Monday 5 July 2010

Why the Tories feel safe

Since May 6th, the Conservatives (I largely discount the Lib-Dems now, because they are now part of the Tory machine) have been in power and have already made savage swipes at our welfare system. Although the Tories once insisted frontline services would not be affected, we are regularly hearing each day of redundancies in our schools, hospitals and police forces.

Despite this, a recent MORI poll for the Economist showed the public viewed Osborne’s Budget as one of the six best since the 1970s. Even more disturbing is that fact that now the Tories are languishing on a 40% share of the voteand Labour is largely unchanged since the election – even though our public services are now seriously under threat.

Several reasons spring to mind to explain this bizarre situation. Firstly, it seems the public are satisfied to bury their heads into their hands and assume “if it’s not affecting me, then it’s OK”. So, if you aren’t unemployed, or living on little more than a basic living wage, then you may feel you are not being dramatically affected by the recent austerity measures. Indeed, evidence from a number of think tanks suggests large numbers of people now classified as middle class will only experience a minor change to their standard of living, so there is some truth to their analysis.

What these people fail to see is how the next round of cuts, expected in the autumn, will affect us all. All pointers suggest the cuts, along with VAT increases, will substantially change the way many of us live our lives. Our hospitals will be less efficient, our schools will have more children in each classroom as the number of teachers is reduced, with less police officers on patrol there will be more crime. Oh ... and the skill level of our workforce will deteriorate as the government and private sector fail to invest in training and skill development. All of this happening in a nation with constantly rising unemployment.

Now you may wonder why Labour hasn’t been doing more to expose this to the electorate. After all, there is a leadership election on and it offers an ideal time to flaunt our more radical policies as we expunge ourselves of the New Labour project. Unfortunately, the entire election process has been taken over by the ‘management team’ at Victoria Street, leaving most party members and, it seems, the broader public disillusioned by the entire process.

If you don’t think the candidates are being stifled by the party machine, then ask yourself why is it the candidates are either absent, or silent at PMQ every Wednesday? It’s all very well each of them organising a petition to oppose some aspect of Tory policy, but why are they not shouting from the rooftops – this is wrong! A few tweets each day and the odd television appearance are pretty half-hearted measures.

Instead, we are forced to endure another three months of Harriet Harman as acting leader – a political lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. Thank goodness parliament goes into recess in a couple of weeks – at least we won’t have to face the agony of watching Cameron systematically destroy her. Her pleas of “he isn’t answering the question ...” are starting to bore even the most dedicated Labour party member and I am almost beginning to assume it will never get better.

I was one of those people who argued for a long debate over the summer to decide on our future leader, but I am starting to question whether I was right. The hustings are a joke, offering no real chance for the candidates to debate the issues and instead they only allow them to roll out bland ‘non-statements’ of where they stand politically.

David Miliband is fighting for the centre ground and seems destined to win, so is already being crowned by many, even before the vote. Ed Miliband is vying for the soft left vote with his “I wasn’t in parliament, so you can’t blame me” approach – pretty weak as he was and adviser and then later a member of parliament during the period – so his hands are just as tainted as any of the other candidates. As for Ed Balls, well he hasn’t really said very much, other than how he wants to blame all those nasty immigrants for taking our jobs – a bit unfair perhaps, but it isn’t far off the truth. Poor old Andy Burnham seems to have already acknowledged he is one of the runners-up and hardly makes a peep in the hope he can appear the strong, silent type.

Good old Diane Abbott was set to carry the mantle of the left and if she is the best we can offer, then we had all better pack up and go and play dominoes. Let’s be frank, her defence of sending her child to a £10,000 per annum private school is indefensible, even though we may understand why, as a parent, she felt it necessary. More importantly, raising the subject at every husting is dreadfully boring – and seems to achieve very little. If only she would just shout out mea culpa and be done with it.

With all this in mind, is it any wonder Cameron feels confident? If Labour fails to get its act together in the next few weeks, we can look forward to the Tories being in power not only for the full term of this parliament, but for the next as well. So, our MPs and leaders must be held to account. We should be asking why there is no real debate in the election hustings. Why are the candidates not attacking Cameron at PMQ? Why are MPs not joining with our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to mobilise opposition to the cuts? And how can we rescue the party before Harriet Harman and all the old guard from the New Labour era edge us towards disaster?

Above all, we must see RESISTANCE!

Thursday 1 July 2010

Are the left so 'loony'? - A response to Guido Fawkes

In an attempt to be controversial, but more likely done to retain his readership, Guido Fawkes has condemned the suggestion by Bob Crow that trade unionists and activists should engage in direct action to oppose this government (see http://order-order.com/ - “The Loony Left is back”).

In a rather feeble attempt at humour, he accuses Crow of calling for a general strike – an interesting idea, but what Bob was arguing for was something far more necessary – the engagement of all workers within the political system. Now surely, if Fawkes is the democrat he purports to be, he will not object to the politicisation of the masses?

Admittedly one of Crows’ suggestions did include the notion of general strikes, but realistically that cannot happen until the majority of working people have combined under the banners of the trade union movement. So Fawkes can at least relax over his blueberry muffin, the revolution isn’t going to start outside Woolworth’s at 3pm this afternoon!

Membership of trade unions was at its highest in the 1970s when it reached over half the workforce, but post-Thatcher this has declined to approximately 25%.
A number of reasons explain this level of apathy/ disenchantment:

• There has been a general decline in manufacturing industry in the UK. Most union organisers would agree that trade union activity is often easier in factories where there are large numbers of people on one site compared to retailing. In any one store there may be relatively few staff – a factor that has made arranging meetings of employees more difficult.
• Over the last thirty years there has been an increased trend by managers to deal with employees on an individual basis and move away from collective bargaining.
• Since Thatcher there has been an increased participation of women in the economy due, in part, to the growth of the service sector as well as the growth of part time and temporary employment opportunities; these are not traditionally strongly unionised sectors and unions have found it hard to recruit within them.
• Courtesy of Thatcher, legislation in the 1980s reduced union power.

So, if the working class are to ‘man the barricades’ as Fawkes fears, the first job will to be educate and inform them about the key issues. Some will be immediately obvious – rising unemployment, higher levels of poverty and increased homelessness. But what many will not recognise is the link between these scourges on our society and the actions of the Tories and their Liberal lapdogs.

Crow was right when he spoke to the RMT union congress and said, “We cannot sit back and wait while a generation is consigned to the scrap heap and made to pay the price for the mess left behind by the zombie capitalists who dragged the country over the cliff”. He may not like the term ‘zombie’ but what are they, if not a rabid, blood-sucking curse on modern society.

Perhaps Fawkes would prefer it if members of the left gather around in polite little circles, gently applauding the more moderate aspects of new policy emerging from the coalition. Maybe then he would not be so offended when David Miliband stands up and demands a 50% tax rate for the higher paid. Fawkes had better start facing facts – the ‘Loony’ left as he calls them not only are back, they never went away ... and now that the New Labour project is history we will continue to grow.

If this is the best Fawkes can do, he might find himself better suited amongst the Liberal Democrats.

Wednesday 30 June 2010

Has the forward march of Labour been halted?

Recently, Tim Mongomerie of ‘Conservative Home’ fame and the co-founder of the Centre for Social Justice has suggested the Conservative Party is about to drift to the left. Early indicators from the budget would imply he is completely off-track, but is this a reasonable assertion?

Leaked government documents have now revealed they are anticipating an additional 1.3m people unemployed over the next 5 years, but against this, they anticipate the private sector will introduce 2.5m new jobs over the same period. The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development have argued Coalition predictions are unrealistic and unachievable and this view has been supported by many others, so the Tories could find themselves in trouble.

If this is the case, we can safely assume the trade unions and opposition parties will actively work towards discrediting government strategy. Over the next few months the campaign to expose the unfairness will increase and it is likely to lead to considerable unhappiness amongst the electorate. If campaigns such as “Right to Work” are successful, it brings into question how long the alliance between the Tories and Liberal democrats could last.

The Tories have two possible strategies they could adopt. Option one is take a hardline neo-Thatcherite approach that directly confronts the unions and opposition until finally the steam is sucked out of the campaign and the country ultimately returns to an even economic keel. Most would argue this is a dangerous course, but certainly one that would be welcomed by right wingers in the Conservative party. If they fail, the Tories would be out of power for years, but if they won, they would be in government for a generation.

On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats have the capacity to exert a moderating influence on the Tories over the next few months. This allows the opportunity for option 2 where the Lib Dems could effectively stunt any opposition campaign organised by the Labour party by helping to move the Conservatives leftward and thus more radical and socially aware.

Until May 6th there was a general feeling amongst the electorate that politics was dead and the difference between the two major parties was negligible. During the run up to polling day, Labour Conservatives and Liberal democrats fought for the soul of centrist politics and once the votes were counted, it was the Tories and Lib Dems who had won the argument. Hard to believe? Just remember how Cameron kept talking about how he believed in a caring Conservativism. Even the notion of the “Big Society” has a tinge of radicalism in it, with its links to New Labour communitarian politics.

It is right the Tories should control the centre ground – let them have it. We, as a democratic socialist party should have nothing to do with a middle of the road agenda, but instead, should be entrenching with the aim of moving the party forward and leftward.

