Saturday 30 April 2011

Muammar Gaddafi's son murdered by Allied bombs

Over the weeks since the start of the Libyan conflict we have heard about the savagery and inhumanity being inflicted by Muammar Gaddafi on his people. During this time allied forces tried to hold the moral higher ground by arguing they were the defenders of democracy.

Last night a bomb killed Gaddafi’s son and with his death the allies lost all credibility as a force for reason. According to reports, Said-al-Arab Gaddafi was not firing on rebel forces, he was not laying siege to towns, he was playing with his family. An innocent student caught up in a conflict that was nothing to do with him other than by the fact his father is leader of a country.

The UN mandate allowed the allies to do everything to preserve human life and defend the citizens of Libya against oppression. How an assassination attempt on Gaddafi can be construed as a legitimate defence of the people remains to be seen.

No father should lose a son or daughter before they die. Already Gaddafi has lost an adopted daughter. In 1988, American missiles killed his adopted daughter. Now, 29-years on and tragically, the age of Said-al-Arab Gaddafi, he has lost hi son as well. The action was cruel, heartless and unnecessary and socialists and those opposed to the attacks by allied forces on Libya should condemn this death vociferously.

Today, my thoughts and prayers as a father myself go to Muammar Gaddafi and his family. May you find peace in your faith and in the knowledge that many people in Europe share your sadness today.

Friday 29 April 2011

The Royals are at it again

On a lighter note today, and before we all run away with the notion the Royals are all the greatest thing since sliced bread, let's remember they are also supremely capable of inducing the "cringe factor".

Take a look at this video ...

Thursday 28 April 2011

Grayling faces sleaze accusations

Reprinted below is an article first published on Liberal Conspiracy. It is reprinted in full.

Labour MP John Robertson has today written to David Cameron and the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office – Sir Gus O’Donnell – concerning potentially seven breaches of the Ministerial Code by minister Chris Grayling MP over awarding of new contracts.

There is concern over his connections with one of the companies that was awarded the largest amount of contracts at the expense of a local Glasgow charity.

Employment minister Chris Grayling MP announced this month which firms were to get contracts to help the unemployed to find work.

The biggest winner of contracts was Deloitte Ingeus, who received a maximum seven of the 40 contracts on offer in 18 regions of the UK. One of these regions was Glasgow, where Deloitte Ingeus was awarded at the expense of a local charity: the Wise Group.

Deloitte, which owns 50% of the Deloitte Ingeus company, donated in kind over £27,000 to the office of Christopher Graylings in October 2009, whilst he was Shadow Secretary of State for DWP.

At the time, Deloitte was calling for prime contracts to go to large companies instead of voluntary groups due to their ability to borrow more money.

In June last year The Wise Group was short-listed for a national award by thwe DWP that recognised the quality of service it employs to help get people into work.

Last week, Care UK landed a £53million NHS contract in the North East, the same company who’s senior executive John Nash donated £21,000 to Andrew Lansley’s office before the election.

The statement from John Robertson MP says:

"It does seem odd that the same year that Mr Grayling received these payment the company that went onto win the largest contract was calling for these very contracts to go to large companies like themselves. This could just be coincidence but Mr Grayling should have taken himself out of the whole process to avoid any chance that this could be a breach of Ministerial Code.

To be honest, this whole process stinks. If we were talking about another country where a private company was bidding for a government contract after making such large donations to the Minister responsible for making the decision we would be questioning the veracity of the outcome. I don’t see why Mr Grayling simply didn’t refer this part of his brief to another minister.

Unless there is an inquiry into why he didn’t defer this to another Ministerial colleague, and into the whole decision making process of how and who awarded these contracts and the level at which Mr Grayling’s office played in the formulation and development of this policy when he was in opposition, then the general public will believe that the Big Society really stands for the Big Stitch up.

It is clear that at some stage the ability of bidders to be judged on their ability shifted to not just price but also size of the bidding company, and I am concerned about the effect that the awarding of contracts for such an important scheme could have on my constituents and other colleagues in Glasgow if the prime contractor was not picked on its ability alone."


You can read the letter from John Robertson at Labourlist.

A right Royal jamboree

The news that both our former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been missed off the guest-list for Wills and Kate’s nuptials, while Conservatives John Major and Margaret Thatcher are included, takes the biscuit.

It seems Tone and Gordo (unlike Thatcher and Major) are not Knights of the Garter and as such get bumped from the official invite list. If it was a full state occasion then they would get the nod. But it isn’t (apparently), so they don’t.

After that little favour we did the Royals 14 years ago, you would think they could show a bit more appreciation.

If you recall, it was a bit more than lending them a lawnmower of feeding the cat while they went on holiday. Our Tony saved the Monarchy from the car crash of their reaction to the car crash that killed Diana.

The royals’ dismal, off-key response to the tragic death of Princess Di in 1997 whipped up more public vituperation against the Monarchy than anything we have seen since the ghastly Edward VIII ran off with Wallis Simpson back in the days of black and white newsreel.

But how quickly they forget. Now they are on the up with a popular royal wedding (involving the only consistently popular member of the clan) all we get is a right royal “stuff off”. And not just to one Labour ex-Prime Minister, but two.

The first may well have been carelessness, a second is a definite snub. Ok, spouses would need to go as well so that takes up four seats. And Westminster Abbey can be a bit pokey, but when the place is going to be full of dodgy geezers (“bums” in the Daily Mail’s diplomaticspeak) then squeezing in a couple of former prime ministers is not a big ask; especially as Conservative former PMs are invited.

Blimey, even the Mail’s Stephen Glover is incensed at the effrontery of it. Quite right. 1,900 people are invited including, as Glover puts it: “some pretty unsavoury foreign leaders, as well as some rackety private individuals”. It would be equally appalling if the boot had been on the other foot and Maggie and Major had been left off.

Please. If they can find room for ‘film-maker’ Guy Ritchie then I hate to suggest it, but the bar is set pretty low.
And the royals can’t have it both ways. They can’t invite half the world’s dignitaries on the basis that it’s effectively a state bash and then in the same breath leave out Blair and Brown on the basis that it’s not a full state occasion.

And the distinction between prime ministers who are Knights of the Garter and those that are not is a priceless piece of antiquated bluster. (So Labour’s are the wrong sort of former prime ministers are they?) More mundanely, it also begs the inevitable question: Will John Major wear high heels as well as his garter? We demand to be told.

And if it’s a more casual gig, then there should be nothing wrong in number ten’s current incumbent turning up in a lounge suit after all. Or even his favourite long shorts and polo-neck. It is a Bank Holiday you know.

If it’s a worry about the quality of the presents, Wills’n’Kate can rest assured. Tony and Gordon are not short of a bob or two these days and can be relied upon to bring a decent wedge of Debenhams vouchers with them. Mrs. Thatcher’s poorly and not going anyway, so that leaves some space.

But how to decide which man gets the seat? I don’t think a formal pact would be a good idea; we’ve been there. Perhaps a winner-takes-all coin flip? Or we could be guided by history and Tony could sit on for the first two-thirds of the service and Gordon could replace him for the last bit.

And, I hate to raise it, if it isn’t a state bash who’s picking up the tab? 5,000 coppers on overtime and ‘All the Queen’s horse and all the Queen’s men’ will burn a hole in someone’s pocket.

Perhaps it’s not too late to cut a deal with OK! Magazine? Mind you, someone would need to move sharpish to book one of those massive marquees to keep the arrival shots secret. But what would Huw Edwards find to comment on?

Another plus, however, is that inviting Richard Desmond would actually raise the tone of the guest-list, (even after the King of Bahrain chose to bow out). Kate’s “black sheep” uncle Gary Goldsmith is still attending. As is the Zimbabwean ambassador – Roberts Mugabe’s man about town.

Ther again, I'm reminded of the old Groucho Marx phrase - I wouldn't want to jouin a club that would have me as a member. Given this, perhaps it is as well that Tone and Gordo son't go along to the Royal jamboree. After all, it is going to be filled with corrupt foreign politicos, sychophants and hangers-on anyway. hardly a place for an honest socialist. There again, neither fo them were ever especially socialist anyway, so perhaps they are say this morning, eating their Weetabix and suppoing their mug of PG Tips, feeling distinctly left out. All I can say guys is - don't worry, you can join the vast majority of us.

Fortunately my family share my contempt for the whole thing, so we will be studiously avoid watching it. Is there any significance that whilst those two are getting married they will be showing "Desperate Housewives" on the other channel? Coincidence - nah, can't be.

Wednesday 27 April 2011

Why many ESA claimants aren't 'fit for work'

The government is on its latest tirade against the poor, the sick and the unemployment. Now they have discovered three-quarters of people who apply for sickness benefit are found fit to work or drop their claims before they are completed, official figures show. Department for Work and Pensions figures showed 887,300 of 1,175,700 employment and support allowance (ESA) applicants over a 22-month period failed to qualify for assistance. Of those 39% were judged fit to work, while 36% abandoned their claim.

As a result, Employment Minister Chris Grayling has said the welfare system needed changing. He said the figures underlined the need to reassess people still on the old incapacity benefit - a process which the government began rolling out last month.

"Once again we have clear evidence of the need for change in our welfare system. We now know very clearly that the vast majority of new claimants for sickness benefits are in fact able to return to work. That's why we are turning our attention to existing claimants, who were simply abandoned on benefits. That's why we are reassessing all of those claimants, and launching the work programme to provide specialist back to work support. We will, of course, carry on providing unconditional support to those who cannot work, but for those who can it's right and proper that they start back on the road to employment."

Before he opens his mouth this man really should engage his brain. When people go to doctors, health visitors, Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, or welfare rights organisations they are often advised to apply for incapacity benefit (or employment and support allowance as it is now). There is no subterfuge on the part of the working classes, no plot to overthrow the state and we aren’t a nation full of social security scroungers either.

The reality is that many of these assessments have been found to be inhumane, lacking or evidence of genuine care and designed exclusively to trap people into a situation where they can no longer claim benefit.

