% compared with the same quarter last year. New orders in the first nine months of 2011 are 14% lower than in the same period last year.

Commenting on these figures, the Construction Products Association Chief Executive, Michael Ankers said: “Although new orders have improved since the previous quarter, this is still the lowest figure for Q3 since 1980. As expected the fall is sharpest in public sector construction – education, health, and social housing - and although there is some pick up in orders for private sector commercial work, this is heavily focused in London and the south east and is not strong enough to compensate for the sharp decline in orders for public sector work.

“Last week’s Autumn Statement brought the prospect of increased investment in infrastructure but the government’s figures show that this will not have any significant impact until 2013 at the earliest. As a result, and in the light of today’s new orders figures, the industry needs to brace itself for an even sharper fall in output in 2012 than that already anticipated.”

CAMERON'S NHS PLANS WILL COST DERBY ALMOST £18 MILLION

2011-12-02T15:26:00.000-08:00

The hidden cost of the Government’s wasteful NHS reorganisation in Derby has been exposed. New guidelines will force the local NHS to put aside £17,723,338 from their budget this year and next to pay for a costly NHS restructure that David Cameron repeatedly ruled out.

These shocking new figures show the Government’s reorganisation is costing the NHS even more than I first feared. It is scandalous that our local NHS is being forced to hold back millions of pounds for the Tory led Government’s reckless plans whilst thousands of nursing jobs are being axed.

Derby has already seen a 224% increase in the number of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks for treatment since Cameron became Prime Minister.

Before his plans are even fully through Parliament, David Cameron's reorganisation is hitting the NHS hard and costs are now topping £3.4bn across the country for the first time. Spending this amount on an unnecessary reorganisation is totally unjustifiable when every single penny should be focused on maintaining standards of care.

At the election Cameron ruled out top-down NHS reorganisations. But only weeks after entering Number 10, he ripped up his own words and ordered the biggest and most dangerous upheaval of the NHS since it began.

The financial request is buried in the Government’s new NHS 'Operating Framework' document and takes the nationwide cost of the NHS reorganisation above previous estimates of £2-3bn, with Primary Care Trusts now holding back £3.44bn over two years.

The Bill will break up the NHS and create an unfair postcode lottery. With no national standards, there will be widespread variation in the treatments available on the NHS. In some areas, people may have to go private to get services available for free elsewhere.

The Bill risks even more rises in waiting times and a two-tier NHS. It scraps the cap on hospitals treating private patients at the same time as watering down guarantees on NHS waiting times. This means local hospitals will be free to treat more private patients and make NHS patients wait longer.

The Bill turns the NHS into a full-blown commercial market, putting competition before patient care. It allows private companies to cherry-pick quick profits, potentially forcing local hospitals to go bust. Hospitals could even be fined for working together.

The Bill undermines the bond of trust between doctors and patients. It creates conflicts of interest where financial incentives could interfere with medical decisions. GPs could even get a bonus for rationing patient care.

This Bill is wasting money and creating bureaucracy. It is unforgivable to spend £3.5 billion across the country on a reckless re-organisation when the NHS needs every penny it can get for patient care. Nearly £1 billion is being wasted on pay-offs for managers, only for many of them to be re-employed as consultants.

Last Thursday evening leading doctors from the British Medical Association voted to call for an immediate halt to the Government’s costly and controversial Health Bill.

People in Derby didn’t vote for it and our doctors, nurses and patients have already expressed huge concerns at the plans. Yet Cameron is ploughing on with his Health Bill, ignoring public and professional opinion. The time has come for him to listen, put the NHS first and drop his dangerous Bill.

Labour is running a major national drive to unite the country in a call on the Government to drop its unwanted Health Bill I would urge people to add their name to the Government online petition by Dr Kailash Chand at epetitions.direct.gov.uk.

Labour’s Health team will be coming to Derby 19 January to help me launch a petition against these dreadful plans.

TORIES AND LIBERAL DEMOCRATS SHOULD STOP THIS RACE TO THE BOTTOM ON PENSIONS

2011-11-28T16:10:00.000-08:00

Public services and public sector workers define our society.

They are what make Great Britain a decent place to live. That is why I strongly support public sector workers and believe the Government’s current proposals for public service pensions are totally wrong and unacceptable.

Their plans are particularly iniquitous at a time when people are already struggling with rising fuel prices, higher VAT and the threat of job losses.

Public sector pension pots generate a healthy surplus each year and the additional contributions the Government is demanding is tantamount to theft. It is shameful that this unscrupulous and uncaring Government isn’t planning to use one penny piece of the additional contributions for public service pensions.

Because their austerity measures are a complete failure they are simply taxing public sector workers to pay down the national deficit.

But rather than attacking public sector workers, the Government should be addressing the scandal that sees only 11% of private sector workers in defined benefit schemes.

They should also be doing something about the richest 1% of the population getting a ¼ of all pensions’ tax relief totalling over £10bn a year!

The Government’s proposals could lead to many public sector workers opting out of the pension scheme, which may well result in some pension schemes collapsing. Both scenarios will lead to additional long term costs for the taxpayer because more pensioners will end up living in poverty and be forced to claim means tested benefits.

But not content with making these unjustified pension changes, they’re also imposing swingeing cuts on public services and sacking thousands of public sector workers. Slashing so many jobs is a false economy because it reduces demand and that leads to more job losses in the private sector too.

The truth is the public and private sectors need each other. Taking an axe to one, causes catastrophic bleeding in the other, and this Government is creating an economic bloodbath. So the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should stop this race to the bottom.

They should get back to the negotiating table with a sensible offer.

They should abandon their ideological assault on our precious public services.

And they should acknowledge that the nation’s public sector workers are an invaluable asset.

BROKEN LADDER: 4.5 YEARS WITHOUT FOOD AND CLOTHING – THEN YOU CAN AFFORD A DEPOSIT

2011-11-20T15:54:00.001-08:00

New research reveals that the average first time buyer (FTB) would have to save every single penny of their remaining earnings after they’ve paid their rent for four and a half years to have a chance of getting a foot on the housing ladder. In London it would take nearly a decade.

Saving a more realistic 50% of discretionary earnings, allowing people to eat and clothe themselves, would take on average across England nine years, or in London nigh on 20 years.

The Home Builders Federation has released a report, Broken Ladder 2, identifying the increasing lack of accessibility to the housing market at a time when supply is critically low – last year saw the lowest number of homes built since 1923 – with mortgage availability remaining the biggest constraint.

HBF is urging Government to act. It is calling for the introduction of a Government supported Mortgage Indemnity Insurance scheme, to help incentivise lenders to lend at higher LTV rates that potential FTB’s could afford

The shocking figures reveal that on average a FTB in their twenties has £556 a month left after paying their rent, utility bills and council tax (see page 7). The average starter home in England costs £156k, requiring a deposit of around £31K, 469% of annual remaining income and necessitating a FTB to save every penny for 4.6 years.

In London, the higher salaries earned by young people are negated by higher rent costs and house prices, resulting in a deposit requirement 992% of remaining annual income or a young person saving every remaining penny for 10 years without any spend on food, clothes or travel – clearly an impossible ask.

Because of this, the average age of the unassisted FTB has rocketed, with even those on higher wages in their thirties struggling to buy. It has resulted in more and more people being forced to stay with their parents with nearly a third of men and a fifth of women aged 20-34 now still living at home. It has also seen young people delay getting married, starting a family or taking out a pension.

I agree with Stewart Baseley, HBF Executive Chairman, who says “This report reveals the extent of our housing crisis; first-time buyers - the life-blood of the housing market – are unable to access the property ladder in the way a healthy society requires and expects.

“The lack of mortgage availability and the huge deposit gap are stifling a market already starved of supply. We desperately need to return to realistic deposit requirements and a properly functioning and sustainable mortgage market.

“At the same time, the Government must ensure that the new planning policy they are relying on to increase house-building is truly pro sustainable development and is put in place as soon as possible. Without more homes and more mortgages, young families will lack the security of a roof over their heads and the housing crisis will risk reaching the point of no return.”

HINCHINGBROOKE HOSPITAL

2011-11-11T14:19:00.000-08:00

The decision to allow Circle Health Care to run Hinchingbrooke Hospital has worrying implications for the future of our NHS. It was taken after the Government changed Labour’s policy on the use of the private sector in the NHS.

Labour introduced NHS preferred provider, where the NHS was given the first chance to bid. The Tory led Government scrapped this immediately after the general election, and has since operated an open tender Any Qualified Provider (AQP) principle.

Hinchingbrooke Hospital has faced financial difficulties for some time. In Labour’s time in Government, efforts were made to bring in a new management team from elsewhere in the NHS. Other regional NHS organisations were approached with a view to taking over the running of the hospital.

When no local NHS organisations came forward, the PCT asked for permission, out of necessity, to look further afield in an open tender process allowing NHS organisations from other areas to tender, along with not-for-profit and private providers.

The process was handled locally by the PCT, and not referred to the Department of Health.

The Labour Government made no decisions on the future management of the hospital or the candidates on the final shortlist but the principles of NHS preferred provider would have continued to guide our approach.

Yesterday’s decision was taken by this Government having introduced different rules on the private sector. It is they who have to account for it.

The Government’s controversial Health and Social Care Bill is firmly based on the open tender, AQP principle. It envisages a very different world in the NHS, where hospitals operate as autonomous business units in a competitive market. That is the policy context in which this decision has been made.

It is not what patients, public or NHS staff want and it’s time for the Government to listen and http://www.dropthebill.com/

DERBY'S NHS WAITING TIMES MORE THAN DOUBLED

2011-11-08T05:58:00.000-08:00

The weight of opposition to David Cameron’s plans for our NHS has become even clearer this week. Labour has launched the ‘Drop the Bill’ campaign, petitioning the Government to drop their reckless Health Bill.

According to Department of Heath figures, Derby has already seen waiting-times increase by more than 146% since David Cameron came to power. Yet his plans encourage local hospitals to treat more private patients while NHS patients are left waiting longer. They are creating a postcode lottery in the NHS, where patients are refused treatments in one area that their friends can get in another.

The unwanted reorganisation amounts to a £2-3 billion waste of money, which would be better spent on medicines, equipment and staff.

Local Doctors, nurses and patients have already expressed concerns at the plans but the Government is dangerously out of touch. They are ploughing on with their Health Bill regardless.

David Cameron has no democratic mandate for this Health Bill. It wasn’t in his manifesto. And it wasn’t in Nick Clegg’s either. The public never voted for it and healthcare professionals are fearing it.

Aneurin Bevan, creator of the NHS, said there would be an NHS only for as long as there were people left to fight for it. That fight is now upon us and I urge your readers to join it. Please add your name to the petition at www.dropthebill.com.

THOUSANDS OF DERBY RESIDENTS TRAPPED IN POVERTY

2011-11-07T14:19:00.001-08:00

An economics expert at the University of Sheffield says about 15,000 Derby residents are trapped in poverty and being forced to borrow money from loan sharks.

Professor Paul Mosley of the University’s Department of Economics and lecturer Dr Pamela Lenton have published a book investigating millions of people in the UK who do not have access to high-street bank deals.

The book also researches alternative banks, known as community development financial institutions (CDFIs), which lend money to thousands of poor people with no savings and security, charging low rates of interest and saving them from becoming trapped by expensive loans from money lenders.

“In the Derby area, about 15,000 people are trapped in a spiral of debt and poverty because they cannot borrow from the high-street banks,” said Professor Mosley, who is a director of Sheffield Credit Union and Moneyline Yorkshire.

“They are forced into much more expensive ways of borrowing simply to afford day-to-day necessities. Legitimate ‘home credit’ companies such as National Provident charge up to 500 per cent APR. ‘Payday loan’ companies such as Quick Quid and Wonga charge even more, often well into the thousands. People don’t realise they are being ripped off.

“Anyone paying those rates will find it difficult to ever escape from the debt trap, and living standards, especially for those on welfare benefits, have gone down during the recession. “While a £500 loan from one of these companies might cost an additional £400 in interest, a similar loan from a community development financial institution would cost just £80 or £90, and even less from a credit union.

“There is little doubt that the majority of clients of CDFIs have been helped to weather the financial storms of the last years, and some of them have made a decisive leap out of poverty and out of dependence on loan sharks.”

Focussing on the period 2007 to 2009, during which the UK went into a global recession, this book investigates how CDFIs work and how well they have helped low-income people and businesses to weather the financial storm in Sheffield, Derby, Birmingham and Glasgow.

The study, which took six years to research and write, covers ethnic minorities, crime, and even how this summer’s riots could have been avoided through better finance for poorer people.

“Loans to people in poverty could have helped them set up self-employed businesses - which would have put them on the side of those who were trying to protect their businesses, rather than those who were rioting,” added Professor Mosley.

“Also, if given to clusters of people rather than individuals, loans could promote cohesion within inner-city communities, which would also deter rioting.”

Financial Exclusion and the Poverty Trap, Overcoming Deprivation in the Inner City, is available from Routledge and is priced at £85.

LABOUR’S CLIMATE CHANGE PLEDGE

2011-11-07T09:47:00.000-08:00

At the end of November, more than 180 countries will join a United Nations meeting in Durban, South Africa, to work towards a new international deal to tackle climate change.

At the conference world leaders need to take bold steps to combat climate change, protect our planet and lift millions out of poverty.

There are alarming signs that the effects of global warming are already underway. Storms, floods, and droughts are happening more often and are more extreme. Arctic summer sea ice is melting faster than previously predicted.

We can only make progress on cutting emissions if people across the world call for action. The action we need won’t happen unless we demand it. That’s why today Labour has launched its Climate Change Pledge campaign.

People can help by calling for decisive action and sign up to Labour’s climate change pledge at http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/climatechange and publicise the campaign on twitter using the hashtag #climatepledge.

For too long, successive international negotiations have failed to deliver the action needed to meet the size of the challenge. This desperately needs to change and Britain must be at the forefront of this task.

Labour is calling on David Cameron and his Government to show real leadership at Durban. This means keeping our promise to provide financial support for the world’s poorest countries and pushing for EU to commit to a second period of the Kyoto protocol.

Every person who signs up and demands action moves us one step closer to the deal we need and puts pressure on those who would settle for less. You really can make a difference.

DISASTROUS MISTAKES SEE CONSTRUCTION DOWNTURN ACCELERATING

2011-11-06T16:02:00.000-08:00

The latest Construction Trade Survey published on Monday 7 November 2011 makes for bleak reading. It shows a combination of falling demand and rising costs hit the construction industry hard during Q3 and this is only adding to the sense of pessimism over the future.

It is further evidence that the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition have got their economic policies badly wrong. If the UK is to extricate itself from this debilitating recession, the Government must act to stimulate growth. It was a disastrous mistake to abolish housing targets, scrap the Building Schools for the Future programme and impose punitive public sector cuts. Unless the Chancellor acknowledges that fact, the future is bleak for the construction sector.

That is why George Osborne should immediately adopt Labour’s five point economic recovery plan including a repetition of the bank bonus tax to generate funds to build 25,000 affordable homes and guarantee a job for 100,000 young people. He should also bring forward long-term investment projects, such as schools, roads and transport, to create jobs. And an immediate one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance would also give a welcome boost for the building industry.

Commenting on the Construction Trade Survey, Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association said: ‘Construction output weakened in Q3 and order levels were depressed across the board which is bad news for the industry. On the products side, sales of the products that are typically used in the early stages of the construction process fell significantly largely due to the sizeable cuts in public sector capital investment, which are now beginning to feed through. Furthermore, the private sector shows no signs of being able to take up the slack with contractors’ new orders for private sector work being equally depressed. All of these factors are reflected in the Association’s latest forecasts, which expect construction output to fall by1.1% in 2011 and 3.6% in 2012, with no return to growth until 2014.

‘Although we recognise the need for government to reduce the economic deficit, it is critical that growth is kick started through investment in areas of long term benefit to the UK, such as housing and infrastructure. This could be realised by bringing forward finance allocated for future years and doing more to create a framework whereby financial institutions are confident enough to invest.’

Speaking about the survey Stephen Ratcliffe, Director UKCG, said ‘Providing certainty over the pipeline of forward public sector programmes and working with the industry to get shovel ready projects underway, would be the most helpful thing government could do in the wake of these results. That is certainly a message that has been picked up by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and UKCG hopes there will be more positive news for the industry in the wake of the Autumn statement.’

Julia Evans, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Builders added: ‘As the rest of economy registers growth, construction continues to struggle. What the industry needs now, perhaps more than ever, is a shot in the arm - targeted investment that frees up stalled projects and unlocks growth. Focused investment in construction is a win-win for the industry and for wider, sustainable economic growth.’

Key survey findings include:
• Product manufacturers’ confidence regarding the future has dramatically decreased due to the marked change in trading conditions in Q3 with 44% of heavy side firms now expecting sales to reduce next year compared to just 14% three months earlier. Also fewer light side manufacturers now foresee growth in 2012.
• Two-thirds of medium and large contractors reported that activity was either stable or lower than at the same time last year.
• SME builders reported that workload declined for the 15th consecutive quarter which is especially significant given that 70% of industry output is generated by firms employing less than 299 people.
• Cash flow is now a real concern with only 2% of specialist contractors having received payment within 30 days in Q3.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY’S HOSTILITY TO THE EUROPEAN UNION IS IRRATIONAL

2011-11-04T02:39:00.000-07:00

MONDAY 24 October felt like Groundhog Day when the Conservative Party’s divisions over Europe were paraded in a parliamentary debate about a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

The 81 Tory MPs who voted against the EU have now formed a parliamentary group posing an ongoing challenge to David Cameron’s leadership of his party.

Of course the Conservatives have been obsessing about Europe for more than 25 years, but this is not the time for a governing party to be indulging its obsession.

Emperor Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, but I don’t believe he started the fire. By contrast, it seems the Conservative Party is determined to continue fiddling while their policies are burning the British economy.

The frightening thing is that Many Tory MPs are prepared to intensify the inferno by pouring petrol on the flames that are engulfing Britain’s economic wellbeing.

They refuse to accept that the prospect of an EU referendum would create economic uncertainty for our country leading to even higher unemployment and more hardship for ordinary people.

But the c. Britain’s membership gives us a share of the world's largest single market, which is vital for British business and British jobs. Well over 50 per cent of British exports go to the EU and those exports account for more than 3m British jobs.

Moreover, we should not underestimate how much the EU has contributed to securing peace and stability in Europe. Remember the first part of the last century was scarred by two world wars that were started on European soil.

And we cannot ignore our geographic location in the world. We are a European country so it makes sense to cooperate with our neighbours on things like the economy, security, environmental protection and social policy.

In an age of growing globalisation, it is naive in the extreme to think the UK can survive and even prosper on its own. Britain’s membership of the EU is the best way of protecting British citizens from the ravages of unrestrained globalisation. The Government’s reckless austerity measures have already led to reductions in our living standards, but life outside the EU would make matters even worse.

It is the EU that has improved legal rights for workers and secured a good deal for British families. The single market has promoted competition between companies, cut the costs of trading across borders and driven down prices. And employees enjoy better protections thanks to our membership of the EU, such as the legal right to four weeks paid holiday each year and good health and safety regulations.

I am not saying the EU is perfect; it does of course have its faults. But by working with our European partners we have a better chance of protecting our living standards by growing our economies and managing the impact of globalisation.

What those Conservative Eurosceptics refuse to accept is that the single market is the key to economic growth. And it is economic growth that is a prerequisite to creating jobs, safeguarding public services, paying down the deficit and reducing the national debt. But manufacturing output is down, the construction industry is on its knees, unemployment is going up and inflation is continuing to rise.

These are the issues that affect people’s lives, but rather than concentrating on these issues, the Conservative Party seems to prefer tearing itself apart over a self indulgent sideshow instead.

Construction Facing Worst Decline for More Than 30 Years

2011-10-24T07:39:00.001-07:00

Construction activity is unlikely to return to growth until 2014, sparking the worst decline for 30 years, according to the latest Construction Industry Forecasts, which were published today by the Construction Products Association. Since the start of the economic downturn in 2007 more than £32bn of construction activity has been lost.

Commenting on today’s figures, Michael Ankers Chief Executive of the Construction Products Association said: ‘Although government is committed to cut capital expenditure by 20 per cent over the next four years, the hoped for robust recovery from the private sector, to compensate for these cuts, is not materialising. With both the commercial and housing sectors still performing badly, our latest Forecasts indicate that construction output will fall by more than one per cent this year, a further 3.6 per cent next year and no growth in 2013. Recovery finally arrives in 2014, but by then we will have experienced the worst decline in construction activity for more than 30 years. It is essential that more is done by government to kick start the economic recovery.

‘Despite the government’s desire to support housing recovery, housing starts in 2012 will be the second lowest year since 1945. Private sector housing is slowly recovering. Unfortunately public sector housing starts are forecast to fall by a third, leading to an overall reduction in the total number of housing starts in 2011 and 2012. By the end of the forecast period we will have a shortfall of more than two million homes in the UK.