Those leadership candidates who hint at support for New Labour policies should be dismissed out of hand – they are liberals, anxious to shift us along the moderate, wishy washy path we have taken for the last thirteen years. We must have no time for it! Now is the moment to urge our leaders to adopt firm socialist policies in direct opposition to this capitalist supporting coalition.

What is more, socialists should be looking at Osborne’s budget and recognising that in it is the ideological desire to devastate the working class and push them under the thumb of poverty and oppression.

So far all the leadership candidates have offered a limp image of how they wish to see the party move in a direction that cherishes the good parts of New Labour, and tweaking our policies to tackle a period of opposition.

No. We cannot afford to just have a few cosmetic changes in policy, whilst hanging onto the political spin of the Blair/ Brown years. We need root and branch reform and this should include:

• Party conference should be the sovereign policy making body.
• Closer links between local councillors and the shadow cabinet.
• A mass recruitment campaign to rebuild the party membership.

Of course, it goes without saying that politically the party should also be campaigning on a platform of -

• No cuts to jobs in public services.
• Higher rates of income tax to those on higher pay.
• Make the bankers pay for the deficit through taxation.
• Mass nationalisation of our transport network.
• Welfare to work programmes should emphasise support, not punishment and should be run by the public sector, not private, profit-making international companies.
• Restore all cuts to benefits.
• Stimulate the economy through investment support for small/ medium size businesses.

We have a great opportunity in this leadership debate to completely turn the Labour party around, but so far it all looks rather bland and grey.

Tuesday 29 June 2010

The price of dogmatism

In a briefing paper prepared for Unison and the TUC, Tim Horton and Howard Reed systematically threw aside Osborne’s last claim to imposing a progressive Budget on this country. In the report, the authors showed how the average annual cut in public spending on the poorest tenth of households is £1,344, equivalent to 20.5% of their household income, whereas the average annual cut in spending on the richest tenth is £1,135 or 1.6% of household income.

Now it doesn’t take a genius to look at these figures and soon realise how low-income households are going to be the ‘net losers’ over the next few months. This is something Labour was saying before the election and has consistently shouted from the rooftops since. It’s the typical Tory game – when the going gets tough – the working class will pay.

Remember all that talk about ‘we will protect front-line services’, well now that’s going down the tube too. Already the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers has acknowledged the cuts will impact on frontline services and although he felt 28,000 job losses amongst police officers was ‘alarmist’ he (and Nick Herbert, the policing minister) was forced to admit things would be harsh over the next few months.

Precisely how many grave diggers, Police support workers, hospital cleaners or social workers will lose their job remains uncertain, but with 750,000 jobs due to go, we can be certain a good number of frontline workers will lose their jobs.
Of course, the Tories would say I am being over the top and that many of these people will find jobs in the private sector. One has to wonder how they hope to attract private enterprise into each of the regions when today they announce the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. Take for example Advantage West Midlands (one of those RDAs) – they generate £8.14 for every £1 we invest in them.

Now in an area where unemployment is running at 9.3% and unemployment in the 18 -25 year bracket is running at about 26%, that isn’t a bad return on your investment.
The West Midlands needs investment and the support of our RDA as there continue to be a number of areas where the recession has impacted badly on communities - Bridgnorth, Cannock Chase, Newcastle-under-Lyme, North Warwickshire, Staffordshire Moorlands, Tamworth and Wyre Forest, while urban areas (e.g. Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent) have seen the largest total increases in unemployment; rural areas (e.g. Wychavon) and some market towns (e.g. Uttoxeter, Whitchurch) have experienced larger proportionate increases in unemployment. Some of the more rural wards are seen as vulnerable because of a reliance on one employer, or because of a large proportion of residents commuted to other areas and worked in vulnerable sectors (Source: Hansard, 2009).

And if the Government scrap the RDAs, how will they ensure there isn’t a mismatch within locality or region between work skills and job availability? Can we assume that private enterprise will self regulate in such a way as to ensure that throughout the country more jobs become available in equal measure across all regions?

There is no sense to these cuts. They are based on ideological whim rather than need and it will be people who will pay the price. It remains to be seen how many people Cameron will see thrown onto the scrapheap before he can sleep peacefully. To prevent this happening the government have consistently argued their flagship Work Programme will be the ‘cure all’ aimed at getting people back into work. From the outset they have insisted it will be adequately funded and in line with Cameron’s open government, we know it will cost the country between £0.3bn and £3bn. Now call me cynical if you must, but is it only me that can see a huge discrepancy between the two figures? Are they really saying they don’t know the real cost?

As the days turn into weeks this government and its right wing policies are almost laughable and would be if the strategies they intend to employ didn’t hurt people so badly. We can only hope they disappear into the wilderness very soon.

Monday 28 June 2010

Is the Party over?

Over the last few days a number of commentators have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Osborne’s budget was regressive, attacked the poorest sector of our society and is destined to force another 1 million people out of work. All this at a time when this country is still reeling from the effects of a banker induced recession.

It wasn’t the fault of the poor, the single parents, the people in social housing, students or the low paid that this country went into recession. Nor was it their fault that the structural deficit is now so high. Yet, with typical Tory ambivalence, Osborne has targeted the weakest sectors of society to pay for the indulgences and mistakes of the richest.

And where are the Lib Dems? Apparently nowhere. Last week Simon Hughes indicated that some Liberals would table amendments to the budget to make it fairer – unfortunately, he has now tried to back pedal from this and looks likely to now toe the line. I recently read in Pat McFadden’s blog the following, and I attach it here purely because it describes what is happening so correctly.

The picture of Simon Hughes issuing warnings about the future reminds me of that Monty Python sketch where the knight is having his arms and legs chopped off and after being rendered limbless says something along the lines of , “right, any more of this and I’m going to get really annoyed”.

So where are the Liberals these days? What has happened to their supposed radicalism? Was it really so easily bought? Sixteen years ago the Libs were call for £10 million to be pruned off the civil list; today they support the Conservatives and keep it intact. In the post war years the Liberals called for greater levels of industrial democracy and compulsory profit sharing; but in the budget their direction changed – away from workers and towards the bosses. No doubt their iincrease of the threshold of £2m on which capitalists will pay just 10% capital gains tax, instead of the main rate of 18% was undoubtedly well received by the fat cats in the City.

Remember, this is the party that over the years has fought for penal reform, legalising cannabis, an end to student loans and local taxes. If the Liberal Democrats ever had any ounce of radicalism in their soul (and this now has to be questioned) it died the moment they signed the coalition agreement. Now all we have is real Tories and wannabe Tories ... and sooner or later we will see the two parties either amalgamate, or large numbers of Libs leaving to join their natural home in the Conservative party. The few left will either join Labour or try and sit in the centre ground under the still struggling Liberal party.

Evidence for this was apparent from Ed Miliband’s YouGov survey which now shows only 16% of the electorate support Clegg and his followers. Over the coming months, as the cuts start to bite this downward trend is certain to continue and bring about their demise.

As someone who started their political life in the old Liberal party and then moved to Labour, I will not mourn them.

Thursday 24 June 2010

The need to build mass action

Of course any sensible thinking person is going to be opposed to the cuts proposed by ‘Snatcher’ Osborne and his Lib Dem cronies, although I confess it is good to see at least Simon Hughes is looking a bit guilty. However, the big question is what are we going to do about it?

Unison and PCS have already said they intend to fight for their members whenever jobs are under threat and the Labour party should offer wholehearted support to any campaign organised by the unions, including industrial action if it occurs.

Let us not forget, we ‘sold out’ when it came to the miners strike in the 1980s and left thousands of working men and their families politically isolated, although there were a number of notable and courageous exceptions (Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner etc). As a result, the Tories annihilated entire communities, forced thousands onto the dole queues, destroyed the mining industry and left hundreds of other workers without work because the company they worked for was forced to close because the local pits were no longer producing coal. We must not make the same mistake again.

This fight against the cuts is going to be tough. Cameron is not going to give in easily and those who think Tuesday was harsh need to prepare for something 5 times worse come the autumn. Some are already estimating he will try and lop off another £13bn off the welfare benefit bill and if he does, it will be pensioners who will be the first to suffer. Already there are indicators the Winter Fuel Allowance is under threat, but there will be worse behind it.

Already the long-term unemployed living in rented accommodation have been attacked and in the months to come many will find themselves in debt, or homeless. Similarly, if you are poor and pregnant you will no longer be looked after as you were under a Labour government.

We need to make a firm stand. Yesterday Alistair Darling broadcast his response to the budget – it was accurate, it was reasoned, it was fair - but it lacked passion. It could have been delivered by a chartered accountant, not a socialist.

If we are going to convince people to join this struggle we will need to have passion. It is not enough to leave the fight to the unions and for parliamentarians to take the higher ground. We need to be prepared to get our hands dirty. This involves organising a mass movement with local, regional and national activities taking place. We have to show ordinary men and women we have not forgotten them – that Labour does care, that we will stand and fight for their rights whenever they are under threat.

Remember the CND campaigns of the 1980s? Remember the Anti-Nazi League? Did they rely on deep-seated reasoned argument? Yes and no. Yes there was an intellectual base to their approach, but it relied on people standing under a common single banner – united and willing to fight for what was right. We have to build that new mass movement once again.

If we don’t, what is the point in calling ourselves socialists and organising under the banner of the Labour party?