Take some of the following cases:

“In Hull, my Atos doc showed up on the cancelled day (I had another appointment to go to that I could not reschedule) and I had to send him away, then I attended the centre for the next attempt, it is in a busy area, buzzer at door, terrible chairs and long corridors. My wheelchair broke in the car park they watched me and my friend struggling with it out of the window and did not offer help. In the end we gave up and I used my crutches. We told the doc exactly what happened so she made no mention of it on my assessment and said I only use crutches! Amongst other 'mistakes' and flat out falsification, I was refused all help and am still awaiting an appeal date a year later.”

“The fellow came to my house as I was housebound - they knew I was housebound and yet they kept trying to find evidence of me walking.”Don't you go round to the shops?" No, I don't, it was too far in winter and unsafe, and if they had called my carer at all she could have told them that (The DWP never even contacted her). He managed to drag out that I had been fed up with being stuck at home for three months so I dragged myself into town to get some flowers and visit my favourite coffee shop - it was the same day my son ended up getting excluded and so I spent the three days afterwards trying to recover with an autistic hyperactive child, drugged to the gills on Tramadol. Result on the assessment form? "Can walk up to 500 yards pain free." Once I got the arthritis scan in there which shows damage to the bones in my feet, I wanted to appeal the "no mobility allowance" grounds but missed the appeal date by three days. I now have to file, yet again, for change in circumstances, which is the second time I've had to do this after appealing my first claim. It's doing my head in, and I'm appalled that it seems they never bothered to follow up either my GP report, the OT report or my carer's input.”

“The centre in Bristol is at flowers hill. It's a concrete bunker at the end of a long and boring bus ride. Very awkward to get to and depressing place. Not great if you're suffering from post-traumatic stress and depression. Having let food rot in the fridge and been too stressed to leave the house I figured out I could demand a home visit so I did. Haven't been back there since and I have no intention of doing so if I can avoid it. The first and only time I went there the assessor twisted everything I said and dumped me off incapacity benefit. The copy of the form (I had to request in advance) was full of lies. Didn't have it in me to appeal at the time and it took ages before I could reapply to go back onto IB. Home visits have been better for all the obvious reasons. The first home visit was done by a real doctor and I had a person from the mental health authority there as a witness. (The doctor was shocked at the earlier story and didn't believe it until the health worker confirmed it). The last visit was done by someone who came over as being helpful and pleasant enough. That surprised me. I did my prep work like all these well connected tax dodging bigshots so gave him the answers I wanted to give him. As far as I'm concerned if they put as much effort into finding the sort of job I'd like to do that paid an amount I could live on it would be a better use of their money. But they won't do that because they'd have to give up control and admit they're wrong. “

These are just a minute sample of the vast quantity of complaints customers have about the assessment process. So before Grayling sounds off about the number of people who are refused ESA he needs to look at two things. Firstly he needs to understand the process and acknowledge how many social care workers advocate clients make a claim for ESA, even if their chances of success are small. Secondly he needs to completely revamp the entire assessment process and make it far more client-friendly.

But then if he did that he wouldn’t get the kind of results he is getting at the moment and he would find the vast majority of claimants are genuinely in need.

Tuesday 26 April 2011

Deviousness amongst the far right

I may despise the BNP, but at least they are honest about standing in elections on their racist, homophobic platform. This is not the case with some of the other candidates standing in local and parish elections throughout the country.

Take the case of those standing for the English Democrats who are fielding a disturbingly large number of candidates. A glance at their website would suggest they want to see the restoration and improvement of English values and the maintenance of this green and pleasant land. No problem there, until you start to dig deeper. Then you read they want to see “A points system [that is] used to bring an end to mass immigration and only allow that immigration which is in the national interest. A points system should not be used to facilitate and legitimise a continuation of mass immigration. Immigrants should not be a burden on the taxpayer and should be economically self-sustaining.”

They aren’t much better when it comes to other issues. On the matter of political correctness they argue: “[English Democrats] reject the self-righteousness of political correctness and condemn the ideology as an evil.”

On multi-culturalism they argue it “… is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity with the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of that is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country.”

Nice people – as long a you are white and part of the indigenous population, but beware of you are black, Asian Chinese, or Eastern European.

These unsavoury characters are standing in the following wards and need to be confronted. If they appear on your doorstep, you may care to interrogate them about their obvious racism. A full list of names and wards is at the end of this entry.

On top of this, the far-right British People’s Party is also standing in Calderdale, in Todmorden ward, with David Jones as the candidate for the second year running (he scraped 4.9% of the vote in 2007).

But the biscuit for this week’s most dishonest far –right wing fanatic must go to Paul Gilbert, a prominent member of England’s Parliamentary Party. Unlike all the other fascists, Gilbert did not have the honesty to stand on his racist platform. Instead he chose to set up a local pressure group in one of the wards in Stafford (Gilbert is a candidate in the Haywood and Hixon ward in Stafford). The Save the Haywoods group had, until recently been supported by a number of local residents as it had campaigned against a possible housing development in the village. However, in a recent flyer for the election, Gilbert’s true colours started to appear. The leaflet called for a reversal in “the trend of politicians selling out to multi-culturalism and political correctness.

Well Gilbert has so far managed to have himself kicked out of the Tory Party and UKIP (no small achievement as this ramshackle body seem to be willing to accept anybody), so with some luck he’ll get thrown out of the Save the Haywoods group too.

Villagers voting in the election need to be made aware they are being asked to vote for a right-wing fanatic, so if you know anyone in Stafford, let them know who they have amongst them.

As promised, below is a full list of English Democrat candidates in the election – if one is near you, join the campaign to expose their racist views.

English Democrat Candidates:

Ashfield District Council
Woodhouse Ward - Carole Terzza
Woodhouse Ward - Tony Ellis

Barnsley City Council
Hoyland Milton Ward - Kevin Riddiough

Boston Council
Fenside Ward - Elliott Fountain
Fenside Ward - David Owen
Fishtoft Ward - Dee Bills
Kirton Ward - Mark Blackamore
Pilgrim Ward - Jamie Taylor
Skirbeck Ward - Callum McCuaig
Skirkbeck Ward - Carl Rowe
Skirkbeck Ward - Timmy Woodcock
Staniland North Ward - Richard Green
Staniland South Ward - Darren Crozier
Staniland South Ward - Liam Blackamore
West Ward - Ross Isham

Bradford City Council
Wibsey Ward - Andrew Clarke

Brentwood Council
Warley Ward - Kim Burelli

Bristol City Council
Bedminster Ward - Jon Baker
Filwood Ward - Barbara Wright
Frome Vale Ward - Greg Shaw
Hartcliffe Ward - Stephen Wright
Hengrove Ward - Mike Blundell
St George West Ward - Eddie Tranter
Whitchurch Park Ward - Ray Carr

Broxbourne Borough Council
Bury Green Ward - Chris Francis
Chestnut Central Ward - Ramon Paul Johns
Rosedale Ward - Steve McCole
Wormley and Turnford Ward - William James Dewick

Bury Council
Besses Ward - Stephen Morris
Holyrood Ward - Valerie Morris

Dartford Borough Council
Bean and Darenth Ward - Gary Rodgers
Bean and Darenth Ward - Neal Tibby
Bean and Darenth Ward - Steve Culliford
Brent Ward - Jerry Chatterton
Brent Ward - Mike Tibby
Brent Ward - Mitchel Jackson
Castle Ward - Fancis Maud
Greenhithe Ward - Dianne Cooper
Heath Ward - Carol White
Joyce Green Ward - Glen Garderner
Joydens Wood Ward - Laurence Williams
Littlebrook Ward - Paul Wells
Newtown Ward - Darren Staines
Newton Ward - Jim Read
Newton Ward - Louise Uncles
Princess Ward - Christine Dunmall
Stone Ward - Paul Cooper
Sutton Hawley Ward - Chris Bousfield
Town Ward - Andy Waghorn
Town Ward - Nathan King
West Hill Ward - John Griffiths
West hill Ward - Michelle Duncan
West Hill Ward - Steve Uncles
Willington Ward - Terresa Cannon

Doncaster City Council
Adwick Ward - Vivian Woodrow
Askern Spa Ward - Malcolm Woodrow
Bentley Ward - Tony Wagstaff
Bessacarr and Cantley Ward - Keith Hewitt
Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dunn Ward - Fred Gee
Edlington and Warnsworth Ward - John Brennan
Finningley Ward - Nigel Berry
Great North Road Ward - Steve Grocott
Hatfield Ward - Mick Glynn
Sprotborough Ward - Barbara Hewitt
Stainforth and Morrends Ward - Margeret Holt-Taylor
Wheatley Ward - Roy Penketh

East Lindsey District Council
Chapel St Leonards Ward - Tim Burritt
ConningsbyTattersall/ Ward - Ronnie Ford-Kennedy

East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Hessle Ward - Victoria Carte
Hessle Ward - Peter Mawer
Hessle Ward - Michael Burton
Tranby Ward - Michael cassidy
Tranby Ward - Peter Asquith-Cowen
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - Joanne Robinson
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - Graham Robinson
Willerby and Kirkella Ward - John Ottaway

Epping Forest District Council
Chipping Ongar, Greensted and Marden Ash Ward - Robin Tilbrook

Erewash Borough Council
Hallam Fields Ward - Giles Farrand

Hull City Council
Boothferry Ward - David Rust
Derringham Ward - Billy Hughes
Newington Ward - Tineke Robinson
Pickering Ward - Peter Mawer

Kettering Borough Council
Brambleside Ward - Derek Hilling
St Peter Ward - Kevin Sills

Kirklees Council
Denby Dale Ward - Paul McEnhill

Leicester City Council
Humberstone and Hamilton Ward - David Haslett

Leeds City Council
Ardsley & Robin Hood Ward - Joanne Beverley
Morley North Ward - Tom Redmond
Morley South Ward - Chris Beverley

Liverpool Council
Central Ward - Steve Greenhalgh
Old Swan Ward - Steve McEllenborough
St Michaels Ward - Neil Kenny
Warbreck Ward -Lee Walton