‘Equally worrying is the commercial sector, the largest construction sector and a bellwether for private sector activity. Although commercial construction in central London is buoyant, there is little activity in rest of the country. As a result this sector is expected to see a fall of three per cent in 2011 and four per cent in 2012 before a return to growth in 2013.

‘On a more positive note infrastructure output is set to grow throughout the forecast period, driven by considerable increases in rail and energy related work, even though road expenditure continues to decline. During this period rail infrastructure will see growth by almost 80 per cent and construction of energy related projects by a massive 200 per cent.

‘Government recognises that construction is a key part of economic recovery, yet these forecasts herald a very difficult few years, not just for construction but for the wider economy. It is therefore essential that the government uses the Autumn Statement to stimulate recovery by rebalancing the economy between current and capital spending. Government’s own figures show current expenditure rising from £632bn this year to £694bn in 2014/15, whilst capital expenditure is cut from £61bn to £42bn over the same period. Rebalancing this could make way for the £5bn package of essential infrastructure investment that many commentators have called for.

‘Similarly government must do more to stimulate house building and help first-time buyers onto the housing ladder. The announcement about the release of public sector land is welcome, but it is access to finance, not development that is currently holding back the housing market. Government therefore needs to look at mortgage indemnity guarantee schemes, or government backed savings scheme for first-time buyers to help ease this situation.

‘Finally the government must do more to support the Green Deal programme. The stimulus to the economy and the benefits to our industry could be huge. However, without a fiscal stimulus, such as a reduction to five per cent in VAT for all Green Deal compliant work, Green Deal is unlikely to be successful. It is essential the Chancellor uses the Autumn Statement to address these issues as without these stimuli, the next few years will be very bleak indeed for the UK economy.’

Other key findings in the Forecasts include:

• Total housing starts to fall one per cent in 2011 and a further four per cent in 2012
• Public construction including PFI to fall 24 per cent by 2014
• Education construction to fall 41per cent by 2014
• Health construction to fall 45 per cent by 2014
• Private sector construction to rise 18 per cent by 2015
• Construction of commercial offices to rise five per cent in 2012 and 14 per cent in 2013

CAMERON SHOULD BE FIGHTING FOR BRITAIN NOT SQUABBLING WITH HIS BACKBENCHERS

2011-10-20T14:30:00.001-07:00

Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, spoke today about Monday’s Parliamentary motion calling for a referendum to be held on UK membership of the EU.

He said: "We are going to be voting against a proposal for a referendum on getting out of Europe. It’s not the right thing for Britain. It is not the right thing for jobs. It is not the right thing for growth.

"The prospect of a referendum would create "David Cameron should show some leadership. He should not be spending the next few days negotiating with his backbenchers but negotiating for Britain to sort out the Eurozone crisis

"I fear we are seeing the same movie with this Conservative Party that we have seen played out in the past.

"They are looking inwards. They are out of touch. They are squabbling about Europe and not fighting for Britain."

NEW HOPE FOR BOMBARDIER

2011-10-15T02:30:00.000-07:00

The appointment of Justine Greening as the new Transport Secretary offers new hope for the campaign to get the decision to build trains for the Thameslink line in Germany overturned.

I have therefore written to Ms Greening congratulating her on her appointment and asking for a meeting to discuss the situation.

The campaign is continuing to gain ground and the first Conservative MP to sign my Parliamentary Petition, (Early Day Motion), is an indication of the growing support. Gordon Henderson, the MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, in Kent added his name last Tuesday and I am very grateful for his support.

This is the text of the letter I have sent to the Transport Secretary.

Dear Justine

Congratulations on your new appointment as Secretary of State for Transport.

I appreciate that you will want a few days to assimilate your new brief, but I would be grateful if we could meet, at your earliest convenience, to discuss the Thameslink Rolling Stock Programme.

You will be aware that Siemens has been appointed as the preferred bidder for this contract, but they plan to build the new trains in Germany. The Derby based company, Bombardier, has been appointed reserve bidder.

The campaign to reverse this decision has received widespread cross party support, which includes backing from many Conservative MPs. The Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation makes it very clear that the Secretary of State has the power to stop the process at any time.

There are a number of issues relating to the application of the ITT and the impact on the future of British train manufacturing that I would appreciate the opportunity of discussing with you. The Prime Minister has made clear his commitment to rebalancing the economy, but the plan to build the Thameslink trains overseas runs counter to the Government’s stated ambition.

I do therefore hope you are able to agree to my request for a meeting to confer about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Chris Williamson MP

TORIES AND LIB DEMS ARE PENALISING PARENTS

2011-10-09T09:13:00.000-07:00

Government’s recent childcare announcement won't mean a penny more help for parents already struggling on childcare tax credits.

The Government has been forced to admit that it will cut parents' entitlement to childcare down to £123 a week for one child - nearly £900 a year less than under Labour. Parents with two children will lose nearly £1,600 a year.

Universal Credit is now set to lock in a 'parents' penalty' that cuts back childcare payments so hard that many parents will be forced to give up work. With parents struggling to make ends meet, it beggars belief that the Tories are stopping parents working the hours and shifts they need by taking away their childcare.

Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Liam Byrne MP said:
“The Tories are out of touch with most people’s lives and unable to address the big challenges facing Britain in the future.”

The Government has made its announcement ahead of Labour's childcare protection amendments, about to be debated in the House of Lords this week and the 'extra' money has been secured from existing Universal Credit funding.

This news comes at a time when even the Governor of the Bank of England is warning that we are facing the biggest squeeze on living standards since the 1920s. Iain Duncan Smith has failed to win any new money from the Treasury, and has been forced to raid other parts of the Universal Credit budget.

Last weekend, Liam Byrne said that childcare will be Labour’s key battleground for the Welfare Reform Bill as debate begins in the House of Lords. He has challenged the Tories to accept a raft of amendments Labour will be tabling, which are designed to ensure that parents don’t lose out on childcare entitlements when Universal Credit is introduced.

Highlighting new figures from the House of Commons library, he will point to lost tax of £47 million from 32,000 parents – mainly women – who have given up work in the last year mainly because they can no longer afford childcare.

The Government has already slashed family’s entitlements to childcare support from 80per cent to 70 per cent of costs – the equivalent of a 12% cut. The new money will simply plug a black-hole in child care funding which emerges in two years time when eligibility for childcare is widened. Today's funding does nothing to make up for the new 'parents' penalty' introduced over the last year.

Labour’s childcare protection amendments first tabled by Stephen Timms in the Commons establish a principle that families working more than 16 a week should not lose out. Tory Employment, Chris Grayling, brushed aside concerns saying “…we do not intend to make any further changes to the amount of money available for child care”.

FIVE POINT PLAN TO KICK-START ECONOMY

2011-10-09T08:39:00.000-07:00

Repeat the bank bonus tax - and using the money to build 25,000 affordable homes and guarantee a job for 100,000 young people.

Bring forward long-term investment projects, such as schools, roads and transport, to create jobs.

Reverse January's damaging VAT rise now for a temporary period.

Immediate one-year cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements, repairs and maintenance.

One-year national insurance tax break for every small firm which takes on extra workers, using the money left over from the government's failed national insurance rebate for new businesses.

CAMERON AND OSBORNE IN U-TURN ON PRINTING MONEY

2011-10-06T16:25:00.000-07:00

David Cameron and George Osborne used to be opposed to quantitative easing. Speaking on 9 January 2009 George Osborne, said...“printing money risks losing control of inflation and all the economic problems that high inflation brings. For the Treasury to float the idea carelessly is irresponsible in the extreme as it could shake the confidence of international markets.”

And on 5 March 2009 he said: “I don’t think anyone should be pleased that we have reached this point. It is an admission of failure and carries considerable risk”.

Then on 8 October 2009 David Cameron said: “Sometime soon quantitative easing will have to stop because in the end printing money leads to inflation”

In spite of Osborne’s and Cameron’s previous reticence the Bank of England has announced a further £75 billion of quantitative easing.

Commenting on this develpment Ed Balls MP said: “With our economy stagnated since last autumn David Cameron and George Osborne are now betting on a bail out from the Bank of England.

“The Government’s reckless policy of cutting spending and raising taxes too far and too fast is demonstrably not working. But rather than change course the Government has spent the last week urging the Bank of England to step in and essentially print more money. The Bank of England has been left with no choice but to step in and try to offset the contradictory effects of George Osborne’s Budget plans

“This is the Bank of England’s contribution to a Plan B. But while another round of quantitative easing may help, I fear it will do little to create the jobs and growth we desperately need if we are to get the deficit down. When monetary policy is already so loose – with interest rates at record lows – and with confidence depressed this is, as Keynes said, like pushing on a string.

“What we really need is a change in fiscal policy from the Government – getting the deficit down in a steadier and more balanced way with a credible plan to get the economy moving again, like the five point plan for jobs Labour set out last week.

“Two years ago George Osborne described quantitative easing as ‘the last resort of desperate governments’. Today he is desperately hoping it will bail out his failing economic policy."

DAVID CAMERON’S ABSURD CHOCOLATE ORANGE MOMENT

2011-10-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

A NEW BATTLEGROUND IS BEING DEFINED.
By Ed Miliband

A week since I delivered my Conference speech. Watching and listening to the Tories this week, including David Cameron this morning, what is clear is that a new battleground is being defined.

It is around who can deliver a new bargain for our country built around values of responsibility and something for something. These are the values which the vast majority of the British people share.

On the one hand, we have David Cameron’s symbol of his new bargain: the chocolate orange.

I thought his “chocolate orange moment” was absurd five years ago and I have to say it was exposed on the radio this morning.

Yes he talked about it five years ago and yes, they are still being sold at the tills of WH Smith.

And that’s because the whole thing was a piece of absurd political positioning.

It was absurd not just simply because it was relatively trivial but because David Cameron failed to understand that politely asking commercial organisations to behave in the right and responsible way is not enough.

The question is whether you are willing to rewrite the rules of our society and whether you really believe they need to be rewritten.

So his symbol is the chocolate orange. I’m standing up to the banks that don’t do the right thing by small businesses, the energy companies that are too dominant in the market, the closed circles of opportunity that hold our country back, a short-termist culture in finance that has damaged our economy for decades, and huge inequality that comes in part from a take what you can culture.

The answer is not just to ask people to behave responsibly.

It is to rewrite the rules of the way our economy, our society and our welfare state works.

Do the rules of our economy encourage long-termism or short-termism, training of staff or not, unjustified rewards at the top or not, investment in research and development or not?

All the time in the rules it sets---such as on tax and procurement---governments make judgements about these issues, encouraging one type of behaviour compared to another.

We need a better set of rules in our economy to encourage businesses that invest, invent, train ,make and produce real products and services – rules that reward decisions made for the long term rather than the fast buck.
As I said in the speech “This isn't about one industry that's good and another that isn't. Or one firm always destined to be a predator and another to be a producer. It's about different ways of doing business, ways that the rules of our economy can favour or discourage.”

The old rules are not working for most people in this country nor for the British economy. Reform is essential.

Now let’s ask whether this is a government that is living true to rewriting the rules?

They talk tough on the banks but the very institutions which caused the financial crisis with grossly irresponsible behaviour are being told it is business as usual.

David Cameron and George Osborne are giving away hundreds of millions of pounds to the banks in corporation tax cuts – the wrong choice in a time of scarce resources.

They are showing no signs of taking on the other vested interests holding our economy back, just as they dragged their feet on phone-hacking.

And they are reinforcing the closed circles of opportunity: trebling tuition fees, abolishing EMAs, and so it goes on.

And on welfare, they are punishing couples who save, cutting childcare help from women who go out to work, and removing the requirement that young people have to take a job offer.

They are penalising something-for-something values, rewarding those who seek something-for-nothing and shrugging their shoulders at City bonuses or the excesses of boardroom pay.

On issue after issue David Cameron and George Osborne are showing they are out of touch and divorced from reality facing hard-working British families.
Every so often a political consensus needs to be challenged. This is one of those moments.

In the last seventy-two hours, the Tories have shown they are utterly confused about how to respond to the argument I have set out.

They can’t be the people who change the old rules. Why? Because they believe that the answer to the failures of 2007/8 and the financial crisis is more of the same.

They believe their own mythology: that the failure of that time was caused by government spending, not because of the wrong set of rules governing our economy.

So we have a Tory Party seeking to moving onto the ground I have set out. They will fail because they have not learnt the lessons of the past and no plans on how to build a future based on the values of the British people.

CONSTRUCTION PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS FACING WORSENING FUTURE

2011-10-03T09:08:00.000-07:00

The Construction Products Association’s latest State of Trade Survey, which has been launched today, shows that the continuing economic uncertainty, coupled with rising prices and weakening domestic demand are adding to the concerns for many construction product manufacturers as the long awaited public sector cuts begin to impact heavily on the industry.

The latest quarter has shown a marked deterioration in trading conditions. Heavy side manufacturers are already seeing a falling off of sales activity and although light side firms continue to show some positive activity, their expectations for the coming year is also falling sales.

Commenting on the figures, Construction Products Association senior economist, Kelly Forrest said: ‘Although industry has been well aware of the cuts to public spending since the CSR last October, concerns for the industry have been heightened by uncertainty regarding UK and global economic activity. Furthermore, the state of the industry continues to be badly affected by rising costs with 71% of light side firms and 89% of heavy side firms reporting that costs rose once again in Q3.

‘While industry is well aware of the need by government to address its finances, it is critical that government does its utmost to sustain economic growth by investing in areas of long term benefit to the UK, such as house building and infrastructure by bringing forward finance allocated for future years and attracting private finance at a time when public finances are constrained.’

The Construction Products Association represents the UK’s manufacturers and suppliers of construction products, components and fittings. The Association acts as the voice of the construction products sector, representing the industry-wide view of its members. The sector has an annual turnover of £50 billion and accounts for 44% of total construction output.

CONSERVATIVE PARTY: OUT OF TOUCH AND OUT OF DATE

2011-10-02T07:18:00.000-07:00

Far from offering anything new, the Tories are the last gasp of the old ways which don’t work for most people and benefit only a privileged few.

A year ago, the Tories gathered for their conference as a party of government for the first time since 1996.

They may not have won the election but they were in confident mood. Despite having announced cuts which went further and faster than those the last government had planned, the economy was still growing and unemployment was still falling.

Britain, they told us, was out of the danger zone. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

This year, the world looks very different . The doubt about whether David Cameron and George Osborne are following the right path is beginning to surface - not only among their coalition allies - but even in the minds of some Conservatives.

Stock markets around the world are falling, people in Britain are losing their jobs, consumer confidence has been wrecked by the cuts, economic crisis is threatening to return, the austerity programme is failing and the governent is beginning to wobble.

Families across Britain are worried about how they will make ends meet, anxious about what the future holds for their children and disgusted by the way irresponsibility is tolerated across our society.

But the Conservatives have no idea about how to restore growth in the economy and dogmatically refuse to consider a Plan B. Instead, cuts that go too far, too fast are choking off the economic recovery with the consequence of flatline growth and more unemployment.

Their priorities are clear from the way they are cutting corporation tax for the banks while trebling tuition fees for young people dreaming of a better future. This government is further restricting opportunities for the next generation by slashing back support for training and job opportunities.

The Tories won’t help families who face a cost of living crisis by standing up to vested interests.Middle-income families are being squeezed but there is no action on energy bills and rail fares rise. Instead, they are cutting childcare support and raising VAT.

The Tories won’t tackle irresponsibility at the top because they promise “business as usual” to a minority of company executives pursuing the fast buck and damaging the long term health of the economy.

Nor will they help tackle irresponsibility in the welfare system because they are punishing people who do the right thing and seek work.

The Tories are out of date; they are of the past. They are out of touch; they are for the few.

FAULTY POCKET LIGHTERS POSE DANGER

2011-09-24T04:54:00.000-07:00

It is a worrying statistic that one in ten Brits are exposed to dangerous pocket lighters on a regular basis. According to market analysis, consumers are tempted with hundreds of lighter models that do not conform to minimum safety standards set out in a European regulation which was transposed into UK law in September 2006.

Around 100 million lighters are sold on the UK high streets each year and independent tests show that an alarming 79% of models are non-conforming and potentially unsafe. The laws are in place to prevent this from happening but we need to properly enforce them.

I have heard about people who have been victims of lighters exploding in their faces and having their clothes set on fire. One such victim was Elaine Young who suffered third degree burns and had to undergo a skin graft.

This is something that we have an obligation to prevent – as law makers we cannot allow these lighters to be on the market.

We must make sure that Trading Standards remove these lighters from the market so that we can prevent any more horrific injuries like the ones which Elaine suffered as a result of a faulty lighter.

ONLY WAY TO TACKLE DEBT PROBLEMS ACROSS THE WORLD IS BY THE GETTING GROWTH WE NEED

2011-09-23T09:32:00.000-07:00

"The Prime Minister is quite good at lecturing other people on getting their problems sorted out and it’s true that the Eurozone needs to sort out its debt problems," Ed Miliband MP said today:

He added: “But the only way we’re going to tackle the debt problems across the world is by getting the growth that we need. And all the Prime Minister seems to be offering is to say 'I’ve got austerity here at home, I’m going to now export it abroad'.
“But when the recovery here in Britain was choked off last autumn, well before the global problems of recent months, that’s not a solution to the problems the world faces.

"We need a plan for growth here at home and across the world. That’s the way we tackle the debt issues that we face. The problem is that the Prime Minister may have woken up to the crisis but he doesn’t have a plan to deal with it.

"You need coordinated action and that’s why I say to the Prime Minister, President Sarkozy is the President of the G20, get him to bring forward the G20 meeting, have an emergency meeting, get the world's leaders together and get a grip on the crisis facing the world."

GEORGE OSBORNE IS ACCELERATING INTO ECONOMIC DANGER

2011-09-22T12:13:00.001-07:00

Every motorist knows that if you see a car crash on the road ahead, you must either slowdown or take evasive action to avoid being involved in an accident. Only an idiot would say keep your foot on the accelerator and plough on regardless. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to learn from this motoring analogy because he is driving the British economy towards one almighty economic car crash.

Ever since the Liberal Democrats threw in their lot with the Conservatives to form the Coalition Government, both parties have insisted that there is no alternative to their austerity measures. It seems the very expensive public schools attended by David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg failed to teach them anything about economic history. Making deep cuts during a recession just does not work and can even make matters worse. That is precisely what happened in the UK in the 1930s and 1980s when millions of British people were impoverished by this flawed rightwing economic doctrine. Furthermore, the austerity measures in some Eurozone countries provides additional confirmation that massive cuts simply do not work and only result in further economic decline.

But despite of the overwhelming evidence that their economic prospectus didn’t work in the past and isn’t working today, Government Ministers still insist that there is no alternative. I remember Margaret Thatcher doing much the same thing in her notorious “no alternative” speech to the 1980 Conservative Party conference. The consequences of her Government’s “no alternative” approach saw our manufacturing industry decimated, public services destroyed and unemployment climb to almost 4 million. It was that “no alternative” attitude that also resulted in the deregulation of British banks in 1986. The toxic combination of de-industrialisation and banking deregulation saw finance and banking become the principal engine of economic growth and sowed the seeds of today’s economic woes.

But when Mrs Thatcher imposed massive cuts and downgraded British manufacturing, she was at least able to create an alternative motor for economic growth by deregulating the financial services sector. The Tory-led Coalition has no such alternative at their disposal today and their belated damascene conversion to manufacturing would be more credible if their deeds matched their rhetoric. The abolition of Regional Development Agencies, which supported manufacturing companies, and the Government’s decision to overlook Britain’s last train maker to build the Thameslink trains in Germany is undermining British industry.

Further proof that the Government’s economic policies are going in the wrong direction came earlier this week when the International Monetary Fund once again slashed its UK growth forecasts. The IMF also said Britain should delay plans to cut spending and raise taxes if growth continues to weaken. Then on Wednesday, figures were released showing Government borrowing in August reached a record high for the month.

The truth is since this Tory-led coalition came to power we have seen economic growth faltering, public services deteriorating, inflation increasing, unemployment rising, Government borrowing escalating and living standards falling. But in spite of the weight of historical and contemporary evidence that cutting too far and too fast makes things worse, Government Ministers continue to spout the “no alternative” mantra.

Once upon a time, the Chancellor told us he would cut borrowing, reduce unemployment and grow the economy. But he is failing on every count and unless he changes direction now, the casualties caused by his economic car crash will continue to grow.

CHRIS HUHNE MUST TRY HARDER ON ENERGY PRICES

2011-09-20T07:40:00.001-07:00

Labour's Shadow Energy Secretary, Meg Hillier MP, has blasted Chris Huhne's speech to the Lib Dem conference. She said:

"How can families whose finances are being squeezed take this seriously from the man who is standing idly by while energy companies raise their prices way above inflation?