Wednesday 23 June 2010

Post-Budget Blues

The first day since the 'Emergency' Budget and all I have heard today is a constant stream of Tory hype. If this isn't watered (or maybe not so watered) down Thatcherism, then I don't know what is.

The Chancellor tells us it was a progressive Budget, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies say it was regressive. Cameron wants me to be leave it was tough, but fair - and then I read that VAT is up to 20%, long-term unemployed will have their housing benefit cut to 90% after a year, child benefit is to be frozen for three years, and Sure Start maternity grants will only go to the first child. So please, Mr Osborne, tell me where is the fairness?

Where is the fairness in a budget that taxes the lower paid and adds 2.5% to their cost of living. Explain how it is just to cap housing benefit and if their rent is above the limit, they must lose their home or become homeless. Where is it right that benefits will increase in line with the consumer price index, whilst the unemployed, the sick and the low paid, those in most need can barely afford to feed themselves and their families.

Perhaps I should ask the public sector workers who now face a two-year wage freeze and the risk that three-quarters of a million now face the risk of redundancy? Or perhaps I should go and talk to the pensioners, who once again have been trampled on.

No, I think I will find the answers I need if I talk to the bankers, who will still enjoy their obscene bonuses. perhaps I could talk to the private landlords who overcharge and abuse their tenants and then when they sell their houses, only pay 18% tax

You and your Liberal friends tell me you want a fair and just society. Can you wonder why I find it hard to believe you?

Monday 21 June 2010

How the Tories are trying to fool us.

Each day further evidence becomes available suggesting actions being taken by this government against ordinary working people are based on a desire to reduce the role of the state. These cuts have little or nothing to do with the size of our economic problems, or the national debt.

Central to their argument has been their consistent campaign to “trash” the economic strategy of Alistair Darling and the previous Labour government. What they fail to admit is that figures now emerging clearly show Labour was ‘on target’ to tackle our financial problems – and all whilst keeping everyone in jobs and not reducing frontline services.

The Labour government, in their last Budget, estimated Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) would be £166.5bn in 2009/10 and projected borrowing would fall from £163bn in 2010/11 to £74bn in 2014/15. Subsequent figures, now released by the Tories, have shown borrowing in 2009/10 was actually only £156.1bn - $10.4bn below forecast.

When the Office for Budget Responsibility published their first report earlier this month, they produced lower forecasts for net borrowing in 2010/11 and for every year to 2014/15, though they failed to acknowledge these forecasts were based on the Labour government’s plans and NOT as a result of any Tory cuts.

Admittedly the OBR did forecast the structural (or cyclically adjusted deficit) will be a little higher than expected in the next Budget. In the Labour budget, Alistair Darling predicted the structural deficit would be 7.3% of GDP in 2010/11 and dropping to 2.5% in 2014/15. The OBR estimates suggest this could be closer to 8% of GDP in 2010/11 and 2.8% in 2014/15.

What the Office of Budget Responsibility and the Conservatives lamentably failed to admit is these differences fall well within normal margins of forecasting error and offer no evidence to suggest Labour was mismanaging the finances.

Tomorrow’s Budget
The Tories have already said in their Coalition Agreement “the main burden of deficit reduction [will be] borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes”. There has yet to be a clear statement from Osborne on what the likely ratio between cuts and taxes will be, but the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) have argued this could be as much as 4:1, compared to the 2:1 ration proposed by the Labour government. This would imply we can expect Osborne will begin his assault on public spending by implementing cuts of up to £60bn and tax increases of approximately £15bn.

The Tories have already said they will protect NHS spending, so cuts will have to be found elsewhere. Clearly they will not be found by efficiency savings alone, and although scrapping ID cards will be welcomed, it will only account for a small part of the total. Despite Tory protestations, frontline services will have to be cut.
Evidence of this comes from the fact that Tory and Liberal deficit hawks regularly cite the Canadian experience, as if it was a model of ‘best practice’. What they don’t make public is how the Canadians savaged healthcare and sacked thousands of nurses, increased the size of classes in their secondary schools and virtually ripped the heart out of their armed services.

If frontline services are cut, as now seems probable, the poor and vulnerable will undoubtedly suffer and if you add to this their intention to increase VAT to 19.5 or 20%, then you effectively raise the weekly bill every worker has to pay out each week. In an analysis of Tory proposals, the IPPR demonstrated how the poorest 10% of the population would have about 2.1% less disposable income each week, compared to only 0.9% per week for the richest 10% of the population. A case of the Tories looking after their own again?

George Osborne has said Britain is on the “road to ruin” unless he implements swingeing cuts tomorrow. What he is really saying is that he will ruin the lives of thousands of ordinary working class people and turn their lives into misery and squalor. As Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC said: "Getting the fundamental budget judgment wrong will increase unemployment, particularly among young people – a million of whom are already on the dole – and hit the vital public services on which low and middle income households depend."

There will be few people looking forward to the Chancellor standing up in the House of Commons tomorrow.

Friday 18 June 2010

Are the new stock of MPs all lightweights?

Is it me or do readers agree and think the new bunch of MPs are a pretty lacklustre lot? Admittedly, they have some real characters to follow, so perhaps I am being a little unfair to expect them to burst out of their bubbles so soon. But the trouble is, this country needs a solid debate about politics once again. The election took away tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee politics – now there is clear evidence of a chasm of difference between the two major parties.

The Liberals have always been a bit wishy washy, but you could usually count on Simon Hughes, Charles Kennedy or Lembit Opik to stir things up a bit. Of course now they’ve been silenced by their leadership and now they are all sitting on the green leather like good little Tory lapdogs, waiting for Tory Central Office to tell them when they can speak.

And it’s not as if the Tories are that much better. Remember Anne Widdicombe? Now if ever there was a right-wing bruiser it was her. Despise her if you will, loathe what she stood for, if you must – but ignore her at your peril. Anne was a truly formidable Tory MP and brought a certain vibrancy to the House of Commons. Sadly, many like her left in the last parliament and have been replaced by political lightweights likes of Jeffrey Lefroy. Who? Well, you wouldn’t be unique if you hadn’t heard of him – his presence in the House hasn’t been overly-significant.

Or what about Dan Byles, the new Tory MP for N. Warwickshire and Bedworth, who’s maiden speech was so scintillating that it even bored local Tories so much, they took it down from his website!

But for me, the weakest of the maiden speeches has to go to Ian Mearns, the Labour MP for Gateshead. Now, you would expect a solid area like Gateshead to produce a good working class lad, ready to fight oppression and injustice. Did we have a hint of the shape of things to come? No – we got ....

"She's a big lass and a bonny lass and she likes her beer.
And they call her Cushy Butterfield and ah wish she was here."

Hmmmm – I’ll bet that went down well in the local Labour Club amongst the politically hardened women of the North.

What we need to see in the House is oratory of the standard of Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn ... and dare I mention his name? Gordon Brown. These are the political heavyweights who are capable of taking on the likes of Cameron Osborne and Cable. The Tory front bench is pretty good; Cameron has been pretty good at the despatch box, but he has yet to have had a really devastating attack from Darling, Balls, Miliband or Abbott. George Osborne is very weak and can be picked off easily and it is really just a matter of time before he curls up and goes crying into the corner.

Let’s hope we have the talent in amongst our new crop of Labour MPs a sizable number who are capable of politically ripping out the Tory heart of this government

Thursday 17 June 2010

What hope for the West Midlands?

The last Regional Economic Strategy for the West Midlands offered a vision of a more prosperous region, making more full use of skills and talents and correctly valuing the natural, historic and cultural assets of the area whilst seeking to minimise use of the planet’s resources and preparing for a low-carbon future.

Unfortunately, since this vision was published in 2006, the region now has a headline Gross Value Added (GVA) figure of £84,838 million (7.8% of UK total). This equates to a GVA per head of £15,812. (Source: ONS). In addition, approximately 240,000 people were unemployed between February and April 2010

The sections of society that have seen the greatest increases in unemployment are those aged 16-24, those with no qualifications, and males. Unemployment in the 16 - 24 age group was 18.6% in July to September 2008, twelve months later it was 26%. Whilst unemployment had been higher among ethnic minorities before the downturn and still remained high (unemployment among non-whites in July - September 2008 was 15.1% and twelve months later it was 19%) the most dramatic increase had been among young, white males, albeit from a lower base.

The local authority places most at risk were Bridgnorth, Cannock Chase, Newcastle-under-Lyme, North Warwickshire, Staffordshire Moorlands, Tamworth and Wyre Forest. While urban areas (e.g. Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent) had seen the largest total increases in unemployment, rural areas (e.g. Wychavon) and some market towns (e.g. Uttoxeter, Whitchurch) had experienced larger proportionate increases in unemployment. Some of the more rural wards were seen as vulnerable because of a reliance on one employer, or because of a large proportion of residents commuted to other areas and worked in vulnerable sectors (Source: Hansard, 2009).

During this Parliament, David Cameron has indicated legislation will be introduced to establish an elected Mayor on Birmingham (and possibly Coventry and Wolverhampton). An already declared candidate for the Labour nomination is Sion Simon, the previous creative industries minister. Politically, Birmingham should be a comfortable win for the Labour party if results from a mayoral election replicated parliamentary performance. However, the council has been controlled by a Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition since 2003 and this should help to make any election more competitive, with an overall likelihood that Sion Simon should become the first elected mayor of Birmingham.