Medway Council
Chatham Central Ward - Karen Streafield
Lordswood and Capstone Ward - Phoebe Troy
Peninsula Ward - Dean Lacey
Peninsula Ward - Ron Sands
Princess park - Daniel Logan
Rochester West Ward - Agita Sudraba
Strood North - Philip Varnham
Strood South - Michael Walters
Walderslade Ward - Sean Varnham

Medway Parish
Hoo St Werburgh (East Ward) - Ron Sands
North Hertfordshire District Council
Letchworth Grange Ward - Charles Vickers

Pendle Council
Earby Ward- James Jackman

Earby Parish - James Jackman - Elected Uncontested

Peterborough Council
Fletton and Woodston Ward - Kevin Roddis
Northborough Ward - Simon potter
Orton Longueville Ward - Graham Murphy
Park Ward - Maria Goldspink
Stanground Central Ward - Stephen Goldspink

Portsmouth City Council
Baffins Ward - Ian Ducane
Copnor Ward - David Knight
Drayton and Farlington Ward - Dave Ward
Eastney and Craneswater Ward - Peter Lawrence

Rochford District Council
Hockley Central - Thomas Broad
Hullbridge Ward - John Hayter
Lodge Ward - Jason Hodson
Sweyne Park Ward - Alan Twydell

Rossendale Council
Stackstead Ward - Tony Justice

Salford City Council
Little Hulton Ward - Arthur Johnson
Walkden North Ward - Laurence Depares
Walkden South Ward - Paul Whitelegg

Sefton Council
Derby Ward - Dean Mcgrane

Solihull Council
Dorridge/Bentley Heath Ward - Andrew Taylor
Elmdon Ward - Robert Lassen
Knowle Ward - Frank O'Brien
Lyndon Ward - David Reynolds

Stoke City Council
Baddeley, Milton and Norton Ward - Leslie (Sammy) Simpson

Tameside Council
St Michaels Ward - Dave Timpson

Tandridge District Council
Bletchingley and Nutfield Ward - Daniel Beddoes

Three Rivers District Council
Croxley Green Ward - Roger Holmes

Croxley Green Parish Council - Roger Holmes

Tunbridge Wells Council
Sherwood Ward - Jojo Stanley

Walsall Council
Pheasey Park Farm Ward - Christopher Newey

Wellingborough Council
Croyland Ward - Tony Spencer

Monday 25 April 2011

Why the Coalition is safe - A response to Sunny Hundal

Over the last couple of weeks we have started to see signs that all is not well in the Coalition between the Lib Dems and the Tories – or is it? Nick Clegg says he is angry with David Cameron and the Tories over the issue of social mobility and Chris Huhne has been blowing off steam about the way his Tory friends in the “No to AV” campaign have lied about the referendum.

Even the media have been caught by this apparent ‘new’ hostility between the partners and led Jackie Ashley at the Guardian and Tim Montgomerie at ConHome to speculate there may be an early election. According to Sunny Hundal over at ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ this is highly unlikely but it could have other consequences.

In Hundal's analysis the honeymoon is over and a degree of Coalition trust has been broken. They’ve also called each other ‘liars’ at the highest level – so the bar has been set higher. Also he argues the Tory betrayal over electoral reform may push more die-hard Libdems into the arms of Labour if they keep that promise in their manifesto.

But there isn’t going to be an election and this apparent war between the Lib Dems and the Tories is an entirely cosmetic exercise to make us ‘see’ there are differences between the two parties. Why? Because in case we have all missed it there are local government elections on May 5th and the Lib Dems are scared stiff they are going to get massacred.

This scares the pants off Clegg but doesn’t really affect Citizen Dave because he is hoping the Lib Dems loss could be his gain – and if he can show on May 7th that his party has held its own then it will silence a number of critics. Is this price the Lib Dems will have to pay for lying down with a snake, sooner or later you get bitten.

On top of this the Tories may have signed a Coalition Agreement, but they will still try and wreck anything they don’t like with complete shamelessness. So far this has included education and local cuts. In the future this is also likely to include the NHS (where they will press ahead and ignore the Lib Dems), the environment (despite Chris Huhne’s best efforts) and of course electoral reform.

But have no fear because all these splits will not be enough to break the coalition and on May 7th we can expect Clegg and Cameron to walk hand in hand back into the Cabinet Room to plan more anti-working class measures.

Sunny Hundal believes the Coalition will become “paralysed by civil war.”, he is wrong. Once the AV referendum and the local council elections are over the supposed rifts will suddenly heal and we will once again see the two parties united.

It is easy to see why. The Lib Dems are nothing more than the left wing of the Tory party. They sit comfortably on the same benches and can fairly comfortably nod in agreement over most policies. Essentially there is very little to pick and choose between them. This is the very reason why they must be annihilated on May 5th.
Working people have the chance to voice their full opposition to both the Lib Dems and Tory policies by voting conclusively for Labour candidates. In some wards the incumbent has been an independent, but look carefully at their voting record and in most cases you will see a Tory in disguise. It is time to push them aside and built a firm and effective opposition to this Tory led government. If Labour can dominate local elections this year and the County elections next then it could substantially slow down Tory cuts to local services.

We have a wonderful opportunity to stop this government in its tracks – I hope we use the chance wisely.

Sunday 24 April 2011

Clegg’s phoney war on social immobility

by Susanna Bellino (vice-chair of Kingston and Surbiton CLP and chair of Labour Friends of Italy

David Cameron’s comments a few weeks ago about Oxford university’s lack of black students might have annoyed its dons and PR team but he made a valid point. Granted he skewed the statistics but the truth remains that only 27 black undergraduates – approximately 1% – made its undergraduate intake that year.

The results of a freedom of information request by David Lammy MP revealed, among other startling facts, that Merton College, Oxford, had not admitted a single black student for five years. And although it pains me to say it, my own alma mater doesn’t fair much better – despite its more liberal reputation, white students were more likely to be successful than black applicants at every Cambridge college except one.

These figures are in stark contrast to Oxbridge’s American counterpart, Harvard, where 11% of students were black. Affirmative action no doubt plays a large part in this but Oxbridge does run its own access programmes although – if rumours are to be believed – aiming these schemes at a comprehensive school in Hackney might better achieve social mobility than running them at Marlborough College.

For once, we can’t blame the coalition for something. Oxbridge’s unrepresentative undergraduate intake and the general trend of the lack of upward social mobility in the UK has long been an issue. When I went up to Cambridge in 2007, 57% of the student body were state school educated – a decent enough figure perhaps but we need to consider that in 1997, 55% of the student body were state school educated – hardly an improvement.
So, who’s to blame for this gaping inequality? Social scientists will point to a number of factors including economic circumstances and an entrenched class system that is forever perpetuated. Whatever the cause, surely policy must be formulated to achieve equality of opportunity since it can’t be left up to institutions to serve as engines for social justice. They’ve got enough on their plates trying to keep up with their American equivalents in achieving academic brilliance on the international stage.

The coalition, Nick Clegg in particular, seems keen to eradicate social immobility. In August last year, Clegg articulated his plans to “promote social mobility and the next steps” his government would undertake to overcome them. He declared his vision of good government :

“governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next”.

And in early April, he launched the government’s social mobility strategy, a move which was overshadowed by the internship row.

So does coalition policy match the rhetoric?

Raising tuition fees, abolishing the education maintenance allowance (despite a half-hearted u-turn) and cutting Sure Start suggest that instead of encouraging social mobility, the coalition is placing more obstacles.

Tripling tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000 doesn’t increase social mobility – it doesn’t even stagnate it. Granted universities that charge £9,000 are required to spend 10% of this income on access schemes for poorer students. But there is a real worry that pupils from the poorest backgrounds will be discouraged from applying. I left university with a £12,000 debt still largely unpaid. But a debt of £27k+ – who needs that hanging over their heads as well as the possibility that a degree – even an Oxbridge one – doesn’t guarantee you a job?

When the fees legislation was passed in December, we were promised that universities would charge £9,000 only in “exceptional circumstances”. But of the 50 or so universities that have announced their intentions, 35 intend to charge top fees, including a number of former polytechnics, and the rest will charge £6,000+.

So, if Clegg was as committed to improving social mobility as he would have us believe, maybe he shouldn’t have voted for an increase in tuition fees. Good intentions and positive rhetoric can only go so far and education has always been key in breaking through class barriers.

Maybe he now regrets entering into a coalition that has made it harder in an ever competitive world for a state schooled student to even dream of gaining a place at one of the world’s leading institutions. He should do, if he doesn’t already.

Saturday 23 April 2011

I'm fed up with the Royal wedding

There is still almost a week to go and already I am sick to death of the Royal wedding. Whenever you put the TV on there is nothing on but some sychophant warbling on about some aspect of the jamboree. As for the newspapers? If one more does a supplement covering the subject I swear I will scream until I am sick - and I can. I don’t really care if Will and Kate get married, or if they choose to live together on a barge in Coventry. What I do care about is the fact that the entire event will cost the likes of you and me £20m and, according to some reports, could exceed £50m!

‘Oh, don’t worry, the Queen and Prince Charlie will pay,’ I hear my critics exclaim. But hang on, who pays them? Courtesy of us bankrolling the royals for centuries, she has a personal wealth estimated at £290m – she could afford to pay for the entire thing and still have plenty left over – certainly a lot more than the 2.5m unemployed as a result of ‘fat cats’ getting too greedy.

Now let’s stay with the unemployed for a moment if we can. It costs the taxpayer £10.1m each day to pay every unemployed person Jobseeker’s Allowance. Following logically, if this country were a republic, we could have pretty much had a free Easter break as the savings on the Royal wedding would have paid for almost 5 days of benefit.

The whole thing is just an opportunity to mount another jingoistic campaign and have the bunting out and wave the Union flag. Well let me be clear, I have nothing against parties. Indeed I actually like them and the idea of getting communities together to celebrate together sounds good to me. But I cannot see what there is to celebrate about a Royal who has had a very privileged background marry the daughter of a highly successful millionaire.