"Only last week Chris Huhne was criticising consumers for not switching supplier.

"He is tinkering while people face a cold winter shivering under blankets. His own plans to reform the energy market do nothing of the sort and will exclude many potential new entrants.

"Labour called for more competition in the market months ago and for a competition commission enquiry. Chris Huhne is fiddling with an already broken system. Labour is calling for radical reform.

"Chris Huhne's failure to take on the energy companies is yet another example of how this Tory-led Government is refusing to tackle the irresponsible behaviour at the top, while hard working families suffer."

THE LIB DEMS WILL BE JUDGED BY THEIR ACTIONS, NOT THEIR WORDS

2011-09-19T13:36:00.001-07:00

Following Vince Cable’s speech at the Lib Dem conference, John Denham MP, Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary, said: “The Lib Dems will be judged by their actions, not their words.

“Vince Cable says his biggest regret from the last year is not tackling bank bonuses, but it should be his complete failure to support business, create jobs, help small and medium enterprises to access finance and to build on the growth he inherited from Labour.

“The recovery has been choked off and yet despite calling for a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis, he still relentlessly supports George Osborne’s reckless policy of cutting too far and too fast. Youth unemployment has gone up, the economy has flatlined and inflation is rising far faster than wages.

“And making his annual speech on high pay to the Lib Dem faithful doesn’t make it policy in the Tory-led Government. Given his failure on banks, why should anyone believe he can deliver on high pay? Vince Cable needs to bring forward concrete proposals on boardroom pay and not capitulate to the Treasury as usual.”

BRITAIN IS NOT A SAFE HAVEN IN OSBORNE'S HANDS

2011-09-19T13:28:00.000-07:00

The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, is calling for a change in the UK's economic direction. The following are his thoughts on this crucially important issue.

THE global economy has entered a dangerous new phase. It's now more vital than ever that countries have credible economic plans to ensure economic growth and get deficits down.

I believe there are three tests for a credible economic plan. First, there has to be a transparent plan with clear medium-term goals - whether that's to halve the deficit over four years as the last Labour government legislated for, or to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in this parliament, as George Osborne announced a year ago.

Second, that plan must command sufficient political support for it to be implemented. In America, the lack of agreement in Congress and political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling was disastrous for confidence and ultimately led to the credit rating downgrade. And in the Eurozone there has been a complete failure of political leadership to grasp the nettle of what needs to be done, as we saw again in Poland this weekend.

But political disagreement is not an issue in Britain. Despite the party conference rhetoric this weekend from Vince Cable - who called for "a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis" - the policy of rapid deficit reduction remains and is the cornerstone of the coalition.

There is, however, a third and vital credibility test - the plan has to deliver what it promises. This is where Britain and some of those Eurozone countries have something in common. Austerity is not working for countries like Greece, which now looks set to enter a fourth year of recession, and it is not working in Britain either.

A year ago, Osborne said spending cuts and tax rises that go further and faster than any other major economy would boost confidence and economic growth. At the time I warned that the recovery was too fragile and this risked tearing up the foundations of the house just as a global hurricane was brewing.

And what has happened? Consumer and business confidence has collapsed. Unemployment is rising again. Far from being a safe haven, our recovery was choked off last autumn with only Japan growing more slowly in the G7 over the last year. As the IMF's Christine Lagarde has rightly said "growth is necessary for fiscal credibility" - and to get deficits down too.

It's not just Labour making the case for a more balanced approach - a tough mediumterm plan to get deficits down, but which puts jobs and growth first. The founder of Pimco is now calling for a change of course and Lagarde says there is scope for reducing deficits more steadily to support growth and that, if slow growth continues, ministers must act, for instance through temporary tax cuts - like the temporary VAT cut Labour has called for.

The reckless thing for Osborne to do now is to continue with his absurd claim that Britain is some kind of safe haven and plough on regardless with a plan that is not working. The credible and cautious thing to do is to listen to wise advice and change course before it is too late.

TORY CLAIMS TO BE THE PARTY OF LAW & ORDER FELL INTO FURTHER DISREPUTE WITH PLANS TO CUT SUPPORT TO VICTIMS OF CRIME

2011-09-16T08:49:00.001-07:00

Sadiq Khan MP, Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary has criticised Government plans, revealed today, to slash the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority by fifty per cent.

He said: “Victims should be at the heart of our justice system but this Tory-led Government is consistently letting victims of crime down.

“The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority provides a lifeline to those who have been physically or mentally injured because they were a blameless victim of violent crime. Its vital that funds are there to help victims rebuild their lives. It is disgraceful that this Government is planning to reduce by half the financial support available to them.

“We agree that savings need to be made in the Ministry of Justice, but slashing the justice budget by almost one quarter must not be at the expense of victims of crime and their families.

“This Government has cut resources to victim support services, refused to unequivocally back a new Victims’ Law, delayed compensation payments to victims of overseas terrorism and are now planning to slash the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. They should entirely rethink their approach to victims and start putting their needs first.”

ED MILIBAND DEMANDS CAMERON RETURNS TO PARLIAMENT TO CORRECT INACCURATE STATISTICS

2011-09-15T09:37:00.000-07:00

Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, has written to David Cameron to demand that he returns to the House of Commons to correct inaccurate statistics that the Prime Minister used at PMQs yesterday.

Labour has also compiled a document detailing many occasions, over several months, when David Cameron's factual claims at Prime Minister's Questions do not stand up to scrutiny.

This is the letter from Ed Miliband to David Cameron:

Dear Prime Minister,

Yesterday, in response to me at Prime Minister’s Questions, you said that “since the election there are 500,000 more jobs in the private sector. There are more people—300,000 more people—in work than there were a year ago” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1028).

This answer is inaccurate. Between June 2010 and June 2011 the Office of National Statistics has confirmed that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 and that net employment increased by just 24,000. The only way it is possible to claim 500,000 extra private sector jobs is by including jobs created between 1 April and 30 June 2010 – but of course this includes time when Labour was still in office, which is not “since the election” at all.

You also said, after I correctly pointed out that the UK has grown more slowly in the last year than any other EU country apart from Portugal and Romania, that “this year, Britain is growing faster than America” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1029). In fact, the UK has grown by 0.7 per cent over the last year to the end of Q2 2011, the latest period for which figures are available, while the USA grew by 2.6 per cent over the same period.

Everyone in public life has a responsibility to ensure we rebuild and maintain trust in politics and politicians. Ensuring accuracy in our answers in the House of Commons is central to that, a responsibility underlined in the Ministerial Code.

Furthermore, the British people will want to be assured that the decisions you take, which have such profound consequences for families and young people, are being based on properly researched data and empirical evidence.

As such, I trust you will return to the House and correct the record at the earliest opportunity.

Yours,

Ed Miliband MP

A PERSONAL MEMORY OF 9/11

2011-09-10T06:06:00.000-07:00

A PERSONAL MEMORY OF 9/11

I still have vivid memories of 11 September 2001. I remember switching on the car radio after leaving a meeting of the community legal advice services and tuning in to a special news broadcast. As I listened to the events that were unfolding I initially thought I had tuned into Radio 4’s afternoon play. It was a good few minutes before I realised that the horrific eyewitness accounts were actually true.

It made me think how fragile all our lives are and how they can be snuffed out in an instant. I thought about the sheer terror that the passengers on those airplanes must have felt knowing they were powerless to do anything about the circumstances in which they found themselves.

Just the day before I had returned to the UK on a flight from Brussels where NATO’s headquarters are located, which could just as easily have been targeted like the Pentagon had been. I pondered how I would have reacted had the aeroplane on which I had been travelling had been hijacked. It sent a cold shudder down my spine.

When arrived back in Derby the news had not filtered through. I remember telling my late wife, Lonny Wilsoncroft, what had happened. She thought it would cause a war, but I said a war against who? How prophetic Lonny’s words were. Little did I think then that the events of September 11 would lead two years later to an ill-judged war in Iraq. Still less did I think that 10 years after our young servicemen and women would be losing their lives in a conflict in Afghanistan.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I believe the West’s response to 9/11 was wrong. It did not make the world a safer place and probably contributed to the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil on the 7 July 2005. That was the day that four young British men turned themselves into suicide bombers to kill their own countrymen.

It was Martin Luther King who said: "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” And it was Winston Churchill who acknowledged that “It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”

The ghastly events of 9/11 changed our world forever. But modern day world leaders and policy makers would do well to be guided by the wise words of Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill. It is not a sign of weakness to try to understand why some people resort to evil deeds. It is not a feeble act to meet the forces of hate with love. And there is no betrayal in talking to your enemies.

I accept that when faced with unspeakable acts of violence and cruelty the urge for retribution is understandable. But we must resist that urge and remember Martin Luther King’s counsel. In my view, love, understanding and dialogue are more likely to prevent a repetition of the appalling events of 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.

Ed Balls' response to the OECD’s Economic Outlook published today

2011-09-09T08:08:00.000-07:00

“A year ago, while the Chancellor was saying he was cautiously optimistic and Britain was out of the danger zone, I warned that there was a hurricane building and this was not the right time to rip out the foundations of the house. And I am even more worried now about Europe, America and Britain than last summer.

“This is now a critical moment for the world economy. We urgently need some leadership from our Chancellor and the G7 meeting this weekend to agree a global plan for growth and more balanced plans to get deficits down in the medium term.

“The deputy head of the OECD was right to warn earlier this year that there is merit in slowing the pace of deficit reduction if weak growth continues, as these latest forecasts suggest. The OECD is now calling for short term fiscal stimulus if needed, following warnings by wise voices including the new head of the IMF and the founder of the largest investment fund in the world on the danger that cutting too far and too fast threatens economic recovery.

“George Osborne should note that over the last twelve months the UK has grown more slowly than any G7 country other than earthquake-hit Japan, as the recovery was choked off by his decision to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast. And the forecasts for the next six months are extremely concerning with the UK set to grow more slowly than any G7 country other than Italy.

“As the IMF’s Christine Lagarde has rightly said ‘growth is necessary for fiscal credibility’ and without growth it will not be possible to get deficits down. We cannot afford for George Osborne to continue sitting on his hands and saying Britain will plough on regardless with a reckless policy that is hurting, but clearly not working.”

NICK CLEGG HAS CLAIMED VICTORY ON TORY HEALTH REFORMS - IS HE HAVING A LAUGH?

2011-09-07T07:09:00.000-07:00

Nick Clegg claims that he has secured eleven of the 13 changes demanded by his party at its spring conference in March. This is Labour‟s analysis of how well he has performed according to his own goals.

1. More democratically accountable commissioning. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. There will be no elected members or councillors on commissioning consortia boards, while Health and Wellbeing Boards are only able to give their opinion to consortia – consortia are under no obligation to abide by that opinion. (Clause 23 – 14Z12)

2. A much greater degree of coterminosity between local authorities and commissioning areas. Secured say Lib Dems.

Fallen short. Consortia will be more coterminous with local authorities than previously planned, but the populations for whom consortia will be responsible will be based on the practice lists of the GPs not the consortia‟s geographic boundaries. These practice lists don‟t have to bear any relation to local authority boundaries. (Clause 10)

3. No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia. Secured say Lib Dems.

Fallen short. Consortia will not be as transparent as PCTs are currently. PCTs have to abide by the Nolan principles on public life and the Public Meetings Act, while consortia do not. It is left up to them to decide what business to conduct in private and not in public. (Schedule 2 – 5B)

4. The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers 'compete' on quality of care. Secured say Lib Dems.

Fallen short. There will continue to be a number of NHS services not covered by the tariff. With greater competition from private providers, this means that price competition for those services is not ruled out.

5. New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of "cherry picking" which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. The Government amendments addressing cherry-picking (now in the Bill as clause 108) only required that a provider be “transparent” in how they chose their patients. It said nothing about actually preventing providers from picking the easiest and most profitable patients. Furthermore picking patients is only one part of cherry-picking. Private providers will also be able to pick the easiest and most profitable types of treatment to provide, for example elective say surgery, while leaving the NHS to do the expensive, loss-making treatment, like emergency inpatient care. Nothing in the Government‟s amendments prevents this, and therefore risks destabilising those NHS services. Labour has tabled an amendment to achieve what the Government has failed to do (Amendments 42 and 43)

6. NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. The Bill does nothing to prevent consortia outsourcing their entire commissioning function to private companies, and only having a limited oversight function. There is no compulsion for consortia to employ any NHS staff. (Schedule 2, 3(3) and 10)

7. The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interests. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. The Bill gives power to GPs to commission services, and allows GPs to have a stake in health companies that provide services that the consortia might commission. Furthermore the GPs‟ surgeries themselves might be providing community services that the consortia might commission. The provisions against conflicts of interest are very weak – consortia only have to make provision “for dealing with conflicts of interest”. (Schedule 2, 7(2))

8. An NHS, responsive to patients' needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and which promotes quality and equity not the market. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. The Bill gives extensive competition enforcement powers to Monitor, the new economic regulator, including powers to fine hospitals up to 10% of their turnover for anti-competitive behaviour, and powers to investigate and direct commissioning consortia on competition. Monitor has a new duty to promote integration, but that is less undefined, whereas the scope of anti-competitive behaviour is well defined in existing UK and EU competition law.

9. Uphold the NHS Constitution. Secured say Lib Dems.

Fallen short. Consortia and the NHS Commissioning Board have new duties to promote the NHS Constitution. But there are no regulations placed upon them to determine how they should do this, or penalties if they fail to do so. Nor are there any regulations placed on them to ensure they have to treat patients with 18 weeks, as mandated under the NHS Constitution.

10. Ensure full scrutiny, including the power to require attendance, by elected local authorities of all organisations in the local health economy funded by public money, including foundation trusts and any external support for commissioning consortia; ensuring that all such organisations are subject to FoI requirements. Secured say Lib Dems.

Failed. There is nothing in the Bill that ensures that private companies carrying out commissioning functions will be covered by the FoI Act. Their decisions will be stamped „commercial in confidence‟. (Schedule 2, 3(3))

11. Ensure health and wellbeing boards (HWBs) are a strong voice for accountable local people in setting the strategic direction for and co-ordinating provision of health and social care services locally by containing substantial representation from elected local councillors; and by requiring GP commissioning boards to construct their annual plans in conjunction with the HWBs. Secured say Lib Dems.

Fallen short. Consortia are under absolutely no obligation to abide by the views of Health and Wellbeing Boards. All a Health and Wellbeing Board can do if it is dissatisfied with the consortia is pass its opinion on to the NHS Commissioning Board, which has no power to intervene and force changes on the consortia. (Clause 23, 14Z12)

12. Ensure commissioning of health services has some degree of accountability by requiring about half of the members of the board of commissioning consortia, alongside GPs, to be local councillors appointed as non-executive directors. Alternative Secured say Lib Dems: Instead, they say they will strengthen the accountability of commissioning through health and wellbeing boards (which will have a majority of councillors if that is what local councillors want). This has the support of the movers of the conference amendment.

Fallen short. The Health and Wellbeing Board does not have powers to influence consortia. See point 11 above.

13. Offer additional freedoms only to foundation trusts that successfully engage substantial proportions of their local populations as active members. Alternative secured: Monitor, rather than the foundation trusts themselves, will retain a supervisory role.

Failed. Monitor is an independent quango, with no democratic accountability, and cannot be expected to be a local voice for patients at each Foundation Trust. Furthermore if FTs get into trouble there will be no mechanism to turn them back into NHS Trusts, as now.

Nick Clegg claimed to have secured 11 of his Conference‟s 13 demands. The reality is he has failed on 7 of their demands and fallen short on 6.
Original scorecard published here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/12/nick-clegg-health-reform

We need internationalist spirit – and a plan for global growth

2011-09-06T03:47:00.000-07:00

By Ed Balls

A Republican-supporting economics professor, with a dog called Keynes, whose other economics hero was Milton Friedman? As I sat in my first Harvard economics lecture, listening to Greg Mankiw introduce himself to his new graduate class, my head was in a spin.

Could he really be a Republican Keynesian? And a Keynesian disciple of Milton Friedman? For a young Brit, just graduated from Oxford, this was revolutionary; what I thought was the conventional economic wisdom was being turned upside down.

Because, as with every other PPE graduate – including my contemporary, David Cameron – I was well-schooled in the ideological economic debates of 1980s Thatcherite Britain. Were you a Keynesian or a monetarist? A follower of Willem Buiter or Friedman? Fiscal activist or PSBR hawk? Would you trade a little more inflation for a little less unemployment? Did you read Bill Keegan in the Observer or Samuel Brittan in the FT?

Of course, the serious economic debate was more sophisticated than that. But the divides were real, and reflected in the political debate. So much so that in Conservative circles the label Keynesian became a dirty word – profligate, irresponsible, statist, inflation-loving, not to be trusted.

And listening this summer to right-of-centre politicians and commentators, I have regularly been transported back to those 1980s myths that were exploded in that first Harvard economics class 23 years ago. Because the old caricatures are back with a vengeance, on both sides of the Atlantic.

We have all seen financial markets crashing as governments have rushed to embrace fiscal austerity. But warn about the risks of deflationary fiscal policy and that makes you a deficit denier. Worry about the dangers of all countries trying to cut deficits at once and you are a deluded Keynesian. Counsel that the world needs a plan for growth as well as deficit reduction and you are an irresponsible Keynesian deficit denier.

Keynes himself must be turning in his grave. For – as that Greg Mankiw class highlighted to me, and has now been fully documented in Lord Skidelsky's biography – the real Keynes was no profligate tax-and-spender. His seminal 1930 Treatise on Money was as hawkish on inflation as Friedman decades later. His attitude to irresponsible wage bargaining in the 1920s was as unforgiving as Thatcher in the
1980s

Central bank independence? I think Keynes would have backed it, though not if Montagu Norman was the governor. The irresponsible and inflationary profligacy of the 1970s Barber boom? He would have abhorred it. But – and this was his great insight – Keynes also knew that economies could occasionally get stuck in a deflationary rut. Although he called it The General Theory, it was actually a special case: when interest rates are so low that they can't be cut any further; when the "animal spirits" of companies and consumers are so depressed that private spending stagnates; when governments crudely cutting spending risks make deficits worse.

Of course, there will be naive Keynesians who will think it is always a special case – time to let rip. And that is what gave Keynesianism a bad name. Jim Callaghan was right to tell the Labour party conference in 1976 that you can't just spend your way to full employment. And while you can argue about her methods, Margaret Thatcher was right in 1979 to say it was a priority to get inflation down.

But, as I argued a year ago in my Bloomberg speech, the global economy is sliding into that rare and dangerous "special case" that Keynes identified in the 1930s and Japan suffered in the 1990s. And, as Ed Miliband argued this week, our world economic leaders need a global plan B for growth.

Yes monetary policy and quantitative easing can help, and progress on banking and trade reform are important, but fiscal policy is now the key. With growth stagnating around the world, every country pressing ahead with deep cuts risks being a catastrophic mistake. As the International Monetary Fund's Christine Lagarde has warned, "slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery" – as we have already seen in Britain.

It's time that G7 countries led the way by agreeing revised deficit reduction plans, making them steadier and more balanced to support growth and jobs. Yes, have clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but have clear plans to avoid a global slump, too.

This time the world must reject the complacent isolationism of the 1930s and follow Keynes's lead. Because, of course, the other distinguishing feature of Keynes was that he believed in global solutions to global problems. And we could do with a bit of that internationalist spirit now from our prime minister and chancellor, who have been noticeably lacking from the global economic debate.

I remember hearing a great story about Keynes making a wartime trip to Washington to meet the US treasury. Apparently, at the first meeting, treasury secretary Morgenthau asked Keynes: "Where is your lawyer?" When Keynes looked puzzled, Morgenthau exclaimed: "Well, who is going to do your thinking for you?"

I sincerely hope George Osborne will soon recant, follow Keynes's lead and take a flight to Washington to make the case for a global plan for growth.

And George, don't take a lawyer; an economist will do.

GOVERNMENT SET TO DEVASTATE RAIL SUPPLY CHAIN

2011-09-05T16:31:00.001-07:00

On the eve of the crucial Transport Select Committee, that will be considering the procurement of trains in the UK, a new survey has just been published revealing the extent of the devastation that will be caused to supply chain companies if the Government refuses to chase its mind on the Thameslink contract.

The survey, conducted by ‘Survation’ for Unite the Union interviewed 125 companies (primarily their Managing Directors) operating in the UK that supply Siemens and/or Bombardier for train manufacture.

The companies were interviewed about the potential impact to their business of Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens. Siemens plan to manufacture the rolling stock in its German factories where as Bombardier pan to build the trains in Derby.

The interviews were conducted between Friday August 26th and Thursday September 1st.