With an existing budget of £1.3bn and anticipated cuts over the next two years of £100m, including £12.6m from Be Birmingham, the council-led partnership responsible for coordinating the assault on unemployment, crime and social deprivation, the next two to three years will be problematic for any newly elected mayor.

The Labour Party must become far more proactive in combating these cuts. It will not be enough to hope the coalition collapses before the end of its full term, or that local councillors will be able to create a defensive line to prevent the pruning from taking place. We need to organise opposition within the broad left and trade union movement. Part of this should be to organise demonstrations, rallies, lobbying and petitions, as well as offering full support to trade unionists facing redundancy.

Today the government announced £2bn of cuts as a result of closing a variety of services (including extension of Young Person's Guarantee to 2011/12 - £450m and the two year Jobseeker's Guarantee - £515m). If we don’t start acting soon it will be too late and we will begin to see a return to Thatcherite Britain.

Wednesday 16 June 2010

'Basher' Paxman stifles the Labour hustings

Having sat through the Jeremy Paxman roadshow last night, I was left wondering why it was hailed as a Labour leadership hustings. Twenty prospective Labour voters were bundled into a studio and forced to endure 30 minutes of Paxman demonstrating why he is one of the most unlikable political commentators in the UK.

At the outset he implied the audience would be given the opportunity to question the candidates on their policies and views on a variety of current issues. When it came down to it, none of this happened and all we had was ‘Basher’ Paxman interrupting the candidates every time they tried to answer a question.

Unequivocally, he had his favourites and Ed and David Miliband were given a much easier ride as well as more time to put their view forward. Ed Balls also had a fair bit of air time but was harangued by ‘Basher’ for his links to Gordon Brown and his refusal to stand against him – has ‘Basher’ never heard of loyalty?

Poor Andy Burnham looked scared stiff throughout the entire proceeding and never really managed to move off the starting line. In his delivery he sounded wishy washy and barely managed to sound like he was engaged in the entire process. Oh .. and a silly question. Was he wearing too much make up? He looked like way too orange .. like he’d been Tango’ed.

Diane Abbott managed to battle through ‘Basher’s’ inherent sexism and put forward some interesting points, but because she was stifled on so many occasions, it did little to move her forward. ‘Basher’ steered the debate in such a way as to allow David and Ed Miliband (Tinky Winky and Laa Laa) to organise a pincer movement against her, but she’s too astute a politician to fall for it. One thing though, why does she always use the line “I’m not like the other people up here”?

Finally, in the programme, David Miliband said he wanted more powers to be devolved to English local government outside of London. Good point – but then he went and spoiled it by saying Labour could not argue against the vacuous notion of “Big Society” because we are too associated with the centralised state and, according to him, that explains why Labour won just 10 seats out of 213 in the three Southern English regions. Has he been taking happy pills? We should be breaking down this whole Tory idea of the Big Society. Besides, wasn’t it Cameron’s big pal, Maggie Thatcher that said there is no such thing as society?

Ed Miliband also called for greater power for local government and used local bus services as his example. He might like to try visiting Great Haywood, just outside Stafford. Our local bus service is a joke and no matter how much you complain, nothing happens. Is this enough for me to vote for Ed “Laa Laa” Miliband? Ummm – I don’t think so!

With all her weaknesses, I am sticking with Diane. She’s increasingly showing herself to be stronger, more clear-minded and more focused on where the Labour party should be going over the next few years. Above all else, she’s not afraid to say where she stands on policy issues.

My one big hope is that in the next televised debate Andy Burnham finds his start button and helps Diane prevent this whole leadership contest becoming the Ed and Dave Miliballs show.

Tuesday 15 June 2010

Unemployment - Do the Con-Dems know what they're doing?

A Political Overview
As the Coalition government settle into their roles it is becoming increasingly unlikely the two parties will breech their agreement and bring about an early general election.

Several reasons help support this notion:

• Neither of the two major parties will be eager to enter into a new round of campaigning after having spent between £3 – 4m during the last campaign and with their financial backers hesitant to give more so soon.
• The electorate are unlikely to change their existing voting pattern for at least the next 12 – 18 months and by that time the budgetary restriction shortly to be imposed by George Osborne will have impacted, probably meaning the coalition will be at its lowest popularity.
• David Miliband is likely to be elected leader of the Labour Party in September, 2010 and the hierarchy are unlikely to want to push for an election until he has had a chance to develop and bring forward a new team (with Ed Balls a likely contender for Shadow Chancellor).
• The fixed-term parliament ties members of the coalition to being in government for 5- years and they might squabble during this time, there are no serious breaches imminent.
• It is now apparent many previous prospective parliamentary candidates would be willing to stand again if a snap election was called in the next two years, but would be unlikely to stand in May 2015. This option is likely to be favoured by the Miliband team as it will help to eradicate elements of the New Labour project and allow for a new influx of candidates more attuned to centre left values.

Over the last few months David Cameron has shown himself to be much more of a political heavyweight than was seen in the run up to the election. His presence at the dispatch box has been formidable and he has shown himself to be a hard-hitter when confronted by accusations from the opposition benches. Equally, Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have proven to be much stronger than first suggestions would have implied, although the Lib-Dem leader will need to play a cautious role now with Simon Hughes recently elected to the deputy leadership. Cable has a commanding presence and his knowledge of economic issues is unquestionable – what remains unclear is how he will emerge as he reinvents himself from being a Keynesian to a more traditional deficit hawk.

Economic factors
In their Pre-budget forecast, the Office for Budget Responsibility suggested the economy would expand 2.6% in 2011, down from the 3 – 3.5% estimate given by Alastair Darling in the March Budget. They also predicted that the public deficit would fall from 10.5% of GDP in 2010 – 2011, compared to the 11.1% estimate of the last government. Underlying these forecasts is a fundamental belief that World GDP is set to rise by 4% in 2010 and world trade will increase by 6% this year and 6.25% in 2011. These figures should be read cautiously, as the World Bank have indicated global GDP is projected to increase by 3.3 percent in 2010 and 2011, and by 3.5 percent in 2012.. However, should current uncertainty regarding developments in Europe persist, outturns could be weaker. A high probability alternative baseline, characterized by an accelerated tightening of fiscal policy across high-income countries, would see a more muted recovery, with global GDP expanding by 3.1 percent in 2010 and by 2.9 and 3.2 in 2011 and 2012.

Additionally, the OBR Report suggests CPI inflation is expected to fall to around 2.25% by the end of 2010 and then stabilizing at around 2% by the end of 2012. Alternatively, the Bank of England suggest inflation could drop to as low as 1.3% by 2012 (with a potential high of approximately 1.6%).

The Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecast the Public Sector Net Borrowing (PSNB) is £3 billion less than in the March budget largely because of lower forecasts of social security spending. According to the London Stock Exchange, recent months have shown some signs of improvement in the public finances, with tax receipts picking up after a prolonged period of weakness. Analysts at the Stock Exchange expect these trends to continue, although both measures of public borrowing in May are still forecast to be higher than the same month last year.

Unemployment
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has an annual budget of approximately £139bn and account for 24.7% of all civil service staff, although this has been reduced recently by George Osborne by £535m (0.38% of the total budget) and further cuts will be implemented under the departmental spending review this autumn. Only 26.6% of DWP staff work in London, with the remainder scattered throughout the country. At the present time it is impossible to gauge the extent of future cuts, though analysts are estimating anything from 2.5% to 7.5%. One of the pressures faced by DWP is the fact that social security payments for the unemployed alone account for £12.5bn (assuming the existing level of approximately 2.51 million people unemployed). If you add to this the estimated 700,000 additional numbers out of work suggested by some economists and this is increased by a further £3.57bn. In effect this could result in a situation where the DWP budget is pruned to £128.5bn and the social security payment increased by anything up to 28.5%.

Evidence currently being utilized by the government is proposing that labour market indicators are stabilizing. This is based on the fact that the International Labour Organization (ILO) unemployment rate has been broadly stable for the past year at or below 8% and the claimant count has fallen in five of the past six months (the NAIRU rate adopted in the UK for ‘full employment is 5.3% unemployed). However, these assumptions ignore several critical issues that will emerge over the coming months:

• 2.6 million people, now on incapacity benefit will be reassessed and there is a belief that as many as 40% of these people could be added to the unemployment register, accounting for slightly over 1 million new claimants.
• Even without these additional claimants, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development has forecast an additional 450,000 new claimants by 2012 and this figure will remain until 2015. Other analysts have extended unemployment as rising up to 700,000 new claimants.

If these forecasts are accurate – and there is compelling evidence to support their conclusions – it mean the government prediction of achieving 1milion unemployed by the end of 2014 is ill-founded and unachievable.

All of this begs the question - have the government truly thought out their strategic plans to how they will deal with unemployment during this parliament. Existing evidence offers little to no assurance they have done their homework.

Monday 14 June 2010

Carers must not be ignored

It seems there is going to be an early day motion put before the House of Commons on the issue of cares and caring. It says:

That this House calls on the Government to make an early statement on its policy intentions toward carers; notes the selfless hard work and commitment displayed by the approximately six million carers in the UK; recognises the incalculable difference carers make to the lives of their loved ones; acknowledges that carers save the country an estimated £87 billion each year; and supports an immediate review of the current carers allowance level.