Needless to say on the day I will not watch the wedding, I won’t eat a slice of cake off a “Will and Kate” plate and I won’t toast the bride and groom. In fact, with their wealth I hardly think I need even bother wishing them well. After all, they have a far better start that the average young couple of their age.

Friday 22 April 2011

A future on the dole?

Ahead of the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington DC a week ago, a flurry of workshops, seminars and conferences took place, bringing together governments, unions, employers, economists, campaigners and NGOs. IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, possible contender for the French Presidency, argued that inequality and joblessness led to social unrest of the sort seen in the Middle East and North Africa, and that “growth beset by social tensions is not conducive to economic and financial stability”. He acknowledged that ”unemployment is at record levels” and ”in too many countries, inequality is at record highs.” And without naming names, he said that ”fiscal tightening can lower growth in the short term, and this can even increase long-term unemployment, turning a cyclical into a structural problem.”

He therefore set out a social democratic manifesto not commonly associated with the IMF. Starting off by quoting Keynes on the need for jobs and equality, he concluded:

“We need policies to reduce inequality, and to ensure a fairer distribution of opportunities and resources. Strong social safety nets combined with progressive taxation can dampen market-driven inequality. Investment in health and education is critical. Collective bargaining rights are important, especially in an environment of stagnating real wages. Social partnership is a useful framework, as it allows both the growth gains and adjustment pains to be shared fairly.”

His remarks came in a debate on The Global Jobs Crisis: Sustaining the Recovery through Employment and Equitable Growth, hosted by the Brookings Institution of Washington and moderated by Kemal Dervis. ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow also spoke, with comments from Stephen Pursey of the ILO and Nobel Prize economist George Akerlof.

Of course, only a cynic would suggest that DSK was speaking to a French audience, or question how his views could be squared with IMF involvement in forced austerity measures across Europe….

Having said this, Britain, and Citizen Dave in particular, need to look at how they will resolve the currently record breaking levels of unemployment. Work Programme will not be enough and if this government is going to offer any hope to the jobless it will need to think of new measures to tackle the problem.

That is what they should do … but I’m not holding my breath.

Thursday 21 April 2011

No way to treat people

Yesterday, the Daily Express and Daily Mail argued the country was full of cheating, scrounging sick people.

The Express screamed: “Blitz on Britain’s benefits madness”, contrasting those on “sickness handouts” with “hard working taxpayers”.

Tory MP Philip Davies joined the outcry, saying:

“People are sick to the back teeth of being taken for a ride by people sponging and scrounging and abusing the system.”

While the Mail shouted:

“Scandal of 80,000 on sickness benefits for minor ailments… including diarrhoea.”
To accompany arguments that “drug addicts” have been allowed to claim, they included a picture of someone snorting white powder through a rolled up note.

The papers go on to list “blisters”, “headaches”, “depression”, and “problems with scholastic skills” as evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of people living the good life at “taxpayers” expense who have nothing really wrong with them.

For a moment, let’s forget the fact that only the first ailment a person lists on their claim form is taken into account in these figures. Let’s ignore the fact that someone with “nail disorders” might also have cancer or kidney failure. Let’s ignore the fact that someone classified under “drug abuse” might also suffer from schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis.

Once upon a time (under Labour) the government took substance misuse seriously and recognized just how much of a growing problem it had become. There was a recognition that many users and abusers wanted to work, but because of the chaoitic lifestyle they lead, they were unable to find a job.

The right wing Tory press would have us believe that addicts are making a daily lifestyle choice. No – they may have made a choice when they first took the drug, but now they are addicted that has long gone out the window. Now it is the heroin, cocaine, amphetamines or barbiturates that control them. Reducing addiction to calling those affected ‘scroungers’ is not only unhelpful, it is actually unhelpful and can push those affected away from treatment and possible recovery. But there again, a working class girl coming off drugs and holding down a regular job doesn#t sell newspapers does it?

And what about “headaches?” Cluster headaches (also referred to as “suicide headaches”) are thought to be one of the worst pains known to man, not something to be confused with a hangover.

I could go on, but I’m sure you’re beginning to see why these horrible articles, fuelled by “statements” today from Chris Grayling, minister for Work and Pensions and Citizen Dave, the people’s toff, only serve to turn a sensitive, delicate subject into a form of attack. They aim to pitch one condition against another whilst asking those more fortunate to view those who are unwell with mistrust and contempt.

Perhaps there is a legitimate debate to be had over which conditions “hard working tax-payers” are willing to support. There is certainly some validity in the claim that many sick or disabled people would love help and support to find a job. Remember the Labour-inspired Pathways to Work or New Deal for Disabled People? They were designed for just this purpose, but the government scrapped these programmes and left the staff running them on the dole.

Hopefully, no reader of this blog agrees that this is the way in which to conduct this debate? Allowing politicians and media to whip up hate and prejudice against a particular group of society is something we should all be ashamed of.

Wednesday 20 April 2011

Welfare to work and the 'lobster' effect

Most readers are aware that if you place a lobster in boiling water it will jump out. Yet, if you place it in cold water and increase the heat slowly it will stay in the pot until it eventually dies. If ever there was a living example of how that applies to humanity it is in the current behaviour of welfare to work staff.

Several weeks ago the government announced the closure of Pathways to Work and NDDP contracts and this was soon followed by the awarding of new contracts for the Tory flagship Work Programme. Analysts have long argued that Pathways to work and NDDP were destined for the ‘chop’ so it came as no surprise – yet a sizable number of people working in the industry seemed astonished the axe had fallen.

In a similar vein, the new prime and subcontractors are starting to recruit their staff for the delivery of the new contract. This has already meant that considerable numbers of people have been given redundancy notices and others have been advised they will be subject to TUPE regulations.

I have long argued that the new programme will not require anything like the numbers needed for the previous Flexible New Deal contract. Sadly, my insights are now starting to come to fruition. A number of large organisations have already started the process of ridding themselves of surplus staff, whilst a number have already started the process of TUPE’ing staff over to the new provider.

Inevitably this will mean that sooner or later new providers will ‘fill their books’ and have all the staff they need, leaving many staff who currently work for providers who lost out on the provision out on a limb.

Information coming in already suggests that at least three providers are without any work whatsoever after September, 2011 and this will mean they will have no need for any operational staff after that time. Unfortunately none of these companies have contacted the new providers to begin TUPE negotiations so this will inevitably leave everyone out in the cold and could result in at least 1,000 redundancies.

Overall it is unclear how many people will lose their jobs throughout the sector. Information from companies is deliberately vague and their employees are being fed little to no information. In most instances staff are being advised not to worry because they will be ‘subject to TUPE@ - but existing evidence has already shown this does not automatically mean they will still remain unemployed. Indeed, the available evidence is very much that because the financial model required by DWP was so close to the edge, most providers were forced to produce delivery designs where less staff would be required to achieve more, for less money.

Had the industry stated at the beginning of February that within six months 2 – 3,000 people (and possibly more) would be booted from their jobs there would have been an outcry. Staff would have been writing to the papers and to their MP; Grayling would have faced a picket line when he spoke at the Welfare to Work conference; some organisations might have had to contend with industrial action to protect jobs; MPs would have been asking questions in the House of Commons.

Instead the bosses remained silent – and if they did say anything, they told and continue to tell half-truths., or downright lies. Typical of this is A4e, who recently put staff in areas where they did not win on redundancy notice. The hope is that following TUPE consultation all of these people will move over to new employers – but of course this depends if they have vacancies. Also, some are starting to realise that local delivery managers may not be subject to TUPE and could find themselves out on their ear.

Sadly the people in the sector are almost certainly not going to do anything about it. Like ducks in the pond they are all waiting for the hunter to come and shoot them. Whilst they wait for the slaughter to begin most of these good people are working like Trojans in the hope that above average performance will somehow give them the chance of a new job.

It is very, very sad and people’s lives will be decimated because Duncan Smith and Grayling wanted to make their mark on the industry. Well they have – and as the cull begins, the blood is dripping from their hands.

Tuesday 19 April 2011

Cash-strapped BNP 'turns to racist hardcore'

The Independent yesterday published a very good article exposing our favourite right-wing thugs, the BNP. For those of you who missed it I have published it in full. Please excuse the use of swear words. I would normally not have printed them but fascists have no idea of either decorum or decency. For those who might be offended I have used asterisks to obscure the word whilst retaining the content.

The Independent by Oliver Wright
The BNP was last night accused of turning to "a hardcore group of neo-Nazis and racists" to stand as candidates in next month's local elections.

The anti-BNP campaign group Hope not Hate said it had compiled a dossier of extremist postings of candidates standing on 5 May, either in council elections or those to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Among the postings the group collected from Facebook pages were:

* One BNP candidate in the North of England who posted on his Facebook page a mock advert for the gas Zyklon B – used in the Nazi extermination chambers of the Second World War – captioned, "Try Zyklon B. It's a gas!"

* One candidate urges his followers to "Stamp out diseases today. Spray pakis and poofs with hydrochloric acid".

* An activist in Wales, who has a photograph of his endorsement by BNP leader Nick Griffin on his Facebook page. Underneath it reads: "My grandfather was killed in Auschwitz. Apparently he got p****d and fell out of the watchtower!"

The candidate also posted, "Just popped round to see my Muslim neighbour's new baby. She asked me if I wanted to wind it but that seemed a bit extreme so I gave it a dead leg instead."

* A woman, describing herself as a "a big supporter of the BNP leader Nick Griffin", responded to a protest by Muslims Against The Crusades by saying: "They should all be burned."

* Another candidate posting about his arrest for "an out of date bus ticket", says: "They [police] have just made me hate them even more. From now on I will be celebrating the death of serving police officers when they are announced on the news. May sound a bit extreme but I hate them that much." He also posted that Labour's newly elected MP for Barnsley Central, Dan Jarvis, a former officer in the Parachute Regiment, "should have been shot from behind while facing the enemy".