The sample was intended to represent a cross-section of UK businesses involved in supplying services, components and parts to the global train manufacturing industry. Seventeen observations were collected via a web-based invitation survey with the remainder (108) via telephone interviews. The questions were the same for both methods.

Almost half of the suppliers interviewed rely on Bombardier for at least 5% of their sales; while at the other extreme 6% of those interviewed rely almost entirely on Bombardier.

Only 24% of UK Suppliers we interviewed currently supply Siemens, indicating that they are poorly positioned to provide Siemens with future train manufacture. The shortfall in business from the Bombardier plant in Derby not manufacturing Thameslink trains would, in many suppliers’ views, not be supplemented by orders from Siemens.

40.59% of the companies we interviewed - plan to execute job losses. Indeed, some suppliers have already lain off workers. 32% have done so or plan to do so within the next 3 months. Of those expecting job losses 73.7% expect them within the next six months. Despite the government looking to review the UK’s procurement process in the light of recent job losses suffered at Bombardier, the announced 1-year delay to the Crossrail contract is unlikely to help the employment picture as many jobs will already be lost.

When asked “How will they be affected by Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens?” responses ranged from “none” to “substantial”, and in some cases complete closure. We found that of the total sample, 19.2% of businesses believed it would have a substantial negative impact on growth and almost a third (32.0%) believed it would have a substantial negative impact on sales.

Businesses holding one or both of these opinions (a substantially negative impact on growth or sales) could be found nationwide, from Abadare to Witney (See A-Z impact tables in the linked document). While the greatest number of impacted companies were found in Derby – (the UK’s rail production hub) – Birmingham, Nottingham and Chesterfield were ranked highly in the survey in terms of the number of businesses facing job losses. Only one respondent believed Bombardier’s loss of contract to Siemens would have a positive impact.

Overall, Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) will likely see the largest impact on their businesses if Bombardier loses the Thameslink contract. They face higher job losses as a proportion of their business and they are likely to execute job losses in a shorter period. Almost two thirds (65.6%) of SMEs we interviewed do not currently supply Siemens, compared to the survey average of 53.6%.

Damian Lyons Lowe, from ‘Survation’ said: “Our previous survey work relating to Bombardier looked at the striking local political impact in Derby of the government decision to award preferred bidder status to Siemens over Bombardier. This survey has shown there will also be a meaningful impact on jobs and growth nationally, particularly to small and medium sized companies”.

The Government must be persuaded to stop the act of economic vandalism because of the impact on unemployment and economic growth.

SOME QUESTIONS THE COALITION GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER

2011-09-03T06:40:00.000-07:00

The Goverment says it wants to rebalance the economy in favour of manufacturing industry. But talk is cheap. It's not what you say that matters it's what you do. And this Government seems determined to flush 180 years of British train making down the toilet.

But before they do that, they've got some serious questions to answer. Here are some that deserve an answer. If the Tory Secretary of State for Transport gives an honest answer to these questions, he would have to reverse his mad decision to sign the death warrant for the British train making industry.

EU Procurement Rules

1. There are two sets of EU procurement rules; these are adopted as English Law as Statutory Instruments and they became the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Utilities Contract Regulations, also of 2006.

The Department of Transport is listed in Schedule 1 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006; consequently all procurement exercises undertaken by the DfT should be in accordance with these particular regulations.
So why were both the Intercity Express Programme trains and those required for the Thameslink project procured using the Utilities Procurement Regulations 2006 and not the Public Contract Regulations?

Corruption

2. Both sets of regulations state that potential suppliers found guilty of conspiracy, corruption, bribery, fraud etc, are ineligible to tender (clause 23 of the public regulations, clause 26 of the utilities ones); such firms can only be invited if there are "overriding requirements in the general interest" so to do.

As this clause effectively excludes Siemens from the bidding process, what are the overriding general interest requirements which permitted the DfT to invite them to tender?

Social and Environmental Considerations

3. Both sets of regulations also permit "conditions for the performance of contracts"; the regulations state that such conditions "may, in particular, concern social and environmental considerations".

Why were no such conditions included within both the Intercity Express Programme and Thameslink trains invitations to tender?

4. What assurances can be given about the inclusion of conditions relating to social considerations in future invitations to tender issued by the DfT?

Proven Solutions

5. Clause 1.2 of the invitation to tender for the Thameslink trains states that the specification must be met by the tenderers offering to supply trains to a new design which "adopts world class proven solutions in one package".

By in selecting a design with a bogie which doesn't yet exist, has the DfT has changed this requirement?

6. If that is the case, why did you not terminate the existing process, re-advertise, and start over again, as required by EU procurement rules?

Changes to Specifications

7. Moreover, public domain information suggests that there have been major changes to Hitachi's design for the Intercity Express Project trains;

As this seems to be very similar to a proposal put forward by Bombardier and Alstom for the conversion of diesel 'Meridian', 'Voyager' and 'Super Voyager' trains to "bi-modes", why has this not been the subject of a re-advertising/re-tender exercise?

8. Who decided that trains for Thameslink needed to be a new design? What evaluation was there of recent train designs with fast-action bi-parting doors (such as class 378 EMUs operating London Overground services) to see if they (or a derivative of them) would be suitable for Thameslink?

Siemens

9. As, in accordance with clauses of the EU procurement rules which have already been referred to, Siemens is ineligible for being invited to tender for new trains, why have they been selected to receive an invitation to tender for CrossRail trains?

10. Moreover, in view of Siemens ineligibility to be invited to bid, why is the DfT proposing to procure new electric trains for operation of the Manchester-Scotland service from them?

Procurement Timescales

11. British Rail could procure trains in months; why does is take the DfT so long, and why is it so expensive?

Consultants
12. How does the DfT vet and appoint its rail consultants - is it through competitive tender and what assurances are sought about their impartiality

CONSTRUCTION ORDERS AT LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1980

2011-09-02T04:54:00.000-07:00

As a former bricklayer myself, the news that orders for new construction work fell dramatically in the second quarter of the year is of a particular concern.

Construction is hugely important to any economic recovery and it is therefore particularly worrying that orders for new construction work are now at a level not seen since 1980. Orders fell by over 16 per cent compared with an already low figure in quarter one and are over 23 per cent down on the same quarter in 2010.

I share the concerns of the Construction Products Association Chief Executive Michael Ankers. He says these figures are alarming at a time when the economy is already slowing and the construction industry is supposed to be playing a major part in rebalancing the economy.

The fall in public sector orders of 30 per cent is no surprise given the cut back in public sector spending, but this is compounded by a fall in new orders for private sector construction too. This is down 8 per cent on the first quarter of the year and 10 per cent down on the same quarter last year.

Furthermore, assertions by the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, that this Government would build more houses than Labour are proving to be illusory. The reality is, according to the Construction Products Association, new orders for private housing have fallen again and are down by 8 per cent on the first three months of the year. Meanwhile, orders for commercial work are now back to where they were in the middle of 2009.

Of course talk is cheap. The one thing Government Ministers have been good at is talking. But the outcomes of their policies are proving to be 180 degrees different to their rhetoric. Little wonder then that their growth forecasts are constantly being downgraded when the measures they are taking are so plainly wrong.

The reckless ministerial team in charge at the Department for Communities and Local Government is making matters far worse for the construction industry and is creating an additional drag on economic recovery. Examples of their irresponsible approach include abolishing housing targets, slashing the social housing budget and scrapping regional development agencies.

My worry is that the Government’s ham-fisted approach to economic recovery will only make matters worse. Construction is a good economic barometer and these figures are further evidence of even more economic stormy weather ahead.

INSTEAD OF US DECLARING HOW TO TEACH THE RIOTERS A LESSON, WE SHOULD BE ASKING 'WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

2011-08-25T11:29:00.000-07:00

By Paul Brookhouse
Senior Manager, The Enthusiasm Trust

Following widespread riots that brought mayhem to UK streets, Paul Brookhouse, senior manager at Derby charity Enthusiasm, which works with troubled teenagers, offers his thoughts.

A few weeks on from the terrible scenes of vandalism and thieving in various parts of the country, I can't help but wonder why many of us have so many opinions on why it has happened yet expect others to solve the problems.

If young people really are facing such critical issues, such as poverty, a disengagement from society and a lack of opportunities which is leading to despair, hopelessness, anger and recruited to gangs for a sense of security, identity and belonging, what are we as the rest of society doing about it?

It takes something like the recent events to make us all sit up and ask questions about what is wrong with parts of our society.

Is it the fact that the majority of us are so unaware of some of these major issues faced by young people or perhaps the fact we are so absorbed with our own lives that we choose to ignore them, hoping that they will either go away or become somebody else's problem?

Have we chosen to just accept that society will always have problems and resigned ourselves to having to just tolerate them?

Or is it that it is easier to ignore them, knowing that to really ask deep questions and seek wise responses may lead us to having to do something about them ourselves?

The big clean-up is under way and communities and local councils have swept up the debris, yet I think we tend to do this with our lives: just as the mess is being swept away we brush the events that have rightly shocked us to one side and move on to the next big local or world event.

Our outrage about these events caused us to be morally disgusted and saddened that people in modern-day Britain can behave this way while the rest of the world is watching and wondering what is going on.

But, what happened on those streets is only the tip of the iceberg and it's easy to forget about some of the horrendous things happening to our young people every week, sometimes even every day of the year.

The fact that in recent years, so many young people have been attacked, beaten up, stabbed, shot and, even worse, murdered or gang-raped for being in the wrong area, looking at somebody the wrong way, being in the wrong gang, being seen as a piece of meat or wearing the wrong colour.

The UK's young girls – yes, they are young – being exploited for money, groomed for sex and increasingly boys are also being targeted.

Then there are the ever-increasing numbers of young people living in care, some having nowhere to live and becoming homeless because nobody wants them or because they feel that they have to run away because they can no longer face an abusive or addicted parent.

How about the increasing pressure on young people to conform to a certain way, or their belief that if they don't conform or are different in any way they are not normal? They face being a bullied outcast and can lead to a whole host of eating disorders or the need to self-harm to relieve the pain, anger and hurt, sometimes leading to suicide.

Why does it seem that to grow up not knowing your father is becoming the norm? And yet having both parents in your life having a positive influence in your formative years is becoming increasingly abnormal. For some teenagers they feel a need to have a baby of their own to replace or hide their own craving to be loved.

Or the teenager who is told they are a waste of space and will always be a no-hoper, whose confidence and self-esteem is so low that they can't even look you in the eyes or dare to dream of a future because they feel they are worthless and afraid to fail.

How many of us even know the names of our neighbours or even speak to them, or the elderly lady in our street who has no-one to talk to, or the person on our road who has just lost their job and are struggling to round up enough money to put food on the table for their family?

Maybe instead of our opinionated words and views on how best to deal with our wayward youth and how we think the budget cuts are destroying society, we should ask ourselves one simple question: what can I do to make a difference? Instead we declare what we would do to teach these young people a lesson.

Have we considered what we can do to make a young person feel there is a hope for their future; hope that they can reach their potential; hope they can belong to something; a hope they can identify with something or someone and a hope that they can feel secure?

Yes, society and especially young people need to learn that there are consequences to our actions, but who are they going to learn from if we as society don't take responsibility for people in our own communities?

You might not feel that you are able to do much, but you can volunteer for an organisation trying to make a difference or maybe you run a company which could provide an apprenticeship opportunity for a young person, consider training to be a mentor or role model for the fatherless, maybe give financial support to a charitable organisation.

If all these are beyond you at present, a simple smile or a few words of encouragement or reassurance can go a long way.

While we take stock of the riots and their consequences and try to understand why our young people have such a sense of discontentment, let's remember the words of Martin Luther King Jr: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, what are you doing for others?"

TORIES AND LIB DEMS ARE TOAST UNLESS THEY CHANGE DECISION ON THAMESLINK

2011-08-22T07:43:00.000-07:00

Pressure on the Government is intensifying over its decision to award a £1.4bn contract to build trains in Germany for the Thameslink line rather than in Derby. A new poll has revealed that if the Government does not reverse its decision, the Conservative and Liberal Democrats will pay a heavy electoral price. Local people are enraged that the Government is turning its back on British manufacturing.

After British Rail Engineering Ltd was privatised in 1989, Derby is now home to the last remaining train manufacturing company in the UK where Bombardier has its works. But from the autumn of this year, the factory will only have enough work for up to 300 people completing trains for the London Underground. The commercial realities of that fact are that, although Bombardier is a good employer, it is still a multinational corporation, which is driven by the bottom line. The site in Derby will not justify the overhead of such a large site unless the Government reverses its decision on Thameslink.

The company has already announced a review of its UK operations and a final decision will be made by its board of directors in Montreal, which could decide to pull out of the UK. Bombardier has large factories on the continent and could simply bid for future UK rail contracts from its French and German bases. It could also complete the contract for the London Underground at one of its European sites too. We are therefore facing the prospect of the UK, the country that gave the world the railways, not having any train manufacturing capability beyond the end of this year.

The sense of indignation in the Derby area and beyond is palpable because David Cameron brought his cabinet to Derby for its meeting in March this year. He used the meeting to suggest that he would use all the instruments of Government to rebalance the economy in favour of manufacturing. George Osborne rammed home the point when he said: “Derby is a great example of what Britain’s economy should be in the future and a strong endorsement of the importance of manufacturing industry”.

Local people were understandably reassured by what they heard, which is why the sense of abject betrayal is now so strong. The electoral consequences are dire for the Tories in local constituencies, with 41 per cent of their voters saying they are unlikely to support them next time unless they change this decision. The position for the Liberal Democrats is catastrophic with nearly all of their support, 86 per cent, likely to be lost unless there is a change of heart. This poll showing support for the Government in freefall also reveals that 84 per cent of Conservative voters do not believe the Government has acted in the best interest of Britain.

This is now a question of trust for the Government. David Cameron and his Ministers keep saying they want to rebalance the economy, but 79 per cent in this poll believe that the Government is not committed to British Industry – including 60 per cent of Conservative voters. This isn’t surprising in view of his volte-face from what he said in Derby five months ago.

In 1971 Derby faced another huge challenge to its manufacturing base when Rolls Royce went bust. At that time Ted Heath was the Tory Prime Minister who, like David Cameron, initially said there was nothing the Government could do. But in the end he nationalised Rolls Royce and the rest is history. This Government isn’t great on learning the lessons of history and is pursuing the same flawed economic policies as its discredited predecessors.

But when it comes to following one of the few policy decisions a previous Tory Government got right, there seems to be a marked reluctance! We’re not asking David Cameron to renationalise British train making, merely to appoint Bombardier to build these trains so that the industry can continue to have a future in the UK.

It is cold comfort to know that the Tories and Lib Dems will pay a heavy electoral price for this folly. I am more concerned about the thousands of highly skilled engineers who will lose their livelihoods if the Government persists with the fiction that its hands are tied. Cameron must act before it is too late.

A Fare Return? The price of rail privatisation

2011-08-15T10:42:00.000-07:00

On the eve of the confirmation of rail fare increases for next year, rail union RMT has produced new research that shows that the policy of privatisation has bled £6.6 billion out of the industry since 1997 - with a forecast that a further £6.7 billion will be ripped off in the next ten years as the train operating companies are give a green light to print money by the McNulty Rail Review.

The RMT- commissioned research carried out by Just Economics looks at the true financial cost of privatisation and finds that profit-taking and fragmentation costs were £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009.

The report, which is summarises below estimates that a further £6.7 billion will be taken out of the industry over the next ten years, a figure derived by taking the average of the past five years (£744 million) and projecting it forward.

Just Economics Report Summary

We are in the midst of the deepest spending cuts in living memory, and everyone is concerned with getting value for money from public services. It was in pursuit of value for money that privatisation was first introduced. Value for money was defined at the time in very narrow terms, based on an imperative to move people around at the lowest cost. Even on these terms, before wider considerations of social value and passenger satisfaction are taken into account, privatisation has not been successful.

Upon privatisation, British Rail went from an integrated entity to a loose grouping of more than 100 companies. Each was working to its own set of incentives, many of which were in conflict with each other. High interface costs and a lack of coherence in strategy and management were almost inevitable.

Subsidies have increased by 300 per cent, when privatisation was meant to save public money. Passenger numbers have increased too but most commentators agree that this would have happened anyway because of broader economic trends. Then there is the additional burden of leakage costs (profits that are paid out in dividends to shareholders) and interface costs (the transaction costs that result from having multiple service providers in competition with each other).

Our calculations show that leakage and interface costs amounted to more than £883 million in 2009 alone, and more than £6.6 billion between 1997 and 2009. Between 2000 and 2007 these avoidable costs represented almost a fifth of the entire public subsidy paid to the rail industry.

These costs are based on the profits of the industry, so it is difficult to estimate what they might be in the future. However, if we take the average of the past five years (£744 million) and project it forward for the next ten years, we arrive at a discounted value of £6.7 billion.

Of course it is not possible to ‘prove’ that the biggest problems of the UK’s railways are causally related to their ownership model. But it is easy to identify some of the reasons why privatisation has not delivered what it promised. The theory behind privatisation was that private sector discipline would improve the incentive structure, driving up quality and driving down price. This simply has not happened.

It is difficult to argue that any significant level of risk has been transferred to the private sector. In practice the Government has sometimes had to play the role of operator of last resort, replacing franchises on South Eastern and on East Coast (twice) since privatisation. Profits have been privatised, but risks remain socialised.

AFTER CALM IS RESTORED, WHAT NEXT?

2011-08-10T14:35:00.000-07:00

Like most people I was shocked by the scenes we have witnessed on our television screens in parts of London and other cities during this last week.

The violence and vandalism is disgraceful criminal behaviour and the Police and Fire Service deserve great credit for doing a valiant job in incredibly difficult circumstances.

But once calm has been restored, we need to learn the lessons from these awful events and ask some searching questions.

The first priority must be to ensure the Police have sufficient resources to deal with outbreaks of mass lawlessness so that people and property are protected.

The public will also rightly demand and expect that those guilty of this criminality are brought to justice.

But the bigger challenge is how we go about building cohesive sustainable communities where young people feel engaged, have a sense of civic pride and above all hope for the future.

This will be no mean feat. In some areas there is a tangible disconnect between a number of young people and the rest of society, which will have undoubtedly contributed to the riotous behaviour.

Speaking on Sky News before the General Election, Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, made an extraordinarily prophetic predication about “a very serious risk” of rioting if huge cuts were implemented. (http://tinyurl.com/43v6jzs)

The Government therefore needs to undertake a complete rethink on its economic austerity measures that are now beginning to bite.

In light of recent happenings, it would be crazy for the Government to proceed with its planned cuts in the number of Police and Fire Fighters. Indeed, ministers should reverse the cuts in these services that have already taken place.

But that is only part of the story. We also need an enduring preventative strategy to change the mindset of those alienated young people who think it is okay to smash up their own neighbourhoods.

Scrapping EMA and the Future Jobs Fund, severely curtailing youth services and reducing Surestart provision that offers help with parenting skills, just makes it harder to engage disengaged young people.

There are obviously issues like gang membership linked to the outbreaks of this violent disorder and I know Derby has had its own problems with gangs in recent years.

But I also know organisations like Derby’s Enthusiasm Trust undertake groundbreaking work to deflect young people from joining gangs and getting involved in a culture of violence.

However, unless the Government rethinks its draconian public service cuts, funding for this kind of pioneering youth work will not be available.

Such a rethink would have the dual benefit of protecting public services, which make our society a decent place to live, and simultaneously increase employment opportunities for young people too.

Nothing can justify the looting and fire setting that we have observed, but unless we address the underlying causes of this disaffection, my fear is it will happen again.

I have been arguing that the Government was going too far and too fast with its cuts agenda ever since the Chancellor introduced his emergency budget in June last year.

The events of the last week demonstrate that there is an urgent social, as well as an economic imperative for the Chancellor to embrace a Plan B. His fiscal medicine just isn’t working and made it harder to respond to and prevent the dreadful scenes of the last seven days.

PENALISING THE POOR IS NOT THE WAY TO CUT WELFARE BILL

2011-08-06T03:37:00.000-07:00

Former Labour cabinet minister, James Purnell, has re-entered the fray over welfare reforms, but I must say I have grave reservations about his policy prospectus. I’m not against welfare reform per se, but I believe in the universal principle and minimising means testing as far as is possible.

I know those in favour of undermining the universal principle cite people like the Beckhams receiving child benefit and Alan Sugar getting winter fuel payments as justification for extending means testing. But in my view the best way to deal with cases like these is through the tax system rather than introducing a costly and parsimonious means test.

I don’t believe that penalising the poor is the way to reduce the welfare bill and I don’t believe coercion will do very much to force people into employment either. Apart from the callousness of such an approach, the fundamental flaw is that there is currently an inadequate number of vacancies for the jobless. Moreover, for many long term unemployed people, the chances of an employer offering them a job vary from extremely slim to nonexistent.