If this government sticks to the same patterns as previous administrations it will pay lip-service to this much underrated group. In 2005 I was asked to investigate how many young carers existed in one local borough in the UK. Before conducting the research I asked how many they thought existed and they said there were approximately 17 scattered throughout the borough, but they admitted their figures were possibly a little on the conservative side.

Over a month I (and my team) interviewed several hundred people and discovered the figure was closer to 160 young people! Pretty outrageous by any standards, but not oversurprising when you look at the lack of awareness nationally about the extent of carer numbers.

Now, I have to admire this council for their bravery, because they invited me back – this time to explore how many older carers (people over 65) existed in the borough, with a responsibility for looking after someone with a learning difficulty. Again their figures were ridiculously under the mark and the actual number was closer to 9 times greater than the one they first indicated.

What this means in practice is that services are seriously underfunded and result in carers being unable to access respite facilities, support groups, or other aids that could make their own lives so much easier. For example, I wonder how many young carers are sitting GCSEs or AS/ A2 level examinations right now, whilst worrying about the disabled parent they left behind at home before walking to school or college. I certainly know of one young man who will soon sit an exam and before leaving home will cook breakfast for his mother, get her up from bed and settled downstairs. Then, after the exam he will rush to the local supermarket, buy the groceries and then rush home by lunch-time in order to get his mother some lunch.

A pat on the back is no longer enough for these people – they need recognition, support and financial assistance. As a matter of principle, the Labour Party should make the issue of carers and caring a central issue in it’s social welfare campaign, with policies reflecting the urgent need to establish adequate respite facilities for all carers and for them to have up to 12-weeks respite a year; an income or welfare benefit that is, at least, consistent with the statutory minimum wage; and, fully-funded carer support groups and young carer groups, with sufficient staffing to support carers in a manner appropriate to their needs and wishes.

A new Labour leader will hopefully promote a socialist vision of our society – this cannot be achieved if we ignore the needs of our carers.

Friday 11 June 2010

A beautiful game - or a new opiate for the masses?

I am convinced that intrinsically there is something innately wrong with the human mind. Put a lump of leather into some unsuspecting human’s hand, fill it with air and then tell them to kick it around a field – and you start an obsession.

The trouble with obsessions is they become infectious, affecting entire nations, who, in turn, tend to ignore logic. Take the current World Cup, where South Africa has spent approximately £4bn in order to promote and run the event – in the hope it will be able to secure only £3bn in income.

Or what about our own London Olympics, now destined to cost the UK an estimated £10bn - and the anticipated income? £7.2bn.

Now call me a cynic if you will. Accuse me of being a killjoy if you must, but when the Tories in the UK are bleating on about a £156bn deficit that requires us to all work together and draw in our belts, one wonders who is being required to make the sacrifices.

After all, once the Olympic Games are over, 750,000 extra people are likely to be on the dole, so they won’t be able to afford to use the facilities. But we shouldn’t worry. After all, the fact there remains a chronic housing shortage in London under dear Boris is a mere technicality – we can be confident the 3000 rough sleepers in the city will feel so much better for having so many sports facilities.

Let’s face it, the reality is that most working class folk won’t be able to afford a ticket anyway – the cheapest tickets will be £15 and will go up to £50. With the axe falling across all services and inevitable tax increases,I wonder how many redundant civil servants will be sat in the stadia? They’ll have the time, but maybe the cashflow will be a little tighter in two years time.

Sadly, this kind of lunacy has now dribbled through to South Africa. Tonight thousands of fans will be sat drinking in the clubs throughout the country, handing over wads of rand notes across bars. Meanwhile, approximately 57% of individuals in South Africa live below the poverty income line. Limpopo and the Eastern Cape had the highest proportion of poor with 77% and 72% of their populations living below the poverty income line, respectively. Approximately 5.9 million people in South Africa live with HIV and this year alone it is anticipated that a further 70,000 babies will be born body positive and with insufficient funds available to establish a prevention and treatment programme, this is not destined to improve in the near future.

As long as the fans can close their eyes to the inequality, the poverty and the disadvantage, it should be a magnificent tournament.

Thursday 10 June 2010

Education! Education! Education! ... But only if you pay.

The Tories have stated they think students are a burden on taxpayers – is this because they haven’t forgiven them for taking such a vociferous stance against Maggie Thatcher in the 1980s? Or maybe they believe that as the cuts dig deeper, UK students will be unlikely to sit lethargically on the sidelines.

More likely, Willetts' view represents the harsh reality of Tory educational policy – enhance division, establish elitism and oppress working class kids so they know their rightful place.

Francis Bacon once argued knowledge is power and it is quite clear that when the working class are allowed access to educational opportunity, they quickly understand the nature of oppression and set about becoming active to destroy the chains controlling them. Notably, the Tories say they are intent on imposing cuts, but they refuse to abolish the charitable status of private schools, thus saving half a billion pound over 5-years.

With all the errors of the last Labour government (and there were many), one of the highlight of 13-years of power was the increased accessibility of higher education. This will be eliminated at a stroke if Willett’s has his way and imposes increased student fees. One can only hope the National Union of Students , UCU, Unison and other trade unionists campaign against these oppressive moves.

The UK once had a proud array of higher education establishments, but due to lack of funding many are showing signs of decay. Rather than address this, the Tories will take matters further and impoverish many of the newer universities as well as a large number of working class teenagers who access their facilities.

It is wrong to remove opportunity from ordinary working class people wrong, it is unjust and it must be opposed.

Wednesday 9 June 2010

Diane Abbott, the left and the leadership campaign

The news today that John McDonnell has chosen to stand down as a candidate in the Labour Party leadership contest raises a series of issues on the state of left-wing politics in this country. Even if he had chosen to continue, it seems unlikely he would have secured the necessary 33 nominations that would have allowed him to move forward to the next stage.

This is despite the fact he managed to secure the support of a number of trade unions, including RMT, BFAWU and Unison United Left. However, within the Socialist Campaign Group (the group most likely to carry John through to the next round) there was obvious division when Diane Abbott announced her own candidacy.

It would be easy to blame Diane for John’s demise, but in her defence, it was reasonable of her to want a woman and someone from an ethnic minority in the leadership hustings. Indeed, it is the very essence of our party rule book that we should positively encourage this to take place.

In a reply to a question I posed to Diane about her splitting the vote, she replied: “There always was a tendency to say that if women stood it split the vote. I think that there is the politics that I’m on the left, and have as good a voting record on left wing issues as John McDonnell, but there’s another issue which is about gender. It’s not so much that I stood against John, but that John stood against me.”

Now I think it is a matter of semantic as to whether John stood against her, or she stood against him – but the fact remains the left were not strong enough to sustain the candidacy of two strong nominees.

Why? Well it would be easy to lay the blame on Tony Blair and his Third Way approach that resulted in the stripping of Clause lV. It would be convenient to blame it on the undemocratic nature of party conference. And of course, it would be simple to blame the demise of the left on a savage campaign by the political right since the time of Neil Kinnock resulting in the departure of good socialists like Dave Nellist, Arthur Scargill, Ricky Tomlinson and George Galloway.

As important as all of these issues were, they are only a part of the problem. Undoubtedly, the shift in political culture after 1997 did little to help the left, but we cannot legitimately sit here and blame someone else for something we allowed to happen. After the demise of Clause IV, the party haemmorraghed members at a rate that no party could endure, least of all the Labour Party.

At the same, the left failed to fully engage with new technologies, which resulted in the left losing a vital avenue to outline its views. In days gone by members of the public would walk along any High Street and see vendors selling “Socialist Organiser”, “Socialist Worker”, “The Socialist” or, of course, “Morning Star”. But the hard left split and divided – the Communist Party, once one of the bastions of the labour movement fractured into so many pieces that few, if any, can truly understand the difference between them. Similarly, groups like Socialist Worker Party linked with Respect to create an united front .. then once they started to become a cohesive force, decided to split. As for the Respect Party itself, well Galloway’s appearance on Big Brother did little to promote their credibility as was shown in the last election.

Similarly, rather than stay and fight within the Labour Party, Arthur Scargill chose to leave and form his own party – the Socialist Labour Party. Unfortunately, although he was true to his word and helped develop a sound socialist manifesto, the party failed to achieve any significant results and is now largely in decline.
Finally, the left have failed to unify under any common themes – CND, although still active has failed to smobilize radical forces in the same way as it achieved in the 1980s; the Anti–Nazi League has gone and its successors United Against Fascism and Hope not Hate have done a sterling job in minimize the virulence of the BNP, but again haven’t managed to draw the left into a mass movement. Even the Iraq issue and the Stop the War campaign with the stalwart of modern socialism, Tony Benn at its helm have not managed to unify activists from a broad range of groups, as we saw in the Thatcher years.

Indeed, the sad but real fact is that although Tony Benn has campaigned endlessly for socialist causes, he is not the man he once was – the reality is Tony is getting older and understandably slower. He needs to be allowed to retire with dignity and respect and for a new generation of socialist campaigners to take over carrying the banner.

I mean no disrespect to Tony – he has done more than anyone and I stand in awe of him and his political analysis. If the labour movement is to truly respect Tony, we should carry on his fight … and fight with the same passion he has shown!
If the left are to have any chance of success in the future we will have to organize at two levels. Firstly, this should be through the normal democratic process with activists engaged at all levels of power – holding office in local branches, CLPs, trade unions, local authorities, county councils, national assemblies and the House of Commons.