Overall the BNP will be fielding just over 200 candidates in next month's elections – nearly 500 fewer than the in 2007. It said it "was having to cut its cloth" because of the amount of money it had had to spend defending a legal action against the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Hope not Hate said: "As his party crumbles, Nick Griffin has been forced to turn to what even by BNP standards, is a hard core of neo-Nazis and racists. These are not just activists, but people Griffin is putting forward as candidates for elected public office. They are literally the best the BNP now has to offer."

Hope not Hate, which is funded by the trades union movement, said the party had become hopelessly split – with many members defecting to the English Democrats and the breakaway party British Freedom Party.

The BNP has been engaged in a long-running court battle with the EHRC over its policy of restricting membership to "indigenous British people". It scrapped the rule but the Commission accused Mr Griffin of failing to comply with an order to remove potentially racist clauses from his party's constitution. In December Mr Griffin fought off an attempt to have him declared guilty of contempt of court at the High Court – which rejected the EHRC's attempt to seize the party's assets. Costs were awarded to the BNP but deputy leader Simon Darby said the battle had affected its ability to recruit members and had cost a huge amount in legal fees which had yet to be reimbursed.

Mr Darby said: "Unlike the Labour Party we cannot afford to be £19m in debt and we have had to cut our cloth accordingly." He said the unsavoury postings could be fakes to discredit the party.

'BNP postings' on facebook

* "7/7 – keep trying ya raghead b*****ds. This is our country our England our rules. Time2 packup and get the f**k out of dodge."

* "Fly your flag! no excuses. We stock them. £5 to p**s off your Muslim neigbours off big style. What a f*****g bargain."

* "Going to the polling station was a day out for the lazy African population as they don't work."

* "Unless we stand up and are counted then it's bye bye England."

How can we explain our obsession with nuclear power?

A break today from discussions about the welfare to work sector, though look out over the next few days for revelations of at least one training provider that might completely fall by the wayside.
Instead today I want to look at the thorny subject of nuclear power. The case against nuclear is overwhelming, yet it is a fair bet that after Fukushima and after carrying out all due ‘reviews and consultations’, the Government will still go ahead with a major new nuclear build programme. Why? It says a lot more about the political networking of the nuclear industry than it does about their engineering or technological proficiency. For not one of the big put-offs about nuclear have been satisfactorily answered – the catastrophic potential, the nuclear waste mountain, sharply rising costs, radiation and cancer risks, decommissioning costs, vulnerability to attack, flooding and climate change risks to reactor coastal locations, uninsurable accident liabilities, nuclear proliferation threats, the link to nuclear weapons, and many others. So how does nuclear survive?
It’s not just Fukushima where we now know that a month after the catastrophe there is still a risk of meltdown at a nuclear site which contains 230kg of plutonium (one of the most toxic and dangerous substances known), nearly 500 tonnes of uranium, and an additional 1,800 tonnes of spent fuel stored on site. We would never have heard of Fukushima if the earthquake hadn’t occurred: how many other sites across the world, including perhaps in Britain, contain a potential nuclear bomb waiting to go off if an unpredicted conjuncture of events were to occur?
That risk, however unlikely, cannot be eliminated. But there are many downsides to nuclear which we can already predict and calculate. The cost of building a nuclear reactor (in Finland and France) has already doubled in the course of construction. Clegg for once was correct when he said that the recommended higher safety standards in the light of Fukushima would make them too expensive. Decommissioning and nuclear waste management of the existing reactors in the UK is now estimated to cost this country £80bn.
Is nuclear then really necessary? It clearly isn’t. Germany has already installed more windpower capacity than the whole UK nuclear output, and is adding to that by an amount equal to more than one reactor a year. In one year, 2009, Germany, without being located in Southern Europe or North Africa, installed solar PV capacity equal to 4 nuclear reactors.
Nor does the usual anti-renewables jibe about intermittency have force any more. The £500m BritNed cable linking Britain for the first time into the European super-grid opened two weeks ago. It is a high voltage direct current power transmission project which allows electricity to be transmitted over much greater distances than existing alternating current lines which start losing power after 80km. Britain is now part of the HVDC network which is the key to ‘weather-proofing’ the large-scale use of renewable energy.
So how can nuclear survive? Two reasons, both deplorable. One is the vice-like grip of the nuclear industry on Whitehall, particularly the top civil service ranks of the Department of Energy. The other is the mindless panic induced in politicians by the canard, so often used, that without nuclear, the lights will go out.
Clearly something has to be done. We can do nothing about the tragic events in Fukushima or the horrendous loss of life, but we need to do something to stop it happening here. Back in the 1980s, CND had a strong power base and could easily have called out 1m people to march against nukes, but sadly those days have gone. Equally, opponents of nuclear power are often seen as being tree-hugging, pinko-liberal types with nothing better to do than wear wellies and recycle everything.

Well the responsibility to change hearts and minds starts with every reader of this blog – ask yourself a simple question. Do you think you are doing enough? If your answer is no, you are not alone – huge numbers of people became politically inactive during the Blair years. Well now it’s time to start campaigning again.

Come on – you know you want to.

Monday 18 April 2011

We are in this together

Following my call yesterday for attendees of the Welfare to Work conference in June to ‘Turn they Back on Grayling’ there has been a flurry of email response from readers.

The vast majority were completely in favour of action to force the government to rethink some of their ideas on welfare to work and many supported my call for action.

Before other readers start feeing sorry for Mr Grayling please remember this is a man with an estimated personal wealth of £500, 000 and who owns four London homes. Despite his personal wealth, he still had no qualms about charging the state £40, 000 for refurbishments to one of these houses.

Iain Duncan Smith is a fair bit better off with a personal wealth estimated at £1m and owns two homes. He owes his apparent wealth to his wife, Betsy and lives in a £1million house provided by her father, the 5th Baron Cottesloe, which appears to be tied up in a series of complex family trusts.

I am sure the fact these two ministers are so comfortably off will offer great solace to the hundreds of welfare to work staff now facing redundancy. As they look forward to a future sitting ‘the other side of the desk’ at Jobcentres, these hard-working professionals will no doubt sleep much better at night knowing Duncan Smith and Grayling are able to afford the life of Reilly. And the thanks the state will give them for helping so many people back into work? A measly £67.50 or £105.95 a week if they are a married couple or living with a partner.

The time has come to stand up and take action and following a significant response to earlier posting I am proposing that staff in the sector set up a Welfare to Work Action Group (WAG) with the aim of campaigning on a variety of levels – these to be decided ultimately by those who ‘sign up’ to the concept.

Amongst issues that could be raised are the following:

1. Opposition to the government’s ill-planned Work Programme that has already been shown to offer little for the Third Sector and is unlikely to provide any real benefit to the unemployed.
2. Greater levels of equality between frontline workers and senior management and directors (including CEOs). This is not to suggest they should not be well paid, but the difference between the lowest paid and the highest should be no more than 10 times the salary. Thus, if the lowest paid frontline worker earns £16, 000 per year then the Chief Executive can only earn £160, 000
3. Professionalisation of the industry – this should not be determined by an independent think tank and a group of providers as can be seen in the POWER group, it should be determined by the staff themselves.
4. A total rethink on the way the industry is funded. Currently all staff are only secure in their jobs for 5-years. After that time they are often under threat of redundancy and, if lucky, subject to TUPE transfer. It is a disgrace and I know of no other career that places professionals in such a position. Ask yourself the question – would nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers accept such treatment?

These are just a few ideas. They are not exclusive and the ones I have proposed are not set in stone. They are merely discussion points to drive the Group forward.

If you are interested in being part of a radical group dedicated to campaigning and promoting an alternative view of welfare to work, whilst supporting staff who work in the sector then please write to me. The email is at the top of this blog.

If you do not have time to become involved, but essentially support the notion of a group, still contact. Your name can be added to a mailing list and we can keep you informed of what is happening.

This will be a members’ organisation, with policies and campaigns determined by the membership – it will not be a mouthpiece for this blog.

Help start the fightback to preserve services for the unemployed and save jobs in the industry. The more people we have on board, the stronger will be our voice, so tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and encourage them to write in and lend their support.

Sunday 17 April 2011

Turn your back on Grayling

I continue to find it disturbing that each day I am hearing of more redundancies in the welfare to work sector and nothing is happening. Latest rumours are suggesting 96 people working for Reed in Partnership have been put on consultation (though hopefully a sizable number of these will be absorbed into their restructured operation) and they are joined by a further 700 people from unidentified companies who also are under threat. If these numbers are added to those already known it could result in a loss of more than 2,000 people from the sector by next September. From information supplied by colleagues and supporters of this blog I know of at least one substantial company with approximately 300 employees that could easily ‘go to the wall’ as a result of these new contracts. Sadly the key forums for the sector have failed to respond to this seepage in any proactive manner, largely because the majority of contributors to these sites (Indus Delta, Yes Minister and Carley Consult) are mainly the managers who will be responsible for administering these redundancies. Some in the industry saw this tragic situation emerging long before the results were announced. Indeed the bid documents for the Work Programme set out a criteria guaranteed to make companies underprice themselves and plan projects based on reduced staffing. The documents stated "For each percentage point below the maximum price we will award 1 point of evaluation marks on top of the maximum 60 that are available for quality. For each percentage point reduction above 20 this will drop to an extra 0.5. The percentage reduction and the finance tender mark will be to two decimal places". This simple statement had a direct effect on the future number of people who would be employed in the sector. As on surprisingly frank commentator on Indus Delta stated “This obviously has an impact on the quality of service that can be offered, or the numbers of people that can be paid to deliver that service either directly or in their supply chain.”
Next month, Chris Grayling will dare to show his face at the Welfare to Work Convention in Manchester on 30th June and, no doubt, will be greeted with much applause by the senior managers sat inside – partly because they will be some of the people who have managed to stay in a job whilst many of their colleagues will be outside, either looking for work or, if they are lucky just starting to come to terms with a new employer. It is critical the sector tells Grayling how distressed they are with the administration of this new welfare to work scheme and how it has led to large scale redundancies throughout the industry. Sadly the evidence would suggest the industry is surrounded by apathy and a general belief in its own impotence. It sees itself more as a victim of circumstance rather than as a proactive part of the process. It is therefore critical at this time that those opposed to the cuts vocalise their opposition to the redundancies that are happening across the country. As part of this I call on the Coalition of Resistance, the Right to Work Campaign, UK Uncut, the broader trade union movement, socialist and radicals to organise now so we can picket the conference and let Grayling here our voice. Can you imagine the press reaction if the audience stood as Grayling was speaking and simply turned their back on Grayling? So the campaign begins today. If you are attending the conference I ask you, when Grayling goes to the podium, stand and turn your back throughout his speech. Those of you unable to go to the conference itself but willing to help should contact me directly to organise the picket outside the conference. TURN YOUR BACK ON GRAYLING! We may not win this struggle and save hundreds of jobs, but we can let the Tories know we will not tolerate their lack of care for people’s jobs any longer.