A different approach is required to assist people living in deprived circumstances to make the most of their lives, and where possible to enter the Labour market. The public sector, particularly local authorities, could and should have a massive role to play in delivering this goal. They could offer sheltered employment initiatives, with support packages built around these vulnerable would-be workers to give them the necessary skills and confidence to stand on their own two feet.

There are examples where local authorities have done just that, including collaborations with voluntary organisations to bring this about. But it needs a huge investment to scale up these schemes and to generate enough new jobs so that people can move from the intermediate labour market into permanent employment. I am sure that such an approach would go a long way to convince the public that we can create the jobs to offer hope to long term unemployed people. Surely that is better than the reforms being advocated by James Purnell, which I believe would lead to the introduction of a US style workfare programme.

The problem is this Tory Lib Dem Government is engaged in an ideological blitzkrieg against public services under the cloak of deficit reduction. Local councils have been singled out for the biggest cuts and councils in the most deprived parts of the country, with higher concentrations of unemployment, are shouldering the heftiest cuts of all. Consequently, the opportunities to create intermediate jobs in this climate are virtually impossible and this is compounded by the abject failure of the Government’s economic policies to grow the economy.

Without investment in public services they will continue to atrophy making it all but impossible for local authorities to develop innovative and compassionate new approaches to tackling long term unemployment. And without growth, the private sector will not be able to create the decent jobs that are so essential to the UK’s economic recovery.

So let us avoid pandering to the government’s rightwing ideological agenda, which is of course aided and abetted by sizeable sections of the print media too. Labour should continue to offer a different vision that keeps hope alive. It was Harold Wilson who once said the Labour Party is a moral crusade or it is nothing and by and large our periods in office have delivered progressive social change.

I say let us keep our nerve and argue for a better, fairer, caring country. Let us make the case for public services that contribute so much to making our society a decent place to live. Let us remind people of the massive contribution public services make to the economy through procurement of goods and services and the demand generated by public sector workers’ spending power in their local economy. Let us continue to argue that investing in our economy will strengthen rather than weaken it.

But above all, let us remember Harold Wilson’s visionary words to inspire us to offer an optimistic, benevolent alternative to the harsh, austere society being created by this Tory-Lib Dem coalition. And let us avoid blurring the dividing lines between us and the coalition on welfare reform because that will lead us down a policy cul-de-sac and end up alienating more people than it will please.

LETTER TO TRANSPORT MINISTER

2011-07-22T12:48:00.000-07:00

See below text of a letter I have written to Transport Minister following a meeting with her on Wednesday.

Rt Hon Theresa Villiers MP
Minister of State
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR

20 July 2011

Dear Theresa

THAMESLINK ROLLING STOCK PROJECT

Thank you for your letter of 15 July 2011 and for facilitating the meeting attended by colleagues from Derby and Derbyshire and myself in Westminster today.

I am afraid that I cannot accept the apparently resolute position taken by the DfT on this matter, as it represents a complete disaster for the communities that my neighbouring MPs and I represent. As you saw earlier today, we are totally united across the normal party divisions on the Bombardier question. This unity will be reflected when a complete cross section of society rallies in Derby on Saturday.

I sincerely believe that you are being seriously misinformed by your officials, both on the way in which the Thameslink procurement has been undertaken and in your options for doing something about it. As a former local government leader, I can tell you that the default position of bureaucracies everywhere is to convince their political leaders that they are the passive victims of immutable processes. Please do not fall into that trap so early in your stewardship of the Department for Transport.

The Thameslink procurement was designed by human beings and can be amended by human beings. Whether or not Ministers in the last Labour Government should have understood the minute details of the Thameslink procurement process and to have done something about it is a moot point. That process was plainly designed by officialdom in a way that enabled Siemens to deliver a knock-out financial blow through the use of its unrivalled balance sheet and its status as a German bank.

This alone is justification for the Government to review whether it has truly achieved “the most economically advantageous solution” as set out in the procurement process. Siemens is now in a position to deploy the same trick again and again to the detriment of competition and innovation in the UK train market.

Moreover, as our discussion on the technological aspects of the process revealed today, Siemens has been given an extraordinary breathing space in which to develop a new lightweight train bogie. Furthermore, as your officials conceded, the Siemens bogie is still a theoretical proposition that only exists on a drawing board, there is a huge question mark hanging over the deliverability of the Siemens option.

For these reasons alone, British taxpayers will find it hard to understand why they should be put at risk to enable Siemens to bring its train to anything like the standard of the Bombardier design. Even then, its reliability will be questionable until it has actually been in service on real British railway lines, rather than test lines in Germany. I therefore sincerely question how this can be presented as the most economically advantageous solution for the UK.

As I said at our meeting, I am genuinely worried that unless this decision is overturned Bombardier could pull out of the UK altogether. Such an outcome would be a calamity for British manufacturing because, as you will be well aware, Bombardier is the last remaining British based train manufacturing company.

I do not doubt the sincerity of your concern over the future of our constituents in Derby and Derbyshire who are employed by Bombardier and its many suppliers. I also sympathise with the position in which you now find yourself following the pledges you gave during the General Election campaign.

Finally, I can assure you that using the power of your office to find a solution to this mess will secure nothing but praise from the people of Derby, Derbyshire and further afield. But if you and your colleagues continue to follow the lead of your dogmatic civil servants, I am afraid the impact of the Thameslink decision in our part of the world will never be forgotten by future generations.

Yours sincerely

Chris Williamson MP
Derby North

BLUE LABOUR REDISCOVERS LABOUR'S ROOTS

2011-07-04T12:40:00.001-07:00

David Lammy MP, has written a brilliant summary about the thinking around ‘Blue Labour’ and what it has to offer the future direction of the Labour Party. I was struck by the fact that the ‘Blue Labour’ prospectus articulates the Derby Labour Party’s neighbourhood agenda and outreach campaigning.

The following is a note that David Lammy distributed to Labour MPs.

BLUE LABOUR
By David Lammy, MP for Tottenham

Helen Goodman’s critique of Blue Labour is an important moment. It brings out into the open a debate that has been taking place in private conversations and seminar rooms for months now. The Blue Labour eBook, which I contributed to, was an attempt to provoke a debate that would contribute to the renewal of the Party. Helen picked up the conversation in her response and I want to continue it here in the same spirit.

Helen frames her response to the eBook around four anecdotes. I would like to start with a short story of my own. It is of my mother – a quiet but inspirational woman who arrived in Britain at the tail end of the Windrush generation. Born in a small village on the banks of the Demerara River, Guyana, she was the first of seven children, raised solely by her mother who worked as a seamstress to make ends meet.

Aged 32, she landed at Gatwick in 1970 to a routine strip search. Swapping the calm of rural Guyana for the chaos of the London metropolis was a culture shock to say the least. Just two years on from Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Britain was far from a picture of racial harmony. Nor were the odds stacked in favour of a woman entering the workforce without much in the way either of money or formal qualifications.

My mother was not a political animal but she was a Labour voter through and through. At a time when comics would routinely insult black people on television, she relied on the Left to help her stand up to racists and bigots. When my father left, she became responsible for looking after five children alone. The same people who fought against racism were those who also spoke up for single mothers. They were the counterweight to Tory politicians and their friends in the media.

Meanwhile, there were bills to be paid. At times mum did three jobs to get by and was, of course, a beneficiary of the Equal Pay Act, passed in the same year she arrived in Britain. Like countless others, she trusted socialists to stick up for her when the child benefit was frozen. She relied on public libraries to nourish the minds of her children. She watched proudly as the first generation in our family was given the opportunity to go to university. Later in life she was cared for wonderfully by the NHS, which treated her with dignity and compassion. No-one in our family needs reminding about the value of individual rights, or that the state can be an enormous force for good. As Helen says, 1945 was an historic victory, not a wrong turning.

LIBERTY, EQUALITY…FRATERNITY

The question begged by Blue Labour is what this inheritance of social liberalism and a robust defence of the welfare state leaves out. What are its limitations? For me the answer is that Labour stands not just for liberty and equality, but also fraternity. Something important exists in between the state and the individual – our relationships with one another.

When my mother arrived in Britain it was not just the state that stepped in to help her. A friendly trade union official from NUPE helped her into a course of learning that made it possible to find work that could provide for a family. The local church provided a sense of fellowship and community. Friends and neighbours looked after her children while she juggled life as a single mother. When she was ill doctors in the NHS treated her illness, but Macmillan nurses also provided invaluable care. As she grew older she relied more and more on her children, just as we had once relied upon her. All these relationships made the difference to her life. This is what Blue Labour is trying to get at.

The focus on relationships explains why, despite the overlap with strands of liberalism, Labour is not a liberal party. Unlike the Lib Dems we do not see people simply as free-floating individuals. Our politics is not orientated towards an unrealisable version of freedom where we can each do whatever we please. Instead Labour politics is built on the idea that people are social beings, dependent on one another. We are not born free but dependent on our parents. As we grow older, a good life depends in large part on family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and strangers. We never stop being mutually dependent. How we treat each other matters.

Because relationships are so important to people’s lives they must be important to our politics. Labour, for example, needs a story about the family. Of course we care passionately about women’s rights and children’s rights but that’s not the end of the story. We have to seriously raise the volume and the focus more on the value of strong relationships between adults, good parenting and care for the elderly. We are at our best when we speak to that ethic of care, as well as a language of liberation. We can’t be satisfied by talking about children in care and retirement homes – the workings of the state. There is just more to it than that.

In the workplace there should be the same emphasis. Of course we stand for workers rights – on pay, on leave, on flexible working and the rest. But if the conversation between employers and employees never gets further than the right to strike versus the right to sack an employee then we have big problems. The reason worker representation on company boards is such a powerful idea is that it holds out the promise of constructive, respectful relationships based on give and take. Workers taking responsibility for the success of firms. Firms taking responsibility for the well-being of workers. Again, it’s not just about the state telling employers and employees what to do. It’s also about the quality of the relationships between employers and employees within firms.

In other areas of life, the principle holds. We support free speech but that doesn’t mean we have given up on the idea of a society with civility and mutual respect. We support personal and religious freedom but we also understand the importance of an integrated and harmonious society. Too easily a language of individual rights can regress into a shrill and anti-social individualism. Labour politics fails when these ties we have to one another fray. If families disintegrate, if workers do not have a voice, if neighbourhoods are divided and strangers fear and mistrust one another then our politics is stone dead. We end up willing the ends for social justice, but the means are impossible. People retreat into their own lives and any sense of the common good disappears.

Blue Labour’s insight is that solidarity is both important and fragile. It must be constantly worked at. We can’t just wag our finger and demand that people be good to one another, we have to take seriously the things that make mutual respect more difficult than it should be. This means listening to people and what they tell us. So when someone says that immigration is a problem in their area then the instant response cannot be to simply brand them a racist. Our job is to question why neighbour is set against neighbour in the scramble for scarce homes, jobs and services. Rather than judging people for airing their concerns we should be interested in how to ameliorate the things that cause these tensions.

Likewise when someone says that the family has come under pressure since women have entered the workforce we shouldn’t simply shout them down. Rather, we should ask how we can help families adapt to a world in which women rightfully have the chance to pursue their ambitions and earn a living. In particular, we might consider how we help fathers take on more of the caring at a time when mothers do more of the earning. Feminism and ‘the family’ don’t have to be at odds. We often slip into the same trap where faith is concerned. When a person or an organisation draws their values from a particular faith then the reaction cannot simply be to dismiss them. We can disagree with faith groups on abortion but still join together to campaign for a cap on lending rates, or against the commercialisation on childhood.

There is, of course, still racism, sexism and religious bigotry to be found in Britain. The battles our party has fought against discrimination of all kinds have been historic and hard won and they are not over yet. But when we decline the opportunity to enter into conversations about issues like the family, immigration or faith we undermine our own political project. If Blue Labour reminds us of this then it has already achieved a great deal. We are not the Lib Dems, let’s not act like them.

BIG SOCIETY…BIG BUSINESS

If one half of the coalition doesn’t understand the importance of fraternity, the other half forgets that it should apply in markets too. Helen says the catastrophic error of the Big Society is that it does not understand that the voluntary and public sectors often work in partnership. Absolutely. Ask any Safer Neighbourhoods team. But this is only half the story. The other fundamental weakness of the Big Society is that it has nothing to say about the market place. ‘Big Society not Big Government’ says Cameron, leaving Big Business out of the picture altogether. The Blue Labour essays are an attempt to address this. They are an antidote to what Ed called the ‘take what you can’ mentality in his speech on social responsibility.

Blue Labour stands opposed to anyone being used simply as a means to an end. That explains why employers should not treat staff as commodities to be exploited, but rather human beings to be respected. People should have a voice at work and be paid a wage they can live on. It explains the opposition to loan sharks who exploit people’s poverty, enticing people into debt that they will never be able to escape from. It explains the offence at companies who target advertising at other people’s children, manipulating young girls and boys. It explains why people were so angry at Jack Straw’s revelation that insurance companies are selling personal information to accident lawyers behind people’s backs. It explains why the public are so angry that the banks were able to hold the country to ransom.

This is what the Tories do not understand when they talk about people making ‘free choices’ in markets. A choice between eviction and a loan shark is no real choice. A choice between two bad jobs is no real choice. A choice about whether to let banks go down with millions of people’s savings, or to bail out the richest people in the country is no real choice. None of these reflect relationships built on give and take: they are about the powerful bullying and exploiting the powerless. Helen is clear that none of this will change without a role for government. I agree, as I expect every contributor to the Blue Labour eBook would. Collective action is how we stand up to those who profit at the expense of the rest of society. We do it together, through trade unions, cooperatives, consumer movements, civil society campaigns and of course, government at national and international level.

But collective action is not easy. Again we have to be careful how we build the trust and the solidarity and the momentum to take on those who abuse their power in the marketplace. Finger-wagging will not work here either. We have to find connections with people’s lives as they live them. There is a national campaign for a living wage because, first of all, there was a specific, tangible campaign against certain firms in the City of London. Momentum grew from there as people joined the dots between excess in the City and poverty for those who cleaned the offices of the ‘masters of the universe’.

Stella Creasy is running a brilliant campaign not just against loan sharking in general, but also some credit companies in particular. It gives the campaign a sense of vibrancy and a practical orientation, while the Tories continue to vote measures down in the House. The Billingsgate campaign that Jon Cruddas has been involved in is another good example. One response to the market porters would be to nod sagely and promise to do what we can at the next G20 summit. Another is to campaign for their cause at a local level, as well as pressing for international action.

In my own constituency I have been working hard to prevent Tottenham Hotspur from leaving the area. The more people get involved in that campaign the more the momentum builds for proper representation of fans on the boards of all football clubs. In the local party we are campaigning against betting shops swamping local high streets and, despite the Tories and Lib Dems voting down my amendments to the localism bill, building support for a change in the law.
The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of the particular and the local. This is where people live their lives. It is when discussions about justice and equality become abstracted from everyday life that they lose their persuasive power and political purchase. Labour was founded as a movement to civilise capitalism – what Blue Labour reminds us is that this must take place in workplaces, in neighbourhoods and in civil society as well as rooms in Whitehall.

LABOUR TRADITIONS

Blue Labour is not a panacea. It has its weaknesses. Some worry that it is overly nostalgic about the past, rather than projecting something modern and forward looking. That it hankers for a world that has gone and isn’t coming back. Others question whether it has enough to say about self-improvement – that it gives the impression that people should be satisfied with their lot, rather than encouraged to strive for something better.

These have to be taken seriously and worked through. But even here we should be careful not to repeat some mistakes from our recent past. Labour always needs a forward-looking agenda, but we lose touch with people when we fetishize change for its own sake. When people see their job become more insecure, when they see their family less and when they feel they no longer know their neighbours, this doesn’t always feel like progress – and we need to show we understand that. Similarly, nothing could be closer to my own heart than helping people from poorer backgrounds fulfil their goals and realise their talents. But there is a difference between ambition and greed. The CEO’s pay matters if they take home millions while their cleaners are not paid enough to get by. We should stand for aspiration but not the pursuit of money for its own sake.

Nor should Blue Labour be feared as a Trojan horse for something else. The debate it has started is an opportunity to reconnect with some of the ideas our party was founded upon, after thirteen years in government and a political project that challenged many of the Party’s traditions and shibboleths. We should take its arguments on their merits, rather than mistake it for something it is not, or dismiss it on the basis of an ill-conceived name.

In the foreword to the Blue Labour eBook Ed writes of Labour as ‘a party of overlapping traditions and tendencies’. He is absolutely right. Labour itself has always been a coalition – of trade unionists, Fabians, Christian socialists, NGOs and local community activists, human rights campaigners, environmentalists, feminists and anti-racists. These traditions compete and coalesce with one another, enriching our party in the process. Blue Labour has something important to offer, alongside our tradition defence of individual rights and a robust defence of the modern state. Let’s engage with it in that spirit.

BLUE LABOUR REDISCOVERS LABOUR'S ROOTS

2011-07-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

David Lammy MP, has written a brilliant summary about the thinking around ‘Blue Labour’ and what it has to offer the future direction of the Labour Party. I was struck by the fact that the ‘Blue Labour’ prospectus articulates the Derby Labour Party’s neighbourhood agenda and outreach campaigning.

Helen Goodman’s critique of Blue Labour is an important moment. It brings out into the open a debate that has been taking place in private conversations and seminar rooms for months now. The Blue Labour eBook, which I contributed to, was an attempt to provoke a debate that would contribute to the renewal of the Party. Helen picked up the conversation in her response and I want to continue it here in the same spirit.

Helen frames her response to the eBook around four anecdotes. I would like to start with a short story of my own. It is of my mother – a quiet but inspirational woman who arrived in Britain at the tail end of the Windrush generation. Born in a small village on the banks of the Demerara River, Guyana, she was the first of seven children, raised solely by her mother who worked as a seamstress to make ends meet.

Aged 32, she landed at Gatwick in 1970 to a routine strip search. Swapping the calm of rural Guyana for the chaos of the London metropolis was a culture shock to say the least. Just two years on from Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Britain was far from a picture of racial harmony. Nor were the odds stacked in favour of a woman entering the workforce without much in the way either of money or formal qualifications.

My mother was not a political animal but she was a Labour voter through and through. At a time when comics would routinely insult black people on television, she relied on the Left to help her stand up to racists and bigots. When my father left, she became responsible for looking after five children alone. The same people who fought against racism were those who also spoke up for single mothers. They were the counterweight to Tory politicians and their friends in the media.

Meanwhile, there were bills to be paid. At times mum did three jobs to get by and was, of course, a beneficiary of the Equal Pay Act, passed in the same year she arrived in Britain. Like countless others, she trusted socialists to stick up for her when the child benefit was frozen. She relied on public libraries to nourish the minds of her children. She watched proudly as the first generation in our family was given the opportunity to go to university. Later in life she was cared for wonderfully by the NHS, which treated her with dignity and compassion. No-one in our family needs reminding about the value of individual rights, or that the state can be an enormous force for good. As Helen says, 1945 was an historic victory, not a wrong turning.

LIBERTY, EQUALITY…FRATERNITY

The question begged by Blue Labour is what this inheritance of social liberalism and a robust defence of the welfare state leaves out. What are its limitations? For me the answer is that Labour stands not just for liberty and equality, but also fraternity. Something important exists in between the state and the individual – our relationships with one another.

When my mother arrived in Britain it was not just the state that stepped in to help her. A friendly trade union official from NUPE helped her into a course of learning that made it possible to find work that could provide for a family. The local church provided a sense of fellowship and community. Friends and neighbours looked after her children while she juggled life as a single mother. When she was ill doctors in the NHS treated her illness, but Macmillan nurses also provided invaluable care. As she grew older she relied more and more on her children, just as we had once relied upon her. All these relationships made the difference to her life. This is what Blue Labour is trying to get at.

The focus on relationships explains why, despite the overlap with strands of liberalism, Labour is not a liberal party. Unlike the Lib Dems we do not see people simply as free-floating individuals. Our politics is not orientated towards an unrealisable version of freedom where we can each do whatever we please. Instead Labour politics is built on the idea that people are social beings, dependent on one another. We are not born free but dependent on our parents. As we grow older, a good life depends in large part on family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and strangers. We never stop being mutually dependent. How we treat each other matters.

Because relationships are so important to people’s lives they must be important to our politics. Labour, for example, needs a story about the family. Of course we care passionately about women’s rights and children’s rights but that’s not the end of the story. We have to seriously raise the volume and the focus more on the value of strong relationships between adults, good parenting and care for the elderly. We are at our best when we speak to that ethic of care, as well as a language of liberation. We can’t be satisfied by talking about children in care and retirement homes – the workings of the state. There is just more to it than that.