However, there is another dimension of activity demanding our urgent attention and this is the extra-parliamentary route. The new coalition is intent on destroying our public services, pushing thousands into poverty, misery and unemployment. The left must oppose this! We should be mobilizing under the banners of the People’s Charter and the Right to Work Movement, whilst at the same time, encouraging the trade union movement to activating and organizing their membership to oppose these cuts wherever they occur.

The coming years will be hard – of this there can be little doubt, but we can win. If we refuse, we risk a Cinderella complex where we will always want to go to the ball, but never taking the risk and thus missing the chance of kissing the prince (who, of course, being a democratic socialist immediately renounced his title and redistributing his wealth to the poor).

This leadership election is the first stage in that process. We must put our differences aside and wholeheartedly support and endorse Diane Abbott and look to her to lead our party back to its socialist roots.

Tuesday 8 June 2010

How the Coalition ignores the unemployed

Already the coalition is starting to show signs of attacking our hard earned welfare system. Over the coming months, 2.6 million people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit will be reassessed and ‘judged’ as to whether they are fit for work. Now accessing IB in the first place is not exactly easy and requires the co-operation of a GP, so one can only assume the Con-Dems are unwilling to accept medical opinion because they want to get these ‘skivers’ back to work.

Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.

You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:

“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.

Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.

Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?

If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:

- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work

It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.

Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.

So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?

Will they revitalise British industry? No.

Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.

Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.

But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.

But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.

Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.

Monday 7 June 2010

The Con-Dems and our economy

In a speech today David Cameron indicated his proposed cuts in spending would ‘unite rather than divide’ the people of this country. An interesting analysis from our esteemed Prime Minister and a point of view I am confident will come to haunt him for many months to come.

According to Cameron the current National Debt is all the fault of the last Labour government and had little or nothing to do with global recession. By any stretch of imagination this is preposterous. Is he truly expecting us to believe that the collapse of the banks in the UK had no effect of our national finances? Is he honestly expecting us to believe that the consequences and current demise of globalisation had no effect on British industry? Apparently so.

In his speech he indicated the current budget deficit is 11% of GDP, amounting to approximately £770bn and would mean that if left unaddressed, interest on this debt would amount to £70bn – more than we would be spending on climate change, transport and schools. However, let’s break these figures down a little. The last Labour government spent £85bn on education (of which schools was a part and under a Labour Government, real spending on education was due to rise by an average of 2.5 per cent a year from April 2009 to March 2011), just under £25bn on transport and just recently the Department of Energy and Climate Change confirmed that after Osborne’s cuts their budget will be £1.05bn. Now, I am no mathematician ... but when all these figures are added, they do not make £70bn.. so is Cameron trying to con us?

The Lib Dems are not much better. Before the election they were talking about gradual cuts for the next year to allow the economy to grow, but now they are sucking up to the Tories they have changed their mind. Now they are saying things are really bad and we must act immediately. Interestingly, if we take Cameron/ Alexander’s figures reported today of interest repayment being £70bn and a national debt of £770bn, it rather begs the question of why the Con-Dems were so desperate to implement departmental cuts of £6bn. If their figures are to be believed, Osborne’s cuts amount to a minor ripple in a huge lake. In other words – they were a cosmetic political ploy to trash Labour’s economic strategy whilst emphasising how they would solve the economic trials of this country. Cheap by any standard!

The simple realities are clear and have been stated in other entries in this blog, but let me briefly reiterate. In 1945, the national debt stood at 216% of GDP and in 5 years the Labour government built a welfare state, established a National Health Service, free at the point of demand and established a major rebuilding problem to address the chronic housing shortage as a result of several years of bombing. Conversely, today the national debt stands at 11% of GDP and yet Cameron wants to implement harsh savings in government spending.

These cuts will bring back the austerity years of the Thatcher era (a point obviously recognised by some Lib-Dems) and will result in substantial increases in the number of people unemployed, along with more houses being repossessed, more individuals and businesses forced into bankruptcy and a significant decline in front-line services.

The Labour Party must be at the forefront of the fightback to defend these services and should work co-operatively with the trade union movement to develop a clear strategy to support public service workers in their defence of our services. In parliament we should expect that Labour MPs resist every attempt by this reactionary government to cut hard-earned services offering critical support to the weak, the needy, the sick, the old and the unemployed.

At the same time, activists should join together to lobby MPs, match on demonstrations, support the People’s Charter and the Right to Work campaigns and petition Cameron to end these savage cuts.

The question is – have we become so apathetic that we sit and watch the Tories savagely decimate our services, or will we stand and fight?

Saturday 5 June 2010

Another example of homophobia

Earlier this afternoon a group of gay people were refused a drink at the Greencoat Boy pub in London, purely because they were gay. Unfortunately news of this has yet to be broadcast by the BBC or SKY - and if their track record is consistent, it is unlikely we will see anything anyway.

Nonetheless, Twitter is starting to buzz with the nes and some activists are encouraging those opposed to anti-gay barrings to contact the brewers and demand action is taken to prevent this happening again.

If you are of such a mind you can contact the brewers at - guestservice@punchtaverns.com

It is technically illegal to refuse custom to someone because of their sexuality, but with the statement before the election by Chris Grayling (remember the guest houses should be allowed to bar gay couples)and now this, we are seeing increasing action against the gay community.

The Labour Party should be helping ensure that there is a constant vigil to maintain the human rights of all gay people. The candidates for the leadership should now publicly call for action against the manager of this pub and demand additional protection to ensure gay people are protected from this kind of abuse.

There can be no place for homophobia in this country and we must oppose it in all of its malevolent forms.

Friday 4 June 2010

Zionism and the Palestinian Cause

I am a Zionist. I make no apology for it, for it is a belief I have held for most of my adult life. Over the years there have been times when it hasn’t been politically convenient for me, as a left-wing socialist to hold such views – now being one of them. But what am I to do? Deny how I feel? Dismiss my ethnic heritage and link with Israel? Pretend I have no understanding of the problem? No – I have a moral responsibility to stand for what I hold to be true and face my opponents.

Having said that, I am no supporter of Netanyahu or any of his Likud cohorts – it is largely because of their intransigence that we have the problems we now face. His unwillingness to sit around a table and negotiate with both Fatah and Hamas is both ridiculous and dangerous. It has led to Israel developing a thoroughly entrenched position where IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) troops guard a wall that keeps

Palestinians out and Israelis in; all at a cost that the country can ill afford. At the same time, these forces are employed to maintain a blockade along the Gaza strip, thus preventing humanitarian aid (medical equipment, clothing, shelter etc) to reach the 1.5m people under siege from this oppressive force.

So why is Netanyahu doing it? Sadly he has the mistaken belief that if he holds out, the people will rebel against Hamas, their elected representatives - and in a demonstration of contempt and hatred, out Hamas from government. History is against this. Take for example Britain in 1940/41 - Germany was all-powerful in Europe and the blitz was devastating London, Coventry and other cities. Food supplies were limited and the entire war seemed to be lost, but almost the entire nation stood united against a common enemy. And we all know how the story concluded.

It is the same in Gaza. If Israel oppresses the Palestinian people and prevents humanitarian aid from reaching the suffering. it will result in Hamas becoming stronger and more deeply embedded in Palestinian society – and it will almost certainly encourage Islamic militancy that will, in itself result in increased terror attacks within Israel territory.

This is not to suggest Israel alone is at fault, for currently there is a game of political ping-pong taking place. The Israelis organised and carried out an unjustified attack on the Gaza flotilla (although evidence is now substantial the ships were not manned by peace protesters as first suggested by pro-Palestinian groups) resulting in at least nine people being killed. With the exception of 8000 tons of building materials, the humanitarian aid on board these ships was transferred from the ships to Gaza for distribution – but Hamas have said they will not accept it. Why? According to the Gaza authorities they will not take possession until all the prisoners have been released. Now, with 1.5 million people needing help they prefer to make political capital about the fact that Israel have been slow, and a little bureaucratic in processing prisoners and deporting them from the country. You think they are slow doing this? Ask an Israeli how long it takes to get a passport or a driving licence.

The problem here is the two countries have two essentially right-wing governments intent on playing rutting stags with each other and, as always, it is the people who suffer.

If Zionists and Palestinians are to live together, they will need to compromise. Unfortunately, international supporters of the Israeli and Palestinian cause tend expound partisan views that do little to help further the cause of peace and often add fuel to the fire. Conversely, one or two brave members of the Knesset regularly try to find a balanced middle road. Take for example Haneed Zuabi MK, who sailed aboard the Mavi Marmara and when she returned to the floor of the Knesset was accused of being a traitor. Ms Zuabi demonstrated a rare example of bravery that should be internationally respected and applauded. She has never wavered from her support for the Palestinian people, yet at the same time is happy to call herself an Israeli citizen. This is the kind of compromise we need – the kind where the two peoples can live side by side where Palestinian rights are recognised and honoured, whilst Israelis are allowed to live in peace and security.

In order to achieve that, both sides (and their allies) will need to demonstrate something that has been missing from the Middle East conflict for a very long time – tolerance and understanding.

Thursday 3 June 2010

Human Rights and where Labour went wrong

If you want to understand some of the reasons why Labour lost the last election then take a look at the headlines in today’s “Morning Star”. Now this is not a newspaper with a large circulation and frequently its editorials have been at odds with the broad general consensus. However, on this occasion the issue they raise habe been followed up in many of the broadsheets (I think we can safely dismiss the red-tops as only being useful to keep your chips warm).