Saturday 16 April 2011

Help the Stroke Association Marathon Team

Just a brief posting to wish all the runners in the London marathon every success. Wish I was there with you.

It's going to be a great day and will be made a whole bunch better if you aren't running yourself and sponsor one of the runners. As most readers will know, I am a keen supporter of the Stroke Association and for that reason I urge you to sponsor one of their Marathon Team

Rich Greenwood is one of their runners. Both his grandfathers died from strokes and he hoped to raise £3,000. Thankfully he has already surpassed his target, but you could make his hard work even more worthwhile by supporting him today. All you have to do is visit the Just Giving web site and make your donation. It will only take a few seconds, but your contribution can help make the life of a stroke survivor so much better. Please help.

The website to make a donation is http://www.justgiving.com/rich-greensmith

Thank you.

Friday 15 April 2011

Lethal exports - an urgent message to Vince Cable

Oliver Sprague is the Arms Programme Director of Amnesty International UK

He might not agree with the prime minister on the inward movement of people to the United Kingdom, but business secretary Vince Cable is apparently on the same page as Mr Cameron on the need to prevent pharmaceutical drugs being exported to countries that use them to execute people.

Mr Cable’s announcement of a ban within days on the export from the UK of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride is welcome news.

Lethal injection executions are grisly affairs, involving strapping prisoners down, and, in a quasi -medical procedure, inserting into the body a cocktail of three drugs that anaesthetise, paralyse and then poison the prone person.

They sometimes misfire. If the anaesthetic fails prisoners experience intense pain as the potassium chloride courses through their bloodstream. Indeed they may experience the agony of an induced heart attack paralysed by the pancuronium bromide and therefore unable to cry out.

To add to this, there have been horribly botched executions, where the execution chamber officials’ struggle to find a usable vein for the injection catheter has gone on and on (for two hours in one case), with the prisoner looking on, a bizarre witness to his own execution.

But merely shutting off the supply of three named drugs from one country (the UK) is an inadequate response. And Vince Cable knows this. Last year we wrote to the business secretary reminding him of the UK’s obligations (under EC Regulation 1235/2005) to prevent the export from the UK of all goods involved in capital punishment or torture.

Banning three specific drugs is not enough. If next week another pharma company pops up with a substitute drug and starts shipping it to death penalty states in the USA, they would get around the ban at a stroke.

Meanwhile, Mr Cable is urging other European countries to follow suit. This is the right approach (indeed there are already reports of a Danish company supplying a replacement for sodium thiopental through a Kansas subsidiary). Like junkies looking for a fix, US state authorities have been looking around the world for alternative supply sources after sodium thiopental ran short in the US last year.

Without international controls, death penalty countries will find it all too easy to get their capital punishment equipment on the international market.

So my urgent message to Mr Cable is simple: instead of relying on the three-drug ban establish a clear set of controls (in the UK and further afield) that assess the likely end-use of the goods concerned. One clear control factor would be whether the items in question (drugs, restraint equipment, etc) are likely to be used to carry out executions. Indeed this is actually what the government said it would push for within the EU more than two years ago, yet nothing has been done.

Amnesty recently reported that there were more than 500 state executions in the world last year (indeed this is only the “official” figure, most killings take place in secret and the true figure will have run into the thousands) and a large proportion of them were carried out by lethal injection. To its credit the UK’s policy commitment is to oppose capital punishment globally and to press for its abolition. Why then is it so slipshod over regulating lethal exports?

Thursday 14 April 2011

A good reason to vote "Yes"

According to research undertaken by ippr the alternative vote system would not hand undue influence to the BNP. Their study looked at results in all constituencies if the last election had been run under AV. Researchers at the think-tank ran a series of tests on two different facets of the claim by those who oppose the move to AV that the BNP would be able to "pick a winner". IPPR looked at whether there could be a mass transfer of BNP supporters' votes pushing one candidate over the 50% threshold, and that BNP voters' second preferences could overturn a favourite and help someone placed second or even third to come first. The research comes as both the “No” and “Yes” campaigns mark the four-week countdown to the AV referendum. The “No” campaign have previously aired concerns that a change in the voting system would boost minority parties, with their campaign director, Matthew Elliott, saying recently AV would "[give] BNP supporters more power at the ballot box". In an AV system, voters rank candidates instead of voting only for their chosen one. If no single candidate has secured 50% of the vote immediately, the candidate who has received fewest first preference votes is eliminated and the second preferences of their voters are redistributed to other candidates. The “No” campaign fears the second preferences of those eliminated – likely to be those who back minority parties – could go on to have profound effects further down the reallocation process. They have published a list of 35 seats in which the BNP's share of the vote was greater than the winner's margin of victory. Now researchers have looked at this assertion in two ways. They show there to be 56 seats where the share of the BNP vote exceeds the gap between the first-placed candidate and the 50% threshold they need to cross and where, if all BNP supporters transferred their second preferences as a bloc, it could help the lead candidate win. They then showed that the 2010 British election survey – which asked 13,356 people to take part in a mock election run under their AV system – found the number of seats where the second preference of those voting BNP push a winning candidate over the 50% threshold fell to 25. However, the IPPR researchers demonstrated that in all 25 seats the second preferences of the BNP are not "decisive" and the second preferences of others just as critical. They explain that in the 25, the first-placed candidate is within "spitting distance" of the finishing line and the average gap between the first and second placed candidate is 24.52%, which they say is "larger than the share of the vote of any third-placed candidate whose votes would be needed to change the result". "In other words there is no chance that BNP second preference votes could alter the outcome in any of these seats. In all of them the winner on first preferences will be the winner once votes have been reallocated in subsequent rounds irrespective of the role played by BNP votes." The IPPR researchers also dissected the idea that BNP voters could change the balance of power in constituencies by pushing a second or third place candidate into first place and over the 50% threshold on the back of its transferred votes. Results from the 2010 election show that there is not one constituency where the BNP vote share is larger than the margin between 50% and that received by the runner-up. Their researchers say: "Given the marginality and distance from 50% for both the first and second placed candidates it is true that BNP supporters' second or third preferences will be counted in the 35 seats listed by the 'No to AV' campaign. "However, the BNP vote is still very small in each of these seats, averaging a vote share of just 4.5% – yet the average distance from 50% for the winning candidate is 11.3% and 14.2% for the runner-up. Even if we assume all BNP preferences go to a single candidate (which they wouldn't) they would still require more than twice the number of BNP supporters to win under AV. BNP voters cannot therefore single-handedly change a result." The IPPR details some high profile cases: Barking The IPPR said: “The constituency [in] which the BNP has its highest proportion in vote share, it is a clear safe seat for Labour achieving over 50% of all votes and very unlikely requiring the need for 2nd preferences. All additional party votes summed – including the Liberal Democrats – would not be enough to elect the Conservative runner-up”. Morley and Outwood IPPR argued: "The BNP additional vote preferences would be counted but as the race is highly marginal – both winner and runner-up maintaining votes shares in the mid-30s – the race will be decided by the 16.76% Liberal Democrat supporters whose second preferences are more likely to go to Labour than the Conservatives." Burnley On this constituency ippr argued: "The race is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BNP additional vote preferences will likely be counted but the 16.61% of Conservative voters will be the decisive group who strongly favour the Liberal Democrats over Labour thus, likely retaining the seat in Liberal Democrat hands". The “No” campaign maintain that BNP voters will still have undue influence in any AV election compared with those who vote for one of the three main parties. Recent research by them showed that if the 2010 general election had been run under AV, in 70% of seats those who backed the three main parties would have been unlikely to get a second vote. Launching that research, Matthew Elliott said that in some constituencies supporters of the BNP would have had their preferences counted six times before a winner was declared. All of which assumes that those second, third, fourth and fifth preferences would go to other extremist parties. The reality is the far right are extremely sectarian and many BNP voters would rather vote Labour or Conservative than put their second vote with an NF candidate. Given this, there seems little to worry about regarding the distribution of BNP supporter second preferences. With a few weeks to go the “No” campaign has been insipid and fundamentally dishonest. They have so failed to answer the claims made by the “Yes” campaign that a move to AV would produce a fairer electoral system. This blog has been reluctant to support the “Yes” campaign because of my passionate belief that the correct voting system would have been the Single Transferrable Vote STV). This is not going to happen, so we must make full use of the opportunity to dump the defunct First Passed The Post system and change it to a more democratic approach that allows voters the opportunity to elect members of parliament who more fully represent the views of the majority. Given the options, the Alternative Vote is the only way forward and I would urge readers to vote “Yes” on May 5th

Wednesday 13 April 2011

The bizarre thinking of right-wingers

Some people baffle me. I cannot understand their naïveté and inability to see the division in our society. It is as though they have been cloistered in the arms of the Telegraph for too long.

Now I admit I rather set myself up for this anyway. I am a fairly frequent participant in comments on the Westminster blog on the Financial Times website. Not the most socialist of sites I would agree, but I have long held there is little point in contributing to left wing sites as you are already speaking to the converted.

Anyway, in a recent debate about higher education we began discussing the lack of accessibility of places like Oxford and Cambridge to working class people. Needless to say my vitriol against “the system” was frowned on by one contributor, who I am convinced sees me as some kind of representation of the Devil himself.