In the workplace there should be the same emphasis. Of course we stand for workers rights – on pay, on leave, on flexible working and the rest. But if the conversation between employers and employees never gets further than the right to strike versus the right to sack an employee then we have big problems. The reason worker representation on company boards is such a powerful idea is that it holds out the promise of constructive, respectful relationships based on give and take. Workers taking responsibility for the success of firms. Firms taking responsibility for the well-being of workers. Again, it’s not just about the state telling employers and employees what to do. It’s also about the quality of the relationships between employers and employees within firms.

In other areas of life, the principle holds. We support free speech but that doesn’t mean we have given up on the idea of a society with civility and mutual respect. We support personal and religious freedom but we also understand the importance of an integrated and harmonious society. Too easily a language of individual rights can regress into a shrill and anti-social individualism. Labour politics fails when these ties we have to one another fray. If families disintegrate, if workers do not have a voice, if neighbourhoods are divided and strangers fear and mistrust one another then our politics is stone dead. We end up willing the ends for social justice, but the means are impossible. People retreat into their own lives and any sense of the common good disappears.

Blue Labour’s insight is that solidarity is both important and fragile. It must be constantly worked at. We can’t just wag our finger and demand that people be good to one another, we have to take seriously the things that make mutual respect more difficult than it should be. This means listening to people and what they tell us. So when someone says that immigration is a problem in their area then the instant response cannot be to simply brand them a racist. Our job is to question why neighbour is set against neighbour in the scramble for scarce homes, jobs and services. Rather than judging people for airing their concerns we should be interested in how to ameliorate the things that cause these tensions.

Likewise when someone says that the family has come under pressure since women have entered the workforce we shouldn’t simply shout them down. Rather, we should ask how we can help families adapt to a world in which women rightfully have the chance to pursue their ambitions and earn a living. In particular, we might consider how we help fathers take on more of the caring at a time when mothers do more of the earning. Feminism and ‘the family’ don’t have to be at odds. We often slip into the same trap where faith is concerned. When a person or an organisation draws their values from a particular faith then the reaction cannot simply be to dismiss them. We can disagree with faith groups on abortion but still join together to campaign for a cap on lending rates, or against the commercialisation on childhood.

There is, of course, still racism, sexism and religious bigotry to be found in Britain. The battles our party has fought against discrimination of all kinds have been historic and hard won and they are not over yet. But when we decline the opportunity to enter into conversations about issues like the family, immigration or faith we undermine our own political project. If Blue Labour reminds us of this then it has already achieved a great deal. We are not the Lib Dems, let’s not act like them.

BIG SOCIETY…BIG BUSINESS

If one half of the coalition doesn’t understand the importance of fraternity, the other half forgets that it should apply in markets too. Helen says the catastrophic error of the Big Society is that it does not understand that the voluntary and public sectors often work in partnership. Absolutely. Ask any Safer Neighbourhoods team. But this is only half the story. The other fundamental weakness of the Big Society is that it has nothing to say about the market place. ‘Big Society not Big Government’ says Cameron, leaving Big Business out of the picture altogether. The Blue Labour essays are an attempt to address this. They are an antidote to what Ed called the ‘take what you can’ mentality in his speech on social responsibility.

Blue Labour stands opposed to anyone being used simply as a means to an end. That explains why employers should not treat staff as commodities to be exploited, but rather human beings to be respected. People should have a voice at work and be paid a wage they can live on. It explains the opposition to loan sharks who exploit people’s poverty, enticing people into debt that they will never be able to escape from. It explains the offence at companies who target advertising at other people’s children, manipulating young girls and boys. It explains why people were so angry at Jack Straw’s revelation that insurance companies are selling personal information to accident lawyers behind people’s backs. It explains why the public are so angry that the banks were able to hold the country to ransom.

This is what the Tories do not understand when they talk about people making ‘free choices’ in markets. A choice between eviction and a loan shark is no real choice. A choice between two bad jobs is no real choice. A choice about whether to let banks go down with millions of people’s savings, or to bail out the richest people in the country is no real choice. None of these reflect relationships built on give and take: they are about the powerful bullying and exploiting the powerless. Helen is clear that none of this will change without a role for government. I agree, as I expect every contributor to the Blue Labour eBook would. Collective action is how we stand up to those who profit at the expense of the rest of society. We do it together, through trade unions, cooperatives, consumer movements, civil society campaigns and of course, government at national and international level.

But collective action is not easy. Again we have to be careful how we build the trust and the solidarity and the momentum to take on those who abuse their power in the marketplace. Finger-wagging will not work here either. We have to find connections with people’s lives as they live them. There is a national campaign for a living wage because, first of all, there was a specific, tangible campaign against certain firms in the City of London. Momentum grew from there as people joined the dots between excess in the City and poverty for those who cleaned the offices of the ‘masters of the universe’.

Stella Creasy is running a brilliant campaign not just against loan sharking in general, but also some credit companies in particular. It gives the campaign a sense of vibrancy and a practical orientation, while the Tories continue to vote measures down in the House. The Billingsgate campaign that Jon Cruddas has been involved in is another good example. One response to the market porters would be to nod sagely and promise to do what we can at the next G20 summit. Another is to campaign for their cause at a local level, as well as pressing for international action.

In my own constituency I have been working hard to prevent Tottenham Hotspur from leaving the area. The more people get involved in that campaign the more the momentum builds for proper representation of fans on the boards of all football clubs. In the local party we are campaigning against betting shops swamping local high streets and, despite the Tories and Lib Dems voting down my amendments to the localism bill, building support for a change in the law.
The point is that we shouldn’t be afraid of the particular and the local. This is where people live their lives. It is when discussions about justice and equality become abstracted from everyday life that they lose their persuasive power and political purchase. Labour was founded as a movement to civilise capitalism – what Blue Labour reminds us is that this must take place in workplaces, in neighbourhoods and in civil society as well as rooms in Whitehall.

LABOUR TRADITIONS

Blue Labour is not a panacea. It has its weaknesses. Some worry that it is overly nostalgic about the past, rather than projecting something modern and forward looking. That it hankers for a world that has gone and isn’t coming back. Others question whether it has enough to say about self-improvement – that it gives the impression that people should be satisfied with their lot, rather than encouraged to strive for something better.

These have to be taken seriously and worked through. But even here we should be careful not to repeat some mistakes from our recent past. Labour always needs a forward-looking agenda, but we lose touch with people when we fetishize change for its own sake. When people see their job become more insecure, when they see their family less and when they feel they no longer know their neighbours, this doesn’t always feel like progress – and we need to show we understand that. Similarly, nothing could be closer to my own heart than helping people from poorer backgrounds fulfil their goals and realise their talents. But there is a difference between ambition and greed. The CEO’s pay matters if they take home millions while their cleaners are not paid enough to get by. We should stand for aspiration but not the pursuit of money for its own sake.

Nor should Blue Labour be feared as a Trojan horse for something else. The debate it has started is an opportunity to reconnect with some of the ideas our party was founded upon, after thirteen years in government and a political project that challenged many of the Party’s traditions and shibboleths. We should take its arguments on their merits, rather than mistake it for something it is not, or dismiss it on the basis of an ill-conceived name.

In the foreword to the Blue Labour eBook Ed writes of Labour as ‘a party of overlapping traditions and tendencies’. He is absolutely right. Labour itself has always been a coalition – of trade unionists, Fabians, Christian socialists, NGOs and local community activists, human rights campaigners, environmentalists, feminists and anti-racists. These traditions compete and coalesce with one another, enriching our party in the process. Blue Labour has something important to offer, alongside our tradition defence of individual rights and a robust defence of the modern state. Let’s engage with it in that spirit.

REWARDING CONTRIBUTION, NOT WORKLESSNESS

2011-06-19T09:36:00.001-07:00

As the MP for Derby North I meet, and deal with the cases of many constituents on a wide range of issues. It’s a privilege and one of the things I love most about my job. However, there are a few people I meet who are not taking responsibility for themselves, leaving the rest of the community to pick up the pieces. It just isn’t right.

Ed Miliband acknowledged in his speech on responsibility in the 21st Century earlier this week that the Labour Party, during the last election, was seen by some as one that primarily represented people who were ripping off the rest of us. Some of those at the very top of society, and some of those on benefits were not acting responsibly and were shirking their duties. From bankers who caused the financial crisis taking massive bonuses while taxpayers paid for their failure, to the small minority of people who abuse the welfare system because they were able to work but didn’t.

I was pleased that Ed Miliband has pledged that next Labour Government will be one that rewards contribution, not worklessness. I voted against the Government’s Welfare Reform Bill last week, along with most of my Labour colleagues. This is not because I don’t support the attempts to build on Labour’s plans to enable those who can work to get a job.

I voted against it as it would make it harder for individuals across the country to be responsible, to do the right thing. It undermines childcare support for those wanting to work; it cuts help for the most vulnerable such as those who live in care homes - who receive support to help them get out and about; and it takes money away from those recovering from illnesses like cancer, who have paid their taxes when they could and should be get something back when they need it.

However, rather than looking solely at need, which has tended to be our focus in the past, if we are to improve the welfare state properly. I agree we must also reward people who are responsible and contribute, for example, through volunteering, working against anti-social behaviour and foster parenting, as well as protecting those in need. As Ed Miliband said: “we will be a Party that rewards contribution, not worklessness.”

In terms of those at the top, speaking to constituents following the financial crisis, I share the anger that the banking industry. It has been able to get away with massive rewards for themselves whilst at the same time putting the economy at risk. In future, for those highest paid in our society, we need to ensure greater accountability and transparency at the top. For instance the Labour Party would require boardrooms to publish the difference in pay between the highest paid and the average employee.

What builds a community and a country is a sense of shared responsibility, common endeavour and big national ambitions. Responsibility is not to government, it is to each other.

Lecture at the London School of Economics by the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls MP

2011-06-16T08:13:00.000-07:00

I attended Ed Balls' lecture at the London School of Economics. Ed clearly set out an alternative vision and gave an historical context to illustrate that dogmatic economic orthodoxy has failed in the past. The ERM and Gold Standard are two examples that went disastrously wrong. George Osborne is making the same mistake as his Tory predecessors.I attended Ed Balls' lecture at the London Scool of Economics.

This is the text of Ed's speech.

"It is a pleasure to be here at the LSE to give my first speech on economics as Shadow Chancellor.

And it will come as a relief to hear that I don’t intend to lecture you on economic theory today.

In my speech at the headquarters of Bloomberg last August, I set out the lack of economic theory underpinning George Osborne’s economic strategy – as well as the large extent to which political calculations were already driving the new Government’s policy.

And I want today to look at what happens when policy-makers are confronted with a choice between politics and economics – and the consequences of getting that choice wrong.

Throughout history, pivotal moments when leaders have faced a choice between two opposite courses of action have often been described as ‘a fork in the road’.

But in peacetime politics or economics, such moments tend to involve less of a clear-cut choice between two divergent paths and more of a gradual drift in one direction or another.

Take the fateful decision for Britain to join the ERM.

That wasn’t the result of great minds sitting around a table one day weighing up the pros and cons: it was the product of years of deliberation and delay, persuasion and preparation, through which a consensus was slowly built and those who disagreed – like Alan Walters – were gradually isolated.

And the decision not to join the Euro in 2003 – while much debated at the time – is also seen by many historians as pre-ordained from the moment the five tests, and responsibility for their assessment, were agreed six years before.

I am not sure they are right because the circumstances at the time were critical in determining the final outcome.

But it is certainly true that many people believed the case to have been weak for some years beforehand – and hindsight has undoubtedly proved them right.

So in contrast to those gradual shifts, it is all too rare in recent history to see a Chancellor genuinely coming to a ‘fork in the road’.

German reunification, twenty years ago this month, was one such moment.

So was Winston Churchill’s decision to re-join the Gold Standard in 1925 at the dinner at No11 Downing Street where John Maynard Keynes famously made – but lost – the argument against a return to gold.

And I believe another ‘fork in the road’ took place a year ago when George Osborne entered the Treasury.

Because whatever the bluster of the election campaign and whatever the private talks between his advisers, Treasury officials and Liberal Democrats, it could only have been when George Osborne arrived at his desk and examined the figures presented to him that he could properly assess the choice he faced.

And there was a choice.

On the one hand, to continue with Labour’s economic plan: maintain the emphasis on jobs and growth, while continuing a steady and balanced approach to halve the deficit in four years.

On the other, a political decision to eliminate the structural deficit in a Parliament – a fiscal tightening of such scale and severity that it would have to begin immediately.

It is the right of a new government to change course.

But while he might have been expected to carefully contemplate the fork in front of him and consider the consequences of his decision, George Osborne did not hesitate in making a rash and headlong lunge down the path of rapid deficit reduction.

Within two weeks of taking office, he announced £6 billion of immediate spending cuts – cancelling the Child Trust Fund and the Young Person’s Job Guarantee.

A few weeks later, a year ago next Wednesday, his first Budget announced plans to take billions more out of the economy through a combination of deep spending cuts, new tax rises and benefit cuts.

He said:

- Rapid deficit reduction is the priority;

- There is no choice – the markets demand it;

- The faster we cut, the better for confidence;

- No alternative is possible;

- And anyone who says otherwise is a “deficit denier”.

Shortly afterwards at Bloomberg, with the Labour Party caught up in its leadership election and the economic data looking up, the Chancellor allowed himself to become prematurely complacent:

- He declared that we could be: "cautiously optimistic about the economic situation";

- And he highlighted the recent economic data, saying: “As the Bank of England confirmed last week, this is consistent with the kind of gradual recovery forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the Budget.”

It was even more striking when David Cameron claimed in October that our economy was: “out of the danger zone”.

But the figures they quoted in support of this argument weren’t the result of their policies – they were just taking the credit for the actions taken by the Labour government before the election.

Even now, George Osborne berates the media for not reporting that 377,000 net jobs have been created in the past year; but omits to mention that 69% of those jobs were created in the six months before his Spending Review last October – less than a third since.

When I myself spoke at Bloomberg, a few weeks after the Chancellor, I explained my concerns about the state of the economy and about the impact that George Osborne’s decision would have on jobs and growth.

I was – and remain – deeply suspicious that he was using the imperative of deficit reduction as convenient cover to drive through a deeply ideological programme of cuts to public services and the welfare state.
But since then, I have become more convinced that George Osborne’s plan was primarily about electoral politics – rapid tax rises and spending cuts chiefly designed to fit a political timetable that:

- gets the pain over early;

- makes Labour take the blame;

- uses the Liberal Democrats as a human shield;

- hoping to store up a Tory war-chest - bolstered perhaps with the proceeds from a quick sale of Northern Rock - to cut income taxes before the election.

In my Bloomberg response, I argued that:

- Of course, getting the deficit down is necessary and important;

- But going too fast for political reasons risks killing off the recovery and crushing confidence - perversely make it harder to get the deficit down;

- I recognised that the prevailing consensus was against me in making this argument;

- But also that economic history shows that the contemporary political consensus in Britain about the right course for economic policy is often wrong;

- And I argued for a slower and more balanced approach to deficit reduction, which only kicks in once the recovery is secured.

As for which of the two Bloomberg speeches last August was right…

…it is still too soon to say.

But it is not too soon to continue the debate.

And today I will argue that the accumulating evidence shows that George Osborne’s political gamble is taking our economy down the wrong path at huge cost to families and businesses – but that it’s not too late for him to change course.

THE DOWNING STREET STAIRCASE

I don’t doubt that - twelve months on - George Osborne will, in his private moments behind the door of No 11 Downing Street, be asking himself – did I choose the right path? How will history judge me?

Traditionally, every outgoing Chancellor chooses a picture to hang above the staircase leading up to the Chancellor’s state rooms.

In the earliest days, the Chancellors chose simple ink portraits or caricatures of themselves. But at some point over the last century, Chancellors began choosing cartoons that they believe best sum up their time in office.

George Osborne will have seen Nigel Lawson’s choice of cartoon, from The Economist in February 1988.

With the economy booming, Lawson is depicted as a fisherman sitting on the bank, resting contentedly against a mountain of fish as he feels yet another tug at the line.

A month later, he delivered a Budget proclaiming that the economy was at its strongest since the war and providing a final flourish of a 2p cut in income tax for middle earners.

Of course, things didn’t quite turn out as Nigel Lawson planned…

The Chancellor will also have seen the Nicholas Garland cartoon hanging on the No 11 staircase chosen by Norman Lamont.

Lamont the gardener is smiling in the sunshine, bending down to water his green shoots of recovery.

Behind him a tornado is gathering.

And in the swirling darkness, a farmer is sharpening his scythe to cut down those green shoots.

On the scythe, it says ‘Public Sector Deficit’…

So what does George Osborne take from these lessons of history?

Quite possibly:

- He convinces himself that the sole threat to his political dream of emulating Lawson by cutting income tax before the election is the public sector deficit;

- But does he conclude from the Lamont cartoon that his rapid deficit reduction plan is the biggest threat?

- Or does he draw the wrong economic lesson that it is the deficit itself that is stifling the recovery and that if he does not take the political decision to roll back the state, there will be no room for the private sector investment he is relying on to ride to the rescue?

Only the latter would explain why in March he delivered what – now the dust has settled – must be considered a do-nothing Budget: the Budget of a Chancellor who had already made up his mind last May, whose political course is fixed and who will not be blown off course by economic fact or logic.

THE JUNE 2010 BUDGET – ONE YEAR ON

In April, a month after that do-nothing Budget, George Osborne told the Cabinet that the economy was “roughly in the right place”.

Was he right and where is roughly the right place?

This week marks a year since the newly formed independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) made its first economic forecasts.

And we can now compare those pre-Emergency Budget forecasts with those published in March:

- A year ago, the OBR forecast growth of 2.6% in 2011 – they now predict just 1.7% and even that three time-downgraded figure is looking optimistic compared to recent lower forecasts from the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR and the British Chambers of Commerce;

- Unemployment forecasts for the next four years have all been revised upwards;

- Inflation forecasts for the end of 2011 have risen sharply from 1.6% to 4.2% – with a further increase next year;

- And the result of this slower growth, higher unemployment and higher inflation is that the Government will have to borrow a further £46 billion more than forecast after the Spending Review.

This was definitely not part of the Chancellor’s script a year ago.

So what has gone wrong?

WHY IS THE UK ECONOMIC RECOVERY STALLING?

The first signs that things weren’t going to plan came in the late autumn.

Unemployment started rising again in September – reaching a sixteen year high in December.

Surveys also showed the biggest fall in consumer confidence for nearly twenty years.

But it was in January that alarm bells really started to ring when the GDP figures for the fourth quarter of last year showed that the UK economy contracted by 0.5%.

To begin with, George Osborne famously tried to blame the snow.

But it also snowed in America, Germany and France – and they all posted strong growth.

Indeed, the only other European countries with falling output at the end of last year were Denmark, Ireland, Greece and Portugal – and the latter two countries don’t tend to get much snow, even in winter.

Since then, the economic figures have pointed in different directions – bad news on manufacturing output last Friday, welcome better news on unemployment yesterday.

But overall the evidence has mounted that things are not going according to plan - and George Osborne has developed a new weather-related line.

We heard it last night at the Mansion House when he blamed what he calls “global headwinds”.

Of course there are factors outside of the Chancellor’s control – like rising oil and food prices, the difficulties in the Euro zone and the Japanese earthquake – all of which are having an impact on the British economy.

That is why prudent Chancellors always have to be vigilant and choose caution over complacency.

And let me say - there is a certain irony in George Osborne blaming the global economy now, given how that he and David Cameron spent the last three years insisting that the worldwide recession was made in Britain.

But the fact is that the UK is doing badly compared to other countries also affected by those same global headwinds:

- Looking at growth across the EU over the last six months compared to the previous six months, we have gone from the top end of the economic growth league table to fourth from bottom – with only Denmark, Greece and Portugal below us.

- And while policy-makers in the US are worried that their recovery is slowing down, the US has nevertheless still enjoyed growth of 1.2% over the last six months – compared to our zero.

To many leading economic commentators - and three recent winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics, Christopher Pissarides, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz – this poor UK economic performance has not come as a surprise.

The scale of the fiscal hit to demand and growth in Britain this year is unprecedented. And it is happening at a time when interest rates are already very low and can’t be cut and when other countries are also trying to cut their deficits at the same time.

It is this combination of factors which suggest that the impact of this fiscal contraction on economic growth in Britain – what economists call ‘the fiscal multiplier’ – will be considerably more severe than even the OBR’s downgraded forecasts suggest.

What has surprised many observers is how - even before the real impact begins - expectations of tax rises and spending cuts to come have drastically weakened confidence and deferred spending.

And confidence will have been further hit by the very public debate about when interest rates will have to rise – in part in response to those global headwinds – but mainly because of George Osborne’s mistaken decision to raise VAT to 20% in January.