Baha Musa was a 26-year old hotel receptionist living in Iraq ad who was arrested by soldiers from the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. During their ‘interview, Mr Musa suffered a total of 93 injuries whilst being held at the UK operated detention centre in Basra.

Sadly this case was not unusual – a further nine complaints were received of abuse of prisoners by British forces at the Majar-al-Kabir base near al-Amarah and four soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were found guilty of abusing looters. In the case of Baha Musa, one soldier, Corporal Donald Payne, pleaded guilty to inhumanely treating prisoners, but was acquitted of manslaughter – he was dismissed from the army.

Now we hear news that Adam Ingram, the former minister responsible for the armed forces between 2001 - 2007, misled parliament by denying British forces hooded detainees as an interrogation technique. In a written response to a question in the house, he said: “The UK believes that this is acceptable under Geneva Conventions but I should make absolutely clear that hooding was only used during the transit of prisoners. It was not used as an interrogation technique”.

Regrettably, breaches of the human rights of terrorists captured by UK forces are not uncommon. Take the case of Liam Holden, the last person in the UK who was sentenced to be hanged, who insisted that he made the confession only because he had been held down by members of the Parachute Regiment, whom he says placed a towel over his face before pouring water from a bucket over his nose and mouth, giving him the impression that he was drowning. Holden, a Roman Catholic, was 19 and employed as a chef when he was detained while at his parents home in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast in October 1972 during a raid by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment. Apparently acting on a tipoff from an informer, the soldiers accused Holden of being the sniper who, a month earlier, had shot dead Private Frank Bell of the regiment's 2nd Battalion. Bell had just turned 18 and had joined the regiment six weeks earlier. He was the 100th British soldier to die in Northern Ireland that year.

When Holden came to trial in April 1973 he told the jury he had been playing cards with his brother and two friends in a public place at the time Bell was shot. He said that after being arrested in his bed the soldiers had taken him to their base on Black Mountain, west of Belfast, where he was beaten, burned with a cigarette lighter, hooded and threatened with execution.

The Labour party has always tried to portray itself as the party of the underdog, the weak and the oppressed – yet repeatedly there have been cases reported where suspects held by UK authorities have suffered serious infringements of their basic human rights. This was, and always will be totally unacceptable and should have never happened. In the latter years of government, the leadership under Blair, and later Brown became complacent and complicit in barbaric acts against suspects.

More disturbingly, one of the current leadership candidates withheld information from parliament and the people because of fears that if he did so “it would have violated an intelligence-sharing agreement with the United States”. I am, of course, referring to the Binyam Mohamed case where David Miliband held back information about the interrogation procedure – Mr Mohamed later revealed that British spies interviewed him during the time he alleges he was having his chest and penis cut with a scalpel and stinging liquid poured into the wounds, and that they passed on detailed personal information about him to his torturers.

Hardly the kind of actions one would expect from a potential leader of the Labour party and certainly not the behaviour of someone now wishing to portray himself as all-listening and all-caring.

We can only hope the party membership sees through the spin and glitz and recognises him for what he is – another example of New Labour revisionism with no apparent passion for human rights or civil liberties. If we fail, we risk having a leader who not only ignores the lessons from the past, but perpetuates the errors in the future.

Wednesday 2 June 2010

Israel and the Flotilla

For the last two days most of the newspapers in the UK led with the story of the attack by Israeli Defence Forces on the Gaza flotilla. In their reporting most of the articles correctly pointed to the questionable legality of boarding of the aid ships in international waters. No doubt legal experts will debate this issue for some time to come before the general public will be able to gain a clearer picture.
What is apparent is that in the incursion nine people were killed by soldiers boarding a ship carrying humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Understandably, the Israeli government have been at great pains to portray themselves as the ‘good guys and girls’ and tried to suggest the crew and passengers on board were all Islamic terrorists intent on the destruction of their country. Whether this is true or not is an irrelevancy and should not be dignified with a response. The facts are simple – people died whilst engaging in legitimate political activity – and no matter what Israel, Netanyahu or the pro- Likud press may say, there can be no justification for their death.

If Israel is retain any level of dignity following this tragedy it must immediately hold an independent inquiry with representatives from the United Nations being allowed full access to all information relating to the raid. If, as a result of this inquiry, it is judged Israel acted illegally, or without due care to legal process, then criminal proceedings should be brought against Ehud Barak, as the Defence Minister responsible for authorising the attack, along with any others identified.

Equally of concern is the video footage of the military attack, where pro-Palestinian crew members and passengers are seen using clubs (including a suggestion by Israeli sources that some of these instruments included iron bars) and repeatedly beating soldiers as they boarded the ships. Again there can be no justification whatsoever for this action and the campaigners did nothing to further their cause by resorting to violence, no matter how badly provoked. Their defence of their ship by ‘beating up’ soldiers (who, like themselves are ordinary working class people) lacked the same level of legitimacy as the actions by Israel Defence Forces. Should an international inquiry be convened, it would be incumbent upon them to clarify whether the actions were ‘as shown’ on the video footage. If the inquiry found these accusations to be accurate, every effort should be made to identify the perpetrators and if they have been returned to their country of origin, extradition proceedings should be implemented in order to prosecute those accused.

Two further issues need to also be mentioned. Firstly, if Israel was determined to stop the Gaza flotilla, this was arguably one of the worst cases of bad military planning in their history. Even the most naive strategist would acknowledge that the people on board were passionate campaigners who would instigate every means to prevent military forces from completing their mission. Dropping soldiers one at a time onto the decks of the ships was, at best, foolhardy and ill-conceived and, at worst suicidal. If the aim was to take control of the ship, the military forces should have attacked in large numbers in order to quickly stifle opposition.

Political leaders in Israel have already acknowledged the fault does not lay with the military commanders – if this is so, there should be some serious reshuffling of ministers in the Israeli cabinet, along with the immediate resignations of Barak and Netanyahu.

All this assumes of course that it is correct and proper for Israel to prevent humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza strip. Such an approach is fraught with considerable difficulties. The Israelis and the USA have repeatedly supported the blockade on the basis that many of the ships entering the area are taking in weapons that will later be used by Hamas militants. If this is true, there is a very simple solution. UNHCR does not have a good track record of recognising the legitimate rights of the people of Israel. Nonetheless, if they gave them responsibility for administering an aid package to be delivered by Israeli and Palestinian welfare services such as Magen David Adom and Red Crescent - and independently monitored by the United Nations, several repercussions would immediately occur.

1. A natural dialogue at community level would occur between Jews and Palestinians
2. Hamas would lose much of its legitimacy as an anti-Israel/ anti-Zionist organisation because the electorate would see Israel was willing to change.
3. The reactionary Likud coalition would lose much of its authority as Israelis started to realise many Palestinians have simple, but legitimate needs.
4. Out of this aid programme could come a new beginning, with a basis for the creation of a bi-national peace accord between the two countries – both working for the mutual benefit of the other.

On Monday, Israel showed the world that violence rarely solves anything. The people of Palestine still have no medical aid, they have an inadequate water supply and innocent children regularly survive on poor standards of food and ineffective shelter. Equally, Israelis live under the constant threat of attack from Palestinian terrorists or worse, one of the nearby Arab nations. At the same time they have now found themselves largely isolated, having been described by many as a pariah or a rogue state.

For two nations populated by so many highly intelligent men and women it it bizarre that they have yet to realise it is time to put down the guns – and time for Zionists and Palestinians to listen to each other – and compromise.