Here are some of his comments:
I knew a lot of working-class boys who went to Oxford so I see no reason why I should be shouted down by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about and chooses to rant about something I have never said. As well as providing scholarships, which now provide pretty nominal amounts of money and significant prestige to the most academically gifted undergraduates, Oxford provides generous bursaries to the poorest undergraduates. Tacitus is displaying either ignorance or bigotry by claiming that his children cannot afford to go there. The doors are *more* open to decent working class kids than to those of the upper or middle-class *provided, of course, that they have the ability to benefit from the course*.
There are a few rich kids but they have always been untypical and there is an active trade in second-hand textbooks. He seems to have completely changed his line from "poorer kids cannot get in" to "my kids don't want to get in".
I object to being so utterly misrepresented: I said that it was not the fault of Oxford but of the comprehensive school system created by Labour pushed and egged-on by The Guardian that there was inequality of opportunity - Tacitus alleges that I "sit there pontificating about how there is equality and all you have to do is work hard" - what utter tripe. Perhaps that is because he feels sensitive to my comment "the barrier is less social class than parental attitude to education". When I was 17 I thought that education was more important than "a few beers of a night and the chance to meet lots of girls.”

I can't be sure how old Tacitus is but looking at his blog I suspect that he started secondary school *after* I started complaining about the disadvantages imposed on bright working-class kids by the replacement of grammar and secondary tech schools by comprehensives.
The increase in gross inequality in the UK is down to New Labour and I am on record complaining about this for several years. I am not blaming Tacitus - Mapam is reckoned to be nearer Scargill's SWP than New Labour, but there is absolutely no reason to blame *me* for it nor to imply that I sympathise with it.


Sounds like I hit a nerve.

Needless to say, I couldn’t let this go, so this was my reply:

Your responses would be amusing if they were not so scary in their inaccuracy and your comment "I know a lot of working class boys who went to Oxford" rather demonstrates your naïveté. Of course you will find a few token working class kids allowed through the system - otherwise the broader working class would realise they were being stifled. By allowing just a few in you keep open a dream that maybe, just maybe, if you are really lucky and they don't pay too much attention to your accent you will get in.

You argue that Oxford offers generous bursaries - in fact these are only of £3,200 per year. Now, with annual fees of £9,000 there is already a £6,000 differential before a working class kid even walks through the door. On top of this is accommodation. Some will live in College at a cost of £3,700 (already £500 over the bursary fee) but many will be forced to live outside in private accommodation. The University itself recommends students budget over £6,000 for this. Then of course are the day to day costs and the University very conservatively recommends students budget a further £1,850 a year. This would mean that each year a student will be in debt to the tune of £13,650 a year, assuming they stay strictly on budget, only return home once each term and keep social life to a minimum.

You say the doors are more open to working class kids than to middle class ones, yet only 11.5% of students identify themselves as working class. Hardly a true representation of society.

As for the very weak and exceedingly old chestnut of "it's all New Labour's fault" - get real. The division between classes has been going on at Oxford for years - long before 1997 when New Labour came to power. If anything, there was a minimal increase in the number of working class students during the period.

You say that at 17 you were more interested in education than going out with girls and drinking beer - well bully for you John., because so was I. Except I had to leave school and work for ten years so I could afford to go to university. I didn't have the luxury of being able to put financial considerations to one side.

As for mention of the now defunct Mapam I raise two points. Firstly, what on earth has an Israeli left wing party of the 1980s got to do with our argument? Secondly, for your information Arthur Scargill is, and never was a member of the Socialist Worker Party. He formed a separate organisation called the Socialist Labour Party. Perhaps your other 'facts' are equally well researched thus leading to naive and bigoted analysis.

Well one thing is for sure – I may not have converted a Tory, but I sure as hell gave him a sleepless night, because his response to me came at 2.55am!!

Oh I do love upsetting right-wingers. No doubt he will make some typically naïve response, but isn’t it disturbing that there are still people in this country who think this way. Clearly there remains much to do to educate people about the extent of division in our society.

No hope for our young people

In the next hour we will hear how youth unemployment has exceeded 1 million people – an entire generation consigned to the waste bin. According to The Times today, 33% of the population of Merthyr Tydfil are claiming unemployment benefit.

If the upward trend of leaving young people jobless and without a future we will find ourselves in the same boat as Ireland with 31.9% youth unemployment, or Greece with 36.1%.

And what is the government doing about it? Quite honestly very little. News yesterday of regional grants that will bring 40,000 jobs to the West Midlands alone must be welcomed, but these will not happen straight away – they will filter through the system slowly and will do little to affect the hundreds of thousands who will wake up this morning with nothing to do, no money and no future.

It is critical the government acts now to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment by re-opening the Flexible Jobs Fund and offering companies substantial incentives for taking on unemployed young people.

If we are to say we believe in our youth, we must invest in them and not treat them as an after-thought as has happened with this government.

Tuesday 12 April 2011

Coalition’s regional growth fund sweetener leaves a bitter taste

by Kevin Meagher

The government yesterday announced the winners from the first round of bidding for its new Regional Growth Fund (RGF) – the funding designed to stimulate private sector jobs growth in the English regions.

A pot of £450 million of government cash will support 50 regional growth projects, which the government hopes will lever-in an additional £2.5 billion of private sector investment, creating 27,000 jobs directly and an additional 100,000 through the supply chain.

Announcing the successful first round applicants, deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg said:

“Today is a step towards rebalancing our economy away from an unhealthy over-reliance on a small number of industries and a few areas. We need to spread opportunity across the whole country, drawing on our many talents.”

Successful projects include a road widening scheme to the A45 in Birmingham, transformation of Manchester’s former Royal Eye Hospital into a biotech centre, while sweet maker Haribo will be supported in extending its West Yorkshire plant, creating 286 new jobs. On average, two thirds of the bids were for project funding of up to £5m.

There is nothing wrong with any of the successful bids in and of themselves. As one source from a regional development agency put it to LFF:

“12 months ago, these were exactly the same kinds of projects we were criticised for spending money on. Now the coalition thinks they are the bees knees.”

However the flaw in Labour’s RDA model was that it was too equitable, with each English region having its own agency, regardless of actual need. The focus on regional growth should have been more narrowly focused on closing the national prosperity gap through aggressively diversifying the economies of the northern regions, which underwent savage deindustrialisation and jobs-shedding in the 1980s.

In that respect, the government deserves some credit for focusing its attention today. Half the successful projects cover the north of England,with London and the south east missing out altogether. The key issue remains one of generating private sector activity in those parts of the country heavily reliant on public sector jobs and therefore hardest hit with government spending cuts.

Today’s announcement is a welcome contribution, but pales besides the resources the regional development agencies had at their disposal over the previous decade. This first round of RGF funding allocates £450m to 50 regional growth projects, however more than 464 bids, totalling £2.8bn were originally submitted, exposing the scale of demand across the country as the government’s spending cuts continue to decimate regeneration projects.

Despite today’s announcement, the RGF actually masks a catastrophic cut to funding for regional economic growth. The fund amounts to just £1.4bn, spread over three years – equivalent to the eight regional development agencies’ annual budget. Also, the coalition’s ideological decision to scrap RDAs (which had delivered a return, on average, of £4.50 for every £1 of public money spent) has wasted much of the last year with an unneeded shuffling of the bureaucratic pack as ministers struggled to develop their successor delivery vehicle, the local economic partnerships.

Also, the selection of projects by the panel chaired by Lord Heseltine lacks any real transparency and represents a centralisation of decision-making, with the department of business cherry-picking the RDAs higher-value functions to pad out Vince Cable’s Whitehall empire.

By fronting today’s announcement himself, Nick Clegg will seek to show the Lib Dems are influencing the coalition’s wider economic agenda, providing a riposte to his internal critics like Warren Bradley, the leader of the Lib Dems in Liverpool, who last night called for the Lib Dems to quit the coalition saying he is tired of “defending the indefensible”.

However, the gaping holes in the government’s approach to regional economic growth remain; with too little money, a lack of long-term commitment, messy and unneeded changes in delivery and a lack of transparency and accountability hampering their efforts.

Haribo’s sweet factory may have benefited from today’s announcement, but with growth faltering, there is simply not enough money in the regional growth fund to sweeten the pill of the coalition’s bitter spending cuts.

Monday 11 April 2011

Welfare to work - doesn't work.

Tomorrow, DWP will announce the latest unemployment figures and if reports in the Times yesterday prove accurate, we can anticipate the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance will fall by 4,200. What is equally likely is the number of people deemed ‘inactive’ (last month 9,328,000 were put into this category) will remain static or could even rise and there will be no significant decline in the number of people in part-time work.

According to research papers in the House of Commons library, since the recession began there has been a 5.4% increase to 7.9 million in the number of people working part-time. There has been a 3.5% decline in the number working full-time, to 21.2 million. The proportion of part-time workers who state that they are only working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job has increased from 9% before the recession to 15% now. This suggests that people are settling for part-time jobs when they would prefer full-time jobs.

Citizen Dave has told us we do not need to worry as the private sector are about to pick up the tab and employ many of these people. However, on this question the jury is still out. Private sector employment is up annually – by a positive-looking 428,000 – leading to an increase in overall employment of 296,000 on the year. But the sorts of jobs that have been created do not suggest a strong labour market recovery:

• 114,000 (39 per cent) are self-employed jobs;
• 12,000 (4 per cent) are unpaid family workers;
• 11,000 (4 per cent) are positions on Government supporting employment programmes;
• 206,000 are part-time (70 per cent); and
• Only 65,000 are full-time employee positions (22 per cent).

Significantly, no-one seems to be asking serious questions about why is this happening? One of the causes is down to the welfare to work industry. Each day thousands of people are required to see staff working for one of the many training providers delivering Flexible New Deal contracts. These contracts require any unemployed person unemployed for over 12-months to attend regular ‘motivational’ meetings with a caseworker with the aim of supporting them back into work.

Seems reasonable so far – except many of these ‘clients’ attending these programmes are encouraged to accept part-time employment often taking a drop in income that is below what they were receiving when they were on benefits. Sounds crazy? Not really when you consider that all of these providers receive a handsome payment for everyone they get into work and off the claimant register.

The fact they are financially worse off as a result of accepting the job is of no concern to staff working for these providers. Their job has been done. But does it make sense to force people into jobs that pay less than the pittance they receive on JSA. Anyone who accuses an unemployed person of being a “scrounger” clearly hasn’t lived on the dole.
Just look at the figures – they hardly offer the jobless a life of luxury:

Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Aged 16 – 24 £53.45
Aged 25 or over £67.50

Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Single people, aged under 25 £53.45
Single people, aged 25 or over £67.50
Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over) £105.95
Lone parent (aged under 18) £53.45
Lone parent (aged 18 or over) £67.50

It doesn’t make sense to force people into such low paid work and it disturbs me that the attitude of some of these frontline workers leans towards this idea. Now, let me be clear – I am not suggesting it is OK to sit back and claim benefit indefinitely without looking for work. It is right there is an expectation that people should seek employment. However, in a culture where the jobs aren’t available it is difficult to accuse the thousands of claimants seeking work of being ‘scroungers’.

Moreover, many of the ‘back to work’ calculations done by these frontline workers often conclude the client would be ‘better off’ taking a part-time job – but these calculations often fail to take into account certain factors such as the hidden expenses of going to work. For example, this morning I will go to work and call into a shop and buy a coffee before arriving at my office. Had I been home I would have put on the kettle. At lunch I will wander through the town looking for a pair of shoes for work. Had I been home I would have worn trainers or slippers – I would not have needed a replacement pair of shoes. The other costs go on.

We need to radically review the way we treat people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not enough to cram them into the first available job just so it gets them off the claimant register. We must work towards helping these people secure permanent full-time sustainable employment.

Now, Iain Duncan Smith would tell us the Work Programme is targeted to achieve just this and with £5bn worth of contracts currently being divvied up between 18 contractors, there is clearly a lot of profit in agreeing with the minister. But with at least 5 people still applying for every job we are a long way off achieving the goal of full employment.

The hard reality is that Work Programme, like Flexible New Deal before it will not work because it is being run ‘for profit’ and whilst this demon is present, providers will always seek quick easy solutions to secure payment.

It is time to accept the inevitable – welfare to work … doesn’t work.

Sunday 10 April 2011

Is the Coalition crumbling?

Despite the brave face Clegg is showing, things are not good in the Coalition and each day more rifts are starting to show.

Already in Scotland the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems has argued with the Tories about their policies on justice and their manifesto for the Assembly is clearly at odds with Coalition policy. Take some of their key points:

1. Create conditions for 100,000 new jobs, supported by at least £1.5 billion of investment freed up by reform to Scottish Water.
2. Cut energy bills and boost green economy with new help to pay for insulation and new investment in renewable energy.
3. Give head teachers more power.
4. Give every child a fair start in life with an Early Intervention Revolution
5. Keep higher education free – no fees and no graduate contribution
6. Improve out-of-hours healthcare across Scotland.

Not exactly in-line with the Tory position of cuts, cuts, and more cuts.

Meanwhile back in England, one of Nick Clegg's closest advisers has threatened to quit unless ministers make changes to a proposed overhaul of the NHS. Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb said the plans posed a major "financial risk" to the NHS, and patient care could suffer. He said he would quit as Mr Clegg's chief political adviser unless NHS professionals were "on board".

While supporting the general direction of government proposals, he feared there was "no evidence" how the new GP-led system would operate.
Also speaking on Sunday, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander acknowledged there were "issues" in the way GP-led commissioning consortia would operate and be regulated.

More recently, an interim report by a five-member banking commission, headed by Sir John Vickers, is expected to recommend a series of measures to protect banks’ key functions at times of crisis. The moves are likely to cost banks an extra £5billion but are set to be supported by George Osborne, the Chancellor. However, the recommendations will be contested by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers including Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, exposing a clear fault line at the top of the government. Cable has in the past called for the big banks such as HSBC, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland to be completely split up into retail and investment arms- and Sir John’s report does not go as far as this. A senior Lib Dem source attempted to distance his party from the findings ahead of today’s publication of the commission’s interim report.

Is this an ideological shift? Hardly – it has more to do with May 5th and the Lib Dems playing a sneaky move to try and distance themselves from the Tories. They know they will be trounced at the election if they continue to suck up to the Tories, so they are trying to show they are independent.

We are unconvinced.

The evidence has shown they are so close to Tory policy it is untrue. They supported the increase in tuition fees; they were all set to endorse changes in the NHS and only bailed out when RCN and the BMA voiced their opposition. In addition they have gone along with Tory plans to scrap EMA and the Flexible Jobs Fund. The Lib Dems have even nodded through substantial changes to welfare reform that will cause unnecessary stress to thousands of sick and disabled people.

The Lib Dems committed political suicide when they formed a coalition with the Tories after May 6th and now they are trying to squirm out of their commitment. Well the electorate may not have long memories, but they have a long enough one to remember all the lies and deceptions Clegg has offered the people over the last year.

On May 5th they will pay the price – and the devastation is likely to be near nuclear. The party leadership will have a hard time justifying their alliance with the Tories once the votes are counted.

Saturday 9 April 2011

An ill wind from Tory HQ

Ken Livingstone
If you're suddenly feeling worse off this month, blame the Tories - David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson.

Worse-off Wednesday was an apt way to describe April 6, when a whole series of tax changes, benefit cuts and reductions to welfare payments imposed by the government came into effect, hitting pay packets and peoples' quality of life.

We are seeing housing benefit cuts to the tune of £220 million, tax benefit cuts amounting to £1.18 billion, a freeze in child benefit equivalent to a £356m cut and other welfare cuts amounting to £664m.

These cuts come to about £10 for every household in Britain. But clearly not everyone will lose out in the same way.

The biggest losers from these changes will be those entitled to welfare - the working poor, the growing number of unemployed and those with disabilities.

Not only are they the ones hardest hit by the changes but they are those least able to afford them.

But all this is just the beginning.

The government's own data shows that cuts will rise over time, so that by 2014-15 they and other cuts will amount to £18.08bn - or more than £750 for every household in Britain.

And it won't just be the very poorest who will suffer - the "squeezed middle" are in for a tough time too.

Combined, those on low and middle incomes are bearing the brunt of the government's measures.

A freeze on the threshold for the higher-rate 40 per cent tax-band at £35,001 rather than allowing it to rise with inflation to £37,400 means 750,000 people will be brought into the band for the first time, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The increase in employees' national insurance contribution rate from 11 to 12 per cent is also a tax increase.

And it all comes on top of an increase in the VAT rate, hitting the entire population with a regressive tax, and rising inflation which is now running at three per cent above average wage growth.

Much of this inflation is either directly caused by the Tory-led coalition through the VAT hike or has been allowed by them in the form of rising utilities bills and increased fares.

In London, for example, the impact of Chancellor George Osborne's lifting of the cap on rail fare increases is compounded by Mayor Boris Johnson's above-inflation public-transport fare rises.

In three years a single bus or tram fare in the city has risen from 90p to £1.30 - an increase of 44 per cent.

Fares in London are planned to rise by two per cent above inflation for years to come.

Londoners are also hardest hit by the flat-rate cuts in benefits such as housing, because housing is so much more expensive in London than in the rest of the country.

According to homeless charity Shelter 160,000 households across the capital will be affected by the cut.

All these cutbacks will literally hit hundreds of thousands of households, most of them in work.

According to independent research from the Resolution Foundation London families will lose an average of £603 a year as a result of the government's decision to reduce the percentage of child-care costs paid through the Working Tax Credit, £167 more than the average across the UK (£436). There could hardly be a clearer illustration of the damage being caused by the coalition government than families losing £603 a year as a result of just one of the many cuts being made.

So it was richly ironic that Boris Johnson used his £250,000-a-year Telegraph column this week to whinge about Labour criticism of government policies, comparing it to trying to "spread gloom in the sunshine."

The weather may be sunny but the winds blowing from the Conservative-led government are as icy as ever.

•It is becoming increasingly apparent that public opinion is moving against military intervention in Libya.

YouGov's Anthony Wells wrote earlier this week that "for the first time so far our poll today showed more people (43 per cent) thinking the military action was wrong than those in favour of it (38 per cent)."

Moreover opinion has moved on whether the intervention is going well.The week before last, 57 per cent of the public thought it was going well and 19 per cent thought it was going badly.

Polling this week found 42 per cent thought it was going well, 34 per cent saying it was going badly.

It is hardly surprising. Though posed in liberal and humanitarian terms, there is no clear logic to the Libya intervention compared to other humanitarian crises and problems in the world. There are few clearly defined war aims and no sense of what the exit strategy for the intervention may be.

At a time when the public is being told there is no money for libraries, when the NHS faces its greatest threat, when the Royal Mail is under threat of privatisation and when our young people are being saddled with cuts and mounting debt, it is not hard to see that the public will take some persuading over the long-term that intervention is the right policy.

•The Andrew Lansley rap might have once seemed an unlikely hit this spring, but the NHS is very dear to the British people's hearts.

Lansley, Cameron and Clegg have been forced to announce a "pause" which amounts to a tactical maneouvre to work out how best to proceed.

The Tory-led government has opened a two-pronged attack on the NHS. Although it was claimed that NHS spending would be protected the experience up and down the country is of resources being squeezed.

That is borne out by the fact that although nominal health spending is planned to rise from £103bn to £114.4bn - just over 11 per cent - while over the same period the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that inflation will have risen by 22 per cent.

That's a real decline of 11 per cent.

The fundamental character of the NHS is threatened with change with the government looking for the biggest conceivable private-sector role.

Government policy is not about improving the NHS for patients but improving the profits of the private sector.

All over London we are seeing examples of Londoners concerned about the future of their local health service - such as in the campaign to oppose the closure of the A&E and maternity departments at Romford's King George Hospital.

It's one of the many reasons I'll be putting campaigns to defend the NHS top of the agenda this spring.
Wikio - Top Blogs - Politics