So while it isn’t surprising that those who are backing George Osborne have re-affirmed their support in recent weeks, even they are getting worried:

- The outgoing CBI director-general, Sir Richard Lambert, warned in January that: "It’s not enough just to slam on the spending brakes. Measures that cut spending but kill demand would actually make matters worse”;

- The FT’s editorial after the first quarter growth figures were published provided some solace by saying: “This newspaper supported George Osborne, the chancellor, in his decision to reduce the structural deficit faster than his predecessor planned” – but the sting was in the tail as it then added: “But this does not amount to unqualified support for tightening in each and every circumstance”;

- The deputy secretary-general and chief economist of the OECD told The Times last month that: “…we see merit in slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation if there is not so good news on the growth front…”

- The Daily Telegraph said in a recent leader that those growth figures: “should be giving George Osborne some sleepless nights”;

- The Independent has reported that the Chancellor has had to “fend off doubts” and “jitters” about his economic strategy from Cabinet colleagues;

- As we saw in The Observer a week ago, some of the economists who supported his plan a year ago in a letter to the Sunday Times are having their doubts;

- And most recently, the IMF – while sticking to its familiar script – said: “there are significant risks to inflation, growth and unemployment”.

George Osborne and David Cameron have clearly been paying attention.

Because while there is no change in their policy as yet, we can see a change in their rhetoric.

Now they say:

- The economy is choppy – but it doesn’t really matter because any growth is good, however slow;

- Changing course would be a disaster for our credibility – so there is no choice but to press on regardless;

- And Labour would have to do the same if they were in power – there is no alternative.

In the rest of my speech, I want to examine each of those three claims.

DOES BRITAIN’S ECONOMIC DRIFT MATTER?

It is easy for politicians to convince themselves that short-term trends don’t matter as long as they believe the long-term prize remains within their grasp.

With the most recent quarter’s growth rate positive again – albeit only making up the contraction at the end of last year – George Osborne must be tempted to try to:

- batten down the hatches;

- rely on his supporters to talk him up;

- try to pin the blame on Labour, by blatantly re-writing history;

- and hope that everyone forgets the damage done along the way.

But as well as being hugely irresponsible, this strategy misses the point entirely.

I have been consistent in saying that a double-dip recession was never the most likely outcome – although it does seem that over the last 6 months we have missed it by a whisker.

But the test for the economy is not whether we avoid a double-dip recession, or whether unemployment rises or falls in any particular quarter, but how much pain is inflicted along the way in lost growth and lost jobs.

Because it isn’t the fluctuating quarterly growth figures that really hurt; it’s all the ground that we’ve lost over the past year – and are continuing to lose every day and look set to continue to lose.

While the American, German and French economies have already recovered to their pre-crisis levels of output, we in Britain are still 4% below that level.

And compared to the OBR’s forecast before George Osborne’s first Budget, their latest forecasts imply that by the end of next year we will be £5.6bn worse off as a country. The cost of that slower growth is equivalent to a loss of income of over £300 for every family.

If UK growth came in 0.5 percentage points below trend in every year of this Parliament, our country would be £58bn worse off in 2015 – that’s £3,300 for every family.

And the OBR has warned that we should expect unemployment to be up to 200,000 higher over the coming years than expected just a few months ago.

So the test for the Treasury isn’t just whether they can post better growth rates - we all know the economy will return to stronger growth eventually – it’s whether they can make up all this lost ground in jobs and living standards.

On the Today programme a few months ago, Evan Davis put to me the view that, with the underlying trend growth rate of the economy fixed, whether tax rises and spending cuts come now or later is really only a matter of timing:

- that the overall amount the structural deficit will need to be reduced by will remain the same;

- that given the rate of growth, the overall amount of spending cuts or tax rises will also remain the same;

- and so, given that it is just a matter of pain now or pain later, why not get the pain over with quickly?

But – and this is the crucial point – the trend growth rate of the economy is not fixed – so this isn’t just about growth postponed versus pain deferred.

Months – or years – of slow growth aren’t something that will be quickly repaired.

It risks leaving a permanent dent in our nation’s prosperity – relative to how prosperous we might have been and how prosperous we are relative to other countries.

Because economic history also teaches us that economies don’t simply bounce back to where they would have been.

Who now doubts that the depth of the recession of the early 1980s had long-term and permanent effects?

Manufacturing jobs and companies lost – never to return.

Small businesses gone bankrupt – losing skills, ideas, networks and potential.

Capital investment plans first postponed eventually dropped and never resurrected.

And most importantly of all, adults and young people out of work for months, which turned into years, and left a permanent scarring effect on their skills, their health, and their ability and willingness to ever work again.

How many people in this room would feel confident about their job prospects if you’d been out of work for over a year and had to compete against other candidates with an unbroken employment record?

So the claim that the current debate about the pace of cuts is simply deferring pain misses the point.

The risk is that George Osborne will wreak long-term, as well as short-term, damage on the British economy by creating a vicious circle of permanently lower business investment, lower income and lower employment, which in turn requires bigger tax increases and deeper spending cuts to get the deficit down.

All at a time too when people are already suffering up and down our country – north and south.

Life is already tough enough if you’re unemployed – and we need to help those people into work.

It’s also tough for all those who have worked all their lives but for whom flat wages, the fear of unemployment, higher fuel and food prices and growing debt means they’re seriously worrying about their futures – and those of their children – for the first time. As Ed Miliband has said, this is a threat to the Promise of Britain – the promise that the next generation will be better off than the last.

And it’s difficult too for pensioners dependent on fixed incomes, as well as for young people wondering what prospects they will have.

But there is a further reason why this matters.

We all know that the financial crisis exposed the vulnerability of banks and the over-reliance of the British economy and tax receipts on financial services.

But it also accelerated the rise of India and China as our competitors – not just in low-cost manufacturing; but in top-class design, education and attracting international investment.

And we can’t afford to be left behind.

We need to rebuild our banking and financial sectors – and do so by rewarding investment and sustainable growth, not short-term risk-taking.

We need a modern industrial policy that provides incentives for technological and scientific innovation.

And we must ensure every company takes their responsibilities seriously
and every employee gets the chance to up skill.

As Shadow Business Secretary John Denham has argued, while the Conservative Liberal notion is that support for market-led growth means that the ideal state is one in which government does as little as possible, in truth, markets are inevitably and unavoidably shaped by what governments do, and by what government doesn’t do

The government boasted of a ‘big bang’ Budget for growth - all we saw was backtracking on large-scale infrastructure projects, the abolition of the RDAs and the scrapping of skills programmes.

And the longer we spend with no or slow growth, the longer the road to recovery becomes, the greater the pain that will have to be endured and the further we fall behind.

So, yes, the current economic drift really does matter.

WOULD IT BE DISASTROUS TO CHANGE COURSE?

The second claim George Osborne now makes is that, however bad things get, it would be disastrous to change course.

This is really the crux of the new argument, as well as the reason why the Chancellor looked so satisfied with IMF Acting Managing Director John Lipsky’s endorsement last week at their joint press conference.

Last autumn, the Conservative-led government said that we didn’t need an alternative.

When news first broke that George Osborne’s plan had sent the economy into negative growth, he said:

“There is no question of changing a fiscal plan that has established international credibility on the back of one very cold month. That would plunge Britain back into a financial crisis. We will not be blown off course by bad weather.”

And he told The Politics Show:

“If on Monday morning I went to parliament and got up at the dispatch box in the House of Commons and said I am abandoning the deficit reduction plan that Britain set out last year, what do you think the reaction would be, I mean within minutes Britain would be in financial turmoil, now I’m not prepared to let that happen,”

But in my experience, maintaining credibility and market confidence involves much more than just talking tough.

There are three tests for a credible economic plan:

- first, there has to be a transparent plan with clear medium-term goals;

- second, that plan must command sufficient political support for it to be implemented;

- but, third, it also has to work – which means, crucially, that the goals must be realistic and achievable, the plan must deliver results and the policy must be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen events.

It was these three tests that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling knew they had to pass when they put together Labour’s response to the global financial crisis.

The plan was to halve the deficit in four years.

Political support was secured through the legislation that was introduced.

It’s no secret that, back in 2009, I thought even this was too fast.

But the early signs in 2010 were that this plan was working – the economy was growing strongly, unemployment was falling and borrowing came in over £20bn lower than planned – which meant we had the flexibility to slow the pace of spending cuts or tax rises, while still keeping on course for the medium-term goal.

So all three tests for a credible plan were being met.

And then came the General Election.

I have no principled objection to a new government wanting to put in place their own, tougher plan.

After all, it is precisely what we did in 1997.

But it really is absolute nonsense to say that the markets or the Governor of the Bank of England demanded a tougher plan – or that it was the only way to make fiscal policy credible.

George Osborne now claims that, like Greece, Britain was “on the brink of bankruptcy”.

That must have been the first time in history that a British Chancellor has looked not to America, France or Germany, but to Greece, Portugal or Ireland for economic insights.

But while politically convenient, it is also a claim that reveals a complete lack of understanding not just about market credibility, but about how the Eurozone works and about international economic history too.

The truth is that – thankfully unlike Britain – those countries are locked into the Eurozone, where they have no exchange rate flexibility and they are stuck with the same rising interest rates as countries like Germany.

Furthermore, the structure of their debts bears no comparison whatsoever. We have the longest-term bonds of any country – which means we need to raise much less each year and are not so subject to short-term moods in the markets.

And while Greece was descending into turmoil, the UK economy was already recovering, tax rises and spending cuts had been pre-announced, we were over-achieving on a deficit reduction plan entirely in line with the G20 commitment last June and our long-term interest rates were at historic lows.

Historians will debate whether Labour would have been better off conducting a full spending review before fighting the 2010 general election. It would certainly have allowed more detail to be set out about spending cuts, as well as which taxes would have to rise and which we could guarantee would not.

But I don’t for one moment think that had any impact on our macro-fiscal credibility with the markets. The Darling plan was tough – and widely acknowledged to be so, as the term structure of interest rates demonstrated.

Gilt yields had already started falling well before the election - and at a time when opinion polls were narrowing in the run-up to what was clearly going to be a close election.

And while further decisions would have come after the election, what we had already set out went way beyond what other countries had done.

The fact is that we have seen a blatant attempt to rewrite history to suit a political purpose. In my view, the decision to make the need for a much-accelerated deficit plan a matter of ‘credibility’ was entirely political – and was seen by David Laws and Nick Clegg as the smokescreen they needed to explain their complete economic policy volte-face to worried Liberal Democrat MPs and supporters.

Nevertheless the result was that George Osborne was able to meet the first two tests for credible fiscal policy – a clear plan and political support.

But to meet the third test it still has to work.

Because there is one comparison between Britain and Greece, Portugal and Ireland which is worth noting.

George Osborne’s logic is that if Greece, Ireland and Portugal had adopted the same approach that he is taking, they would not be facing such severe and deepening crises.

The problem for him – and for them – is that they did.

In fact, the Portuguese Chancellor went one better by introducing two VAT rises in the past year.

And what they, Ireland and Greece have all discovered – just like Argentina, Brazil and Turkey before them – is that it doesn’t matter how much they cut spending or how much they raise taxes; if they can’t create jobs and growth, their debt and deficit problems get even worse and market confidence falls further still.

My concern is that we are starting to see the same thing happen here in Britain.

If the economy isn’t growing, there are fewer jobs and fewer people in work than there should be, fewer taxes paid and more benefits claimed – which makes it progressively harder to get the deficit down.

And when we see that output has become stagnant over the last six months and that the Bank of England and virtually every major international organisation are downgrading their growth forecasts, this isn’t just bad news now; I fear it will make it harder to get the deficit down – and undermine long-term credibility, investment and confidence at precisely the wrong time.

As the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, and now director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Jonathan Portes, said last weekend:

“You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that is not working.”

And that is why I – and others – have consistently argued that George Osborne needs to at least consider a Plan B.

History shows that many politicians have fallen into the trap of sticking stubbornly to their guns, in the misguided belief that any deviation will indicate weakness and in the false hope that things will eventually sort themselves out.

But they just dig themselves into deeper and deeper holes.

I’ve already referred to Nigel Lawson and to the ERM.

Let us not forget that there were more than two years between the decision to enter the ERM and the fateful events of Black Wednesday.

Nor that - vitally - once the wrong decision had been taken, there was no retreating.

Twenty years ago this month, John Major defiantly declared in the House of Commons:

“It was right to enter the ERM a year ago; it is right for us to be members now. We are in the exchange rate mechanism; we are staying in it.”

That was the plan.

It had cross-party support.

It had support from the City too.

Speaking to the New York Times in November 1991, the respected Chief Economist of Salomon Brothers said there was: “no indication of currency misalignment” in Europe. For Britain to give in to realignment pressures: “would be neither beneficial for the stability of the ERM nor conducive to achieving [its] economic and currency goals.”

The man who said that?

The IMF’s John Lipsky.

He was far from being alone in the City in holding those views.

But the consensus of that time was not right.

Political support crumbled, credibility collapsed and the pound was withdrawn.

I was working at the FT at the time and watched events unfolding.

David Cameron had an even closer view, working as he did as Chancellor Norman Lamont’s special adviser.

And he will remember as I do the insistent and increasingly shrill 'jaw-boning' from a defiant Chancellor who could not acknowledge that continued ERM membership was making the recession worse.

At the end of August 1992, three weeks before Black Wednesday, Norman Lamont summoned reporters to the Treasury at 8am and declared:

“There are going to be no devaluations, no leaving the ERM. We are absolutely committed to the ERM. It is at the centre of our policy. We are going to maintain sterling’s parity and we will do whatever is necessary – and I hope there is no doubt about that at all.”

So will history repeat itself?

And can George Osborne change course if he wants to?

Back then, the pound was constrained by a fixed exchange rate and announcing that the UK would leave the ERM would have led to market chaos - even though Major and Lamont could see their credibility ebbing away as the policy was clearly not working.

Had we joined the Euro, there would have been an even greater constraint on UK economic policy autonomy.

But neither constraint exists now.

Objectives for monetary policy and fiscal policy lie squarely in the Chancellor’s gift.

As I argued back in 1997 when making the case for central bank independence, it is absolutely vital for a country like Britain to have constrained discretion – by which I mean setting clear, transparent and achievable policy goals, but allowing flexibility to decide how to meet them and over what time period.

That is why it is so important that we have both the inflation target and the open letter system, which allow the Bank to explain its actions.

And it is also why it is important to set fiscal objectives over the economic cycle, allowing what economists call the ‘automatic stabilisers’ to keep the economy growing and unemployment down.

But the fundamental problem with George Osborne’s deficit plan is that he has set a political goal to a political timetable which defies economic logic.

And the lesson of monetary policy – and fiscal policy too – over the last twenty years is that changing course when things aren’t working isn’t knee-jerk and doesn’t damage credibility; it’s the only way to stay in control of your destiny and avert a crisis before it’s forced upon you.

It is because George Osborne has from the beginning had the flexibility and discretion to set a new and credible course that I find it so frustrating that he has boxed himself in and now has to ignore the mounting evidence by sticking stubbornly to his guns –making the Major-Lamont ERM mistake all over again.

Every time he says he can’t change course, he makes it harder to do so – and increases the pain of lost jobs and lost growth.

As I argued last week, the cautious thing to do is not to plough on and simply hope for the best.

The cautious thing is to act – and to act now – before any more ground is lost.

And contrary to George Osborne’s claims, there was a credible alternative a year ago – and there is a credible alternative now, which brings me to the third of George Osborne’s arguments.

WHAT WOULD LABOUR HAVE DONE – THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

Politically, I can see why George Osborne says there is no other way:

- if his plan works, he can claim Labour failed to face up to the tough decisions;

- and if it fails, he can claim Labour wouldn’t have made any difference.

But on the first charge, I would say that:

- setting out tough fiscal rules just before the 1997 election and sticking to Tory spending plans for the first two years;

- delivering Bank of England independence;

- ensuring that in 1999 all the proceeds from the 3G mobile license sale were used to repay the national debt;

- and resisting UK membership of the Euro;

…they all show that I’m not someone who shirks tough decisions.

And I am making the case for a slower and more balanced approach not because I am a deficit denier, but because this is the tough – but cautious and credible – thing to do.

Let us be clear – when a year ago, we urged George Osborne to:

- stick to a slower pace of deficit reduction;

- rule out a VAT increase;

- and take immediate action on jobs and to support investment;

…that would have been tough.

As Schools Secretary, I set out £1 billion worth of cuts.

We identified a 12% reduction to the policing budget.

We had tightened rules on incapacity benefit

But we were proceeding with proper consultation, sensible decision-making and measured reductions – instead of the rush to cut that inevitably happens once you announce that policing budgets aren’t going to be cut by 12% but by 20%.

And we would have avoided what inevitably follows from the rush to cut - humiliating U-turns on forests, school sport, free school milk, the NHS and last week on sentencing policy too.

Sometimes George Osborne tries to claims that Labour’s spending cuts would be similar to his. But this is wrong on two grounds:

- first, because George Osborne is trying to eliminate the deficit rather than halve it – as he boasted in his Budget a year ago, with £40 billion more in tax increases and spending cuts than our plan set out;

- and second, because the Coalition ignores the fact that Labour was over-achieving on its balanced deficit reduction plan by £21bn – which would have given us some flexibility to scale back spending cuts or tax rises if necessary, while staying on course to halve the deficit.

So when I am asked in interviews, what would I be doing differently to cut the deficit…

…the first thing I say is that – in the words of the old farmer being asked for directions by a passing driver – I wouldn’t be starting from here.

And when I say we wouldn’t have put up VAT in January or we wouldn’t have scrapped the Future Jobs Fund and I’m asked how much that would have cost…

…I say the better question is how much has it cost us to lose the growth and jobs that George Osborne has sacrificed?

But if I am arguing that the evidence shows that George Osborne should change course - so what should he do now?

LABOUR’S PRESENT-DAY ALTERNATIVE – A BALANCED PLAN FOR THE DEFICIT, GROWTH AND JOBS

The decision now facing George Osborne is whether to:

- stick to his guns in the face of increasingly gloomy forecasts and hope for the best – but accept that he risks economic credibility, as well as growth and jobs;

- or accept the mounting evidence and move now to a more balanced plan that is credible and will work.

Labour’s plan a year ago was a balanced plan because:

- everyone paid their fair share – with a fair balance between rich and poor, young and the old, and – yes – bankers and the rest;

- there were fair, gradual spending cuts;

- the need to reduce the deficit was balanced with a proper plan for growth and jobs;

- and it was cautious, instead of a headlong lunge down a pre-ordained path.

That is why I believe it would have worked.

And I now urge George Osborne to adopt Labour alternative plan:

- radically slow the pace of deficit reduction;

- re-open the Spending Review and set out a steadier and fairer approach to spending cuts;

- and take-up the plan that Shadow Employment Secretary Liam Byrne and I have set out to take immediate action on jobs financed by a new bank bonus tax.

With the £2 billion that could be raised this year from repeating the bank bonus tax, we believe the Government should provide £1.2bn to fund the construction of more than 25,000 homes across the country. This would generate more than 20,000 jobs and several times more in the supply chain, and as many as 1,500 construction apprenticeships

He should establish a £600m fund for youth jobs. This would help more than 90,000 young people into work at a time when youth unemployment has reached almost one million.

And he should boost the Regional Growth Fund by £200m.

But I fear that George Osborne will bury his head in the sand for political reasons and stick to his spending plans regardless.

So I have another suggestion for the Chancellor to consider.

When the last Labour government temporarily cut VAT to 15 per cent for 13 months, he dismissed it, saying people wouldn't even notice.

He may not have noticed – but at the end of each month, millions of families did see extra money in their pockets, and thousands of businesses saw the difference in their bottom line.

As the IFS has said it proved an “effective stimulus”. And the economy received a much-needed injection which helped it return to growth, led unemployment to fall and saw the deficit come in £21 billion lower than expected.

So my suggestion to George Osborne is that, while he will not agree to reverse his mistaken VAT rise permanently, he should now reverse it temporarily until the economy is growing strongly again:

- By putting more money directly into people’s pockets, it would be a boost for consumers who are feeling the squeeze from rising prices and rising taxes – especially pensioners and those on low and fixed incomes;

- The inevitable increase in consumer confidence would help the struggling retail sector;

- It would help to push down inflation – and so reduce the risk of a recovery-choking interest rate rise later this year;

- And it would give the flat lining economy the jump-start it so urgently needs, boost jobs and help us get the deficit down for the long-term.

The question is not the cost to George Osborne of paying for this temporary emergency tax cut, but the price our country will pay if he carries on regardless.

Slowing down the pace of deficit reduction with a temporary VAT cut now would give the flat lining economy the jump-start it so urgently needs, boost jobs and be a better way to get the deficit down for the long-term.

CONCLUSION

So this is my conclusion:

- the path that our economy is being taken down is the wrong one, as the evidence is increasingly suggesting;

- it could prove very damaging for growth, for jobs, for public services, for living standards, for the deficit and for interest rates too;

- at the very least, it looks set to be a path of slower growth and higher unemployment than would have been the case;

- there is an alternative;

- it is more credible than the current plan, not less;

- and it is not too late to change course;

- but George Osborne must put the national interest first and stop trying to score cheap political points by blaming Labour for all his problems.

Of course I am not saying that we are without blame. I have been very clear in saying we should have been tougher in regulating the banks in government.

And I do believe the Vickers commission is a hugely important opportunity for Britain to get the future of banking regulation right – and to lead the global debate.

But trying to blame the deficit on Labour’s supposed wasteful public spending and fiscal profligacy – as the Conservative Party tried to do in last weekend’s Daily Telegraph – won’t work because it is based on total fiction.

The fact is that before the global financial crisis, Britain had a lower deficit and national debt than Labour inherited from the Conservatives in 1997.

The 2007 Spending Review showed the budget was moving into structural surplus – even with our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And it halved the growth of public spending, while setting demanding efficiency targets.

I do not believe blaming Labour is a viable economic or political strategy.

And neither is waiting.

Keeping your fingers crossed and stubbornly ignoring the economic evidence is no way to make economic policy.

But by doing so, George Osborne risks joining the ranks of Chancellors, Finance Ministers and economists who should have known better, but allowed political imperatives to trump economic realities.

Back in January 1991, explaining why the ERM would succeed despite Britain’s imminent slide into recession, John Lipsky said:

“There is so much political capital tied up in political and monetary union…It is hard to imagine any of the authorities giving up on their goals. By admitting the possibility of a shift in currencies as a policy option it may lower the sense of commitment to irrevocably locked exchange rates.”

He might almost have said: whatever you do, don’t talk about a Plan B.

And today, when I hear George Osborne refuse even to countenance a Plan B, I do not believe this is economic judgement at work – but a political gamble with the nation's economy from a Chancellor shaping his policies not around constitutional responsibility, sound economics and the protection of jobs, growth and homes; but around a fixed political strategy to win an election in 2015.

I spoke earlier about the staircase in No11 Downing Street.

There is another cartoon that I hope George Osborne has noticed.

It is the one chosen by John Major.

The cartoon by Trog – drawn in April 1990 – depicts the Chancellor at one end of a boat rowing towards the ERM, shouting ‘In In’.

From the riverbank, Nigel Lawson and the Governor of the Bank of England are cheering him on.

At the other end of the boat is Margaret Thatcher, desperately pulling in the opposite direction, shouting ‘Out Out’.

From drawn-out beginning to ignominious end, Britain’s membership of the ERM was a constant battle between politics and economics.

And when you consider it took John Major more than 15 years to even choose that cartoon, you can start to understand how deep the scars were.

But there are crucial differences between then and now.

First, George Osborne has a choice: this time he is not stuck in the ERM or the Eurozone.

And second, he cannot fall back on the argument that Labour supports his policies: this time there is a clear alternative.

When I said as much in my Bloomberg speech last year, it felt like the road less travelled.

Today, a few more voices are joining mine.

George Osborne cannot say he has not been warned.

We are now set on a path of slower growth and higher unemployment than was forecast just a year ago this week.

But he has a choice.

And as long as he is prepared to start putting economics over politics, it is not too late to change course."

GOVERNMENT FAILING IN ITS DUTY TO CUT CARBON EMISSIONS

2011-05-21T01:33:00.000-07:00

THE biggest challenge facing the future of the human race is how the world tackles the threat of global climate change.

But the seemingly insatiable desire for energy creates a real policy conundrum for governments in dealing with these potentially conflicting demands. The ostrich like behaviour of certain politicians is not a legitimate option though and represents a gross dereliction of duty.

Five years ago, Derby City Council agreed to a 25 per cent reduction in its own carbon footprint by 2011/12. And in 2008, when I was still leader of the City Council, I announced Labour’s ambition to make Derby a sustainable city by 2025 – self sufficient in clean green energy.

That same year, the Labour government passed the Climate Change Act. It was the first of its kind anywhere in the world and brought in legally binding annual reductions in greenhouse gases. It was meant to ensure the UK played its part in keeping global temperatures below danger levels.

But the swings and roundabouts of local and national politics have derailed the local, national and international progress that was being made. Labour’s attempts to put Britain at the forefront of international efforts to tackle climate change are now in jeopardy.

When Labour lost control of Derby City council in 2008, the Liberal Democrats abandoned Labour’s five year plan to cut the council’s carbon footprint by 25 per cent. The drive to make Derby self sufficient in clean green energy by 2025 was also sunk without trace and nothing changed when Derby’s Conservatives formed a minority administration last year.

When the Tory led government came to power 12 months ago, David Cameron said it would be the greenest government ever, but his actions have failed to match his rhetoric.

The much heralded Energy Bill that is currently before the House of Commons represents a colossal missed opportunity. The ‘Green Deal’, which is the bill’s central plank, isn’t even linked to any carbon reduction targets and offers the least help to households with the lowest incomes.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has adopted an illogical approach to tackling fuel poverty and climate change. He is phasing out Labour’s successful ‘Warm Front’ scheme and is effectively passing responsibility for fuel poverty to the energy companies instead.

But if carbon emissions from Britain’s homes are going to be reduced to enable the UK to meet the targets set by the Climate Change Act the government must do a lot better than this.

They also need to do more for the commercial sector too. For example, when I met representatives from East Midlands Airport this week, they spoke about their plans to make their ground operations carbon neutral by next year. They had wanted to use solar power to produce 36 per cent of the airport’s ground operations' energy requirements. But they have been forced to abandon these plans because two months ago the government slashed the feed-in tariff scheme that was introduced by the previous Labour government.

It seems this government is so obsessed with its austerity programme that it is incapable of finding a credible solution to the energy and climate change policy conundrum. By contrast, Labour stands ready to offer the necessary local, national and international leadership to deliver a low carbon future that is essential to our collective future wellbeing and prosperity.

NICK CLEGG CAN’T FOOL THE PEOPLE

2011-05-12T10:22:00.000-07:00

On the anniversary of this appalling coalition government Nick Clegg claims the Lib Dems have been a moderating influence on the govt.

But the Lib Dems have voted to scrap EMA, abolish the Future Jobs Fund, eliminate child trust funds, put an end to the health in pregnancy grant, impose unprecedented cuts in public services , triple tuition fees, increase VAT to 20 per cent, cut tax credits, slash funding for sure start children’s centres, reduce the winter fuel allowance and much more besides.

Mr Clegg and his band of quisling MPs who have betrayed everything they said their party stood for should realise that: YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT YOU CAN’T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.

The truth is, Nick Clegg is propping up the most right-wing Tory-led Government that the country has seen for more than 70 years, which is undermining our economy and destroying our communities.

There may still be three parties on offer, but there are only two directions for the future of our country. And it’s only Labour that offers a progressive, compassionate, caring and economically viable future for the people of Great Britain

DERBY IS CRYING OUT FOR LABOUR

2011-05-10T11:20:00.000-07:00

Following last week’s local election results, Derby’s Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should allow the Labour Party to take charge of the city.

The outcome of the elections saw Labour gaining three seats from the Conservatives and two from the Liberal Democrats, but the party remains four short of an overall majority.

Labour now has 22 councillors on the city council to the Conservatives’ 16 and the Liberal Democrats’ 12. But Labour has the moral authority to take charge of the council.

Across the city, Labour’s candidates secured almost 2,000 more votes than the Conservative and Liberal Democrats put together.

The only reason Labour didn’t win more seats is because of Derby’s electoral system. Unlike Nottingham and Leicester, where all out elections occur every four years, in Derby a third of the council’s 51 seats are elected in three out of every four years instead.

Derby stagnated under the leadership of the Liberal Democrats from 2008 to 2010 and hasn’t improved since the Conservatives formed a minority administration last year.

The city is crying out for a Labour local authority to stand up for Derby in the face of the massive cuts being imposed by the Tory-Lib Dem government.

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY - VOTE NO2AV

2011-05-03T08:06:00.001-07:00

AV wouldn't make any difference in safe seats. So that rules out about half the constituencies in the country.

AV accentuates landslide elections. Labour would have fared far worse in the 1980s and could have been virtually wiped out in 1983 and 1987 elections if AV had been in place. It was a long haul back from those disastrous results even under FPTP, but we made it.

It’s hardly any consolation that a similar fate would have befallen the Tories in 1997 and 2001.

Psephologists agree that the Lib Dems would be the main beneficiary of AV enabling them to be permanent kingmakers. Consequently AV could consign the country to long-term, if not permanent right of centre coalitions – like the current appalling administration.

I don’t like the notion that candidates who initially come third can eventually win – that’s not democratic in my book.

It is for these reasons that I will be voting NO to AV on Thursday.

I urge everyone who cares about democracy, who cherishes the public services that Labour has built up since 1945 and who believe in progressive social change to join me in voting No to AV.

The Social Mobility Agenda- Revisited

2011-04-27T03:11:00.000-07:00

By Professor Cecile Wright

We recently saw the launch of the Conservative Liberal Democratic government’s version of a social mobility strategy (1st April, 2011). Social mobility has been the policy goal of successive post-war governments- exemplified by the creation of the Welfare State in 1945. Over the decades we have seen the post- war consensus connected to this goal dismantled during the Thatcher/Major years and attempts by the Blair/ Brown governments to resurrect the rhetoric of social mobility (eg Alan Milburn Report, 2009).
It is observed that current discussions on social mobility or more aptly referred to by Simon Jenkins as an “another national debate on Britain’s favourite sociological topic, the class system”( Guardian(6th April ,2011,p33),and are often conducted without a rigorous assessment of the significance of its cognate term. Perhaps, an apparent assessment of the term may lead to the recognition that, even though research continue to show that large inequalities of wealth and income within a society damages the social fabric and quality of live for everyone (e.g the most recent Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level,2009),social immobility is inherent in the structure of British society.

In my recent co-authored book – “Black Youth Matters: Transitions from School to Success”(2010), raises the issue of how some individuals overcome their negative school experiences and “succeed”( regarding educational success and/or success in the labour market). This raises the issue of whether each marginalised group can necessarily succeed- the educational system and labour market are structured so this isn’t required. Hence social mobility is only possible for limited numbers. Are the 1 million young people currently unemployed to be regarded as surplus to requirement? At the same time a certain level of social mobility does occur.

This also raises the wider issue of the prominence that education is frequently given as being the major route for social mobility/social/economic advancement. Does greater access to Higher Education, such as we have seen in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years, result in greater social mobility?
There has not been a corresponding increase in social mobility matching the increase in numbers in Higher Education. The economic structuring of the job market appears not to be changing so fundamentally that graduates are required in vastly increasing numbers. No matter how much is invested in education financially without corresponding change in the job market ,social mobility will remain relatively unchanged.

This raises the issue as to an understanding of the meaning of social mobility. For economists it is a primarily a matter of increasing income. For sociologists it is a rise in occupational status. As such a useful definition is that provided by Aldrige(2003), “the movement of opportunities for movement between different social classes or occupational groups”. However, this raises further questions. For whom is social mobility possible? What are the possibilities for those living in a deprived inner city location? Who within the class structure can be given “opportunities for movement”? Are we referring to the traditional white working class, the so called “ underclass” or just the better off lower middle class? One suspects that the mindset of those with a social mobility agenda means little more than small numbers of non-middle class individuals gaining middle class social/economic status. What about those born into middle class families who become part of the top 10% of earners via ownership or professional group status? Is this social mobility of the type we are seeking to promote?

When one examines social mobility in both the USA and US Blanden et al (2005) find that of the eight highly developed countries the UK and US have the lowest levels of social mobility. The UK has similar levels of social mobility to the US but the UK position relative to the USA has declined over recent decades. It is suggested that social mobility in the UK has become limited. Blanden et al (2005) reveals a strong correlation between social mobility and income, inequality- i.e countries with longer income differences tend to have lower social mobility. In the later twentieth century social mobility in the US declined as income differences widened. But the issue is not only one of income inequality in the UK and USA but static real wages in the USA where real wages have not increased for many years. Increase in family incomes has occurred through either multiple jobbing or more family members entering the job market. So although family income may have increased in real terms with apparent improvement in social mobility this may not be the case for individuals. The last few years have seen no increase in real wages in the UK with a prediction from the Bank of England that this will continue for some years. Will social mobility grind to a halt? Income inequality looks destined to widen with the vast majority of the wealth created in recent years going to the richest 10%. An economic system that inherently leads to this situation cannot but allow only limited social mobility.

Such data may suggest that anyone may not be able to achieve a better social/economic position for themselves and their families by their own merits and hard work. Equality of opportunity essentially means the possibility of social mobility.

Merit, agency, self determination are important in social mobility but for relatively disadvantaged groups merit based factors are not sufficient in determining opportunities for social mobility. There are structural constraints/factors involved. The class structure is clearly a significant factor for many sociologists. Goldthorpe(2004) suggests that there is little evidence of changes in social openness in the UK despite a vast investment in education aimed at improving equality of opportunity. Despite this, it has been found that there has been downward movement for some groups in the class structure in the UK. Blanden et al (2005) demonstrate that expansion of higher education in the UK has largely benefitted people with richer parents but overall has led to a fall in social mobility. Furthermore as long as low pay dominates much of the service sector- millions of people are required as part time, temporary or casual workers- the chances for escaping from this type of work would appear to be minimal.

We therefore are led to the conclusion that “social mobility” is an unclear term and would appear to mean little more than certain individuals moving upwards through occupational/ class structure. Providing more opportunities in the education system does not appear to have any marked improvement in income inequality in the UK or USA with the economic system ebbing and flowing in and out of recession and public spending being cut for those in greatest need and benefitting those already wealth, clearly, issues of social mobility are not part of the government’s serious agenda.

References

Aldridge, S (2003). The facts about social mobility: A survey of recent evidence on social mobility and its cause. New Economy, 10, (4), 189-193.

Blanden , J, Gregg, P& Machin, S (2005). Intergenerational mobility in Europe and North America. London School of Economics, Centre for Economic Performance.

Goldthrope, J. (2004). Trends in intergenerational mobility in Britain in the late twentieth century. In R. Breen (Ed.) Social mobility in Europe(pp. 195-225). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milburn, A(2009) Unleashing Aspiration: The Final Report of the Panel of Fair Access to the Professions, Pub: Cabinet Office

Wilkinson, R, Pickett, K(2009) The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, Penguin Books Ltd.

Wright, C; Standen, P; Patel, T , “Black Youth Matters- Transitions from School to Success(2010), Routledge, New York.

CUTS WILL START TO BITE IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS

2011-04-20T10:02:00.000-07:00

It is now one year since the outcome of the General Election saw the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats form a coalition and embark on a programme of huge cuts in public spending.

Some cuts, such as the tripling of tuition fees and the abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowances, have received a lot of publicity while others have slipped through relatively unnoticed.

The austerity programme is set to last for another four years, but we have already seen decisions taken that will severely impact upon local people in Derby. Here are some examples of the annual costs of the government’s decisions on you and your family.

• The Child Trust Fund that was designed to provide a nest egg for children when they reach adulthood and was worth £250 has been scrapped.
• The rise in VAT will cost an average household an extra £275 each year.
• Removing entitlement to child benefit for people earning over £44,000 will see families losing £1,055 each year for the eldest child and £749 for younger children.
• The decision to freeze the value of child benefit will result in everyone else with children losing over £100 per annum.
• The abolition of the Health in Pregnancy grant will see new mums losing £190.
• The Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners will be cut this winter by £50 for pensioners under 80 and by £100 for pensioners over 80.
• The Future Jobs Fund that provided financial support to employers to take on young people has been cancelled even though youth unemployment has reached a record high.

Here in Derby Conservative and Liberal Democrat Councillors have agreed huge cuts affecting local people while simultaneously signing off a contract to spend £40m refurbishing the council’s HQ!

They are planning to close six Sure Start children’s centres, four youth centres, the Silk Mill Industrial Museum and recycling facilities around the city. They will also be reducing school transport, refuse collection and library opening times.
The cuts in funding for Derby City Council, Derbyshire Police and Derbyshire Fire Service will see well over 1,000 public service workers losing their jobs. This includes 670 council workers, 178 police officers, 23 PCSOs, 49 fire fighters and 148 non-operational Police and Fire Service staff.

These public service cuts will also impact on local businesses by taking demand out of the local economy. The full impact of that is yet to be determined, but it is likely to be significant. That is why people working inside and outside the public sector should be equally concerned about the impact of the coalition’s cuts.

With fewer people in employment, tax revenues will be reduced; social security payments will increase making it more difficult to reduce the national debt. This was evident at the last budget when George Osborne announced increased borrowing of £45bn.

GIVING PARLIAMENTARY TIME TO BLOODSPORTS AT A TIME OF AUSTERITY “BEGGARS BELIEF”

2011-04-08T12:19:00.000-07:00

Polling published by ComRes shows that 49% of members of the House of Lords would vote in favour of a repeal of the Hunting Act, while 43% would vote against. The charity that led the campaign to ban hunting says it is encouraged by a “massive shift” in peers’ views.

“Ten years ago, in March 2001, a bill to ban hunting failed by 317 votes to 68 in the House of Lords, and it took another three years to get the ban through. These new figures show how the landscape has changed – the balance of opinion in the Lords has shifted massively against hunting,” said Douglas Batchelor, chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports.

The polling shows that 85% of peers born since 1960 oppose hunting, compared with 40%of older members.

Figures published today by the League show that a vote in the House of Commons would be lost by a significant majority. 324 MPs have said they would vote against repeal whilst 261 say they would vote in favour. Those opposing repeal include 24 Conservatives. “There is a real sense of shift in both Houses, but with the government committed to a free vote on the issue we cannot be complacent,” said Mr Batchelor. “At a time when everyone’s facing hardship and cuts, it beggars belief that some politicians want to start legalising bloodsports that the vast majority of the public find abhorrent.”

“The modern House of Lords prides itself on really standing up for the views of the public and we have no doubt they’d see sense on this issue,” Mr Batchelor added.

Polling by Ipsos MORI in December found that 76% of the public support the ban on fox hunting, whilst 84% support the ban on hare coursing and stag hunting.

SCORCHED EARTH POLICIES EXACERBATE YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

2011-02-25T13:11:00.000-08:00

Last week’s publication of the latest youth unemployment figures made for highly depressing reading. In the last three months of 2010 youth unemployment increased by 66,000 to 965,000 and now stands at 20.5 per cent – the highest level since comparable records began in 1992.

The information about unemployment has come at a time when the Government is stacking the odds even further against young people making it more difficult for them to get on in life. By forcing children and families to bear the brunt of their cuts, this Tory-led Government is showing that they have no idea what pressure ordinary families and young people are under.

In spite of the dismal youth unemployment statistics, the Government is sticking to its decision to scrap the ‘Future Jobs Fund’ that made sure young people were guaranteed work or training. It is also cancelling a number of other schemes specifically designed to give young people a leg up. Child Trust Funds and Educational Maintenance Allowances are being abolished while university tuition fees are being tripled. Here in Derby, six Sure Start children centres are under threat of closure and almost 10,000 city residents have already signed Labour’s petition to save them.

These policies are being implemented even though, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister David Cameron, promised to protect young people’s services. He pledged to back Sure Start Children’s centres, keep Educational Maintenance Allowances, and continue to provide Child Trust Funds for children from the poorest families. But he has changed his mind and the long term consequences of Mr Cameron’s volte-face will blight the prospects for many young people in Derby throughout the course of their lives. His policies are making it harder for young people to continue in education, get a decent job and buy a home of their own.

When I was growing up with my peers, we were able to look forward with a sense of optimistic anticipation that we would enjoy greater opportunities and prosperity than our parents. Indeed that has been true for every generation growing up in the post-war era. But the policies being pursued by the current Government will make life a lot more challenging for young people. We are entering a period when, for the first time in post-war history, the promise of a better life to future generations will be broken.

Government ministers try to justify their scorched earth economic policy by saying they want to avoid passing on debt to future generations. But by insisting on cutting the deficit so quickly, their legacy is likely to be considerably worse, with long term mass unemployment, negative or minimal economic growth and emaciated public services. They should be investing to secure improvements in the quality of life for upcoming generations - something the British people have enjoyed ever since they elected the first majority Labour Government in 1945.

With the country now teetering on the brink of a double-dip recession, the Government should change course to offer hope to young people who are contemplating what the future holds. But there isn’t any sign of a change of heart. On the contrary, George Osborne seems determined to plough on with policies that will scar the lives of many young people long into the future.

The Government would do well to heed the words of the great Nelson Mandela who said: "There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.” The evidence of the last nine months shows that this Conservative-Liberal Government is quite clearly failing Nelson Mandela’s test.