Tuesday 1 June 2010

A future for the unemployed

Last week George Osborne cut £535m from the Department of Work and Pensions budget at a time when currently 2.51m (542,000 of these are classified as having been long-term unemployed) people are registered as unemployed and a further 8.16m people identified as inactive. Furthermore, Ian Duncan Smith has indicated that 2.6m people currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit will be reassessed and those available for work will be transferred onto Jobseeker’s Allowance. He estimates that approximately 50% of these people will be added to the overall unemployment figures. Thus with 3 weeks of being in government the Con-Dems have managed to ensure we will have 12m people out of work, with possibly a further half a million to follow as the cuts start to take effect on public services.
Additionally, it is now known that 7.67m people are currently employed on a part-time basis, many of whom opt for this type of work because they are unable to secure full-time employment. The government, for its part, welcomes people taking this approach as it helps keep unemployment below 8% (Source: Office of Labour Market Statistics).
The Con-Dem approach to tackling unemployment remains vague and tomorrow, Chris Grayling, the Minister of State at DWP will meet with private training providers such as Serco (infamous for their running of Yarls Wood immigration detention centre) and A4e to outline how any new programme might work. We already know it is their intention to scrap all existing welfare to work programmes, such as Flexible New Deal, Future Jobs Fund, Pathways to Work and Flexible Routeways. We also know these will be replaced by the Tory flagship provision – Work Programme.
The only clear issue is that the funding arrangements for the new provision will differ substantially from all previously run contracts. According to plans already outlined, training providers will only be paid when someone has been in a sustainable job for 12 months. The existing mechanism allows for a training provider to claim a small service fee in order to cover costs and the balance paid once a person has been in employment for 3 or 6 months (depending on the contract). This will change under new measures and will be replaced by a mechanism where providers will generally only receive a payment when the ‘client’ has been in employment for a year – an approach that will clearly mean smaller providers and third sector organisations will be unable to bid for these lucrative contracts. The effect of this will be that local organisations who have an intimate knowledge of their area and the needs of the communities they serve will be substantially ‘disenfranchised’ because of Tory commitment to centralising services and their fascination with ‘big is beautiful’.
The government rationale for the Work Programme is that it will be cost effective to contract independent training providers to deliver this provision. However, the government seem to have failed to recognise a key flaw in their strategy. The total number of job vacancies for the period February – April, 2010 was 475,000, whilst the number of jobless people potentially seeking work for the same period was approximately 11m. Whichever way you look at it, the figures don’t add up. Understandably the Tories and their lap dogs, the Liberal Democrats, have been hesitant to suggest how training providers will be expected to create jobs.
In order to tackle unemployment in this country it is critical a number of key issues are addressed:
• First we need to create a substantial house building strategy to tackle the critical need for homes in the UK and address the high level of unemployment amongst those working in the ‘trowel trades’. This would include the creation of 1m new homes each year for 5 years and would be under the auspices of local authorities through social housing trusts and would offer employment to approximately 750,000 people.
• Introduce a series of programmes to tackle the high level of unemployment amongst young people – including restoring the Future Jobs Fund and introducing a significant apprenticeship programme in order to offer 250,000 new apprenticeships – automatically cutting youth unemployment by a third.
• Nationalisation the banking and finance industry in order that profits from these companies can be used to rebuild our industrial base. Further savings could be achieved by scrapping the Trident programme and reinvesting the money saved into local business initiatives.
• Renationalisation of the rail and postal system to protect existing jobs and rebuild our transport infrastructure. This would include a massive investment in improving our rail network
• Through the creation of worker-owned co-operatives and other common ownership programmes, establish a coherent industrial policy to support the establishment of a competitive and technologically advanced engineering industry in the UK. We were once one of the foremost industrial nations and this was allowed to slip into decline under Thatcher, Major and later by Blair.
• Develop ecologically friendly energy sources – wind farms, wave, solar etc. These new technologies would help establish many new jobs and add to the wealth of local communities.

This approach, whilst openly and unapologetically socialist in its emphasis, would tackle head on the issue of rising unemployment. Of course, critics would argue we can’t afford it right now because our national debt is so high, but in 1945 our debt was 216% of GDP compared to 51% today and a post-war Labour government initiated polices that by 1951 had created full employment.

If we could do it then – we can do it again!

Monday 31 May 2010

Why did the Deepwater Disaster happen?

Over the weekend the headlines have being overwhelmed by the media 'cleansing' David Laws and largely ignoring how Danny Alexander broke the rules laid down by his own party leader. At the same time, the people of Louisiana are preparing for one of the biggest ecological disasters they have ever had to face as between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels of crude oil pour from the BP oil disaster.

The latest attempt to plug the oil leak, "Top Kill", which started last Wednesday, has now failed and latest indicators are that the company will attempt to sever the pipe at the well and lower a container onto the blowout preventer. If this occurs, the tanker will have no other alternative other than to relase the pipe and allow the uncontrolled oil to spew back out into the ocean. It seems BP hope that from this they will be able to transfer much of the leaked oil onto a tanker on the surface.

However, there are several problems with this plan. Firstly, it is not a cure and (even if it works, which many scientists question) assumes that local flora and fauna will cope with the spewing crude that is not collected and transferred to the tanker. Secondly, the plan has not taken into account the fact that in June the hurricane season starts and if a storm occurs in that region the tanker will not be able to stay above the well. If this happens the tanker will have no other option other than to relese the uncontrolled oil into the ocean and if that were to occur, BP would be essentially back to square one.

So far, BP has been forced to spend £642m in compensation claims and federal costs and they anticipate the final costs could extend to, as much as over £41bn (approximately a quarter of the current UK national debt). At the same time, 105 miles of Louisiana coastline have been contaminated and countless numbers of birds, fish and plant life have been killed by a disaster that is ten times bigger than the Exxon Valdez disaster.

Surprisingly, no one has asked the key question - why did it happen? Of course, BP will put it down to a natural failure of the technology, whilst the British and American governments will place the blame on a lack of scrutiny over the drilling procedures. What all of them fail to acknowledge is that this would not have happened if internationally we had reappraised our needs and looked for more ecologically friendly natural energy sources. Our obsession with the motor vehicle and international air travel lie at the heart of this problem, for if there had been no demand, there would have been no drilling and thousands of fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico would now be earning a living. Instead, we continued our chase for black gold, craving its convenience, whilst disregarding the effect on the planet.

So, who is responsible? Well of course BP are in large part, for it was the capitalist greed of their shareholders and their worship of the God, Profit that led to the disaster. But so too must the blame lay with every motorist and passenger on an airline, for until we leave our cars in the garage and cut back on our foreign holidays, we must also take our share of the blame. It is these people, with their huge carbon footprint - the ones who demanded the crude that is now washing up on the marshlands of Louisiana that must bear sown of the burden.

Old 'Joe Public' may not be to blame for the oil spill - that was an inevitable consequence of capitalist greed - but for demanding more and more, for pushing for cheaper petrol and diesel, we are accountable ... and if there is to be any change we must acknowledge our guilt and atone by accepting that, as custodians of this planet we have a moral responsibility to protect for future generations.

Sunday 30 May 2010

Conservatives, Liberals and the cuts

Cameron and his Con-Dem buddies would have us believe that this is a government 'for the people and by the people'.Yet, let's take a look at some of the facts. In the recent statement outlining the details of the £6bn worth of savings in government spending, Osborne emphasised there would be no effect on frontline services.

Now, socialists throughout the last election were constantly arguing that this was untrue, but regrettably we failed to convince the electorate. Now let's take a look at how these cuts will affect people - for example, if we look at the prime minister's own constituency of Witney. Here the cuts to the local authority will only account for approximately 1.7% of funding - no great loss and residents will see little effect on services for the elderly, for the vulnerable or for the jobless. However, if we look at Harriet Harman's (the acting Opposition leader) constituency, we see that these cuts will amount to no less than 16.3% of fuding, simply because in that area they have more vulnerable people, more elderly, great social need and more unemployed.

Similarly, today on the Andrew Marr show, Ian Duncan Smith outlined how he was going to get Britain 'back to work'. But this new programme will have a budget that has automatically been cut by £535m before the Prequalification Questionnaires and Invitation to Tenders for new welfare to work programmes have been published. Of course, IDS has said that with new efficiencies he will 'force' private contractors to improve on their performance. Perhaps now is a good time to point out to IDS that if 10 people go for 3 jobs, that still leaves 7 people unemployed. Currently in the UK we have 2.6m people unemployed and if his figures are correct, these numbers will soon be joined by a further 1m people who were on IB and will now be seen as available for work. Against this, DWP advise that there are currently only 600,000 vacancies. Even if private contractors fill every one of those posts, it will still leave 2.9m unemployed.

Evidence once again that the Tories are a party for the rich and never for the working class.

Friday 28 May 2010

The saga of MP expenses continues ...

Over the last few months, many Members of Parliament have been exposed for claiming excessive or inappropriate expenses. As a result we have seen the public attitude towards politics and the political system diminish. Indeed, in the last election I found many people on the street were disillusioned - even though their (then) constituency MP, David Kidney, had been seen to be beyond reproach.

Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, promised to clean up British politics and Cameron stated that any Tory MP found to have abused the system would be required to pay the money back. it is therefore interesting to note that amongst the top 20 MPs claiming the largest amount, only 6 are Labour and of these 3 appealed and had their repayment eliminated or reduced. Only 1 Labour politician (Barbara Follett) has an amount still outstanding. Compare this with the Tories and we see that amongst those 'top 20' there remains over £46,000 of debt! Now we are not talking about lesser known MPs (past and present) here - people like David Heathcote-Amory, who owes £23,569. or Michael Spicer, who owes £10,000.

And what of the Lib-Dems? Well until today their record was reasonably good. A few had been caught out with the amendments to the rules but, by and large, their debts had fallen in between one and three thousand pounds and broadly speaking, these had been paid. But now we have the revelation that the First Secretary to the Treasury, had falsely (either through error, omission or commission) claimed for over £40,000 of expenses. Now, the fact David Laws is gay is really of little interest to me quite honestly - it is his own affair and I trust it is a happy and loving relationship, because over the coming days he will need to call on it.

No, my concern is that a man who is central to running the finances of this country fudged the records because he wanted to hide information (he wanted to keep his sexuality secret). How can we trust a politician who acts in such a manner? Will he hold back other inconvenient secrets about the state of the country should they arise?

In many respects this is a tragic case, because Laws is undoubtedly a consummate professional and a talented MP, although I have grave misgivings about his political and economic views. Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics and Laws is about to find out that it will pass excruciatingly slowly, with the red-top newspapers anxious to exploit any sexual whimsy the can obtain. I doubt Mr Laws will read this blog, but should he I would urge him to take courage and seek the support and love of your partner. At the same time I would also advocate a full and public apology followed by an immediate resignation from the government. In doing so he will show to the public an air of remorse and contrition that will allow them to quickly forgive. Then, in a few months, if G-d forbid the Con-Dems are still in power, he can return to the front bench and use his acute brain for the betterment of this country.

No doubt we will see over the next few days how things unfold.

Tacitus
Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics