A Month of Shame

Today is April Fool’s Day and we were the fools who believed the Cameron lie that there is such a thing as “Caring Conservativism”. Since then, he and his cronies must have been laughing all over their faces. Even worse, since Thatcher destroyed our trade union movement and Blair hijacked the Labour Party and swung it even further to the right there has been no effective opposition to the Tory destruction of the Welfare state.

Admittedly there are marvellous groups such as the Coalition of Resistance and the Right to Work campaign, but on the whole they cater for existing activists and have done little to draw in new people.

The People’s Toff Celebrates

So, what has been the consequence? Over the course of April we will see

1. The introduction of the bedroom tax - 660,000 people in social housing will lose an average of £728 a year.
2. Thousands of people will lose access to legal aid
3. Council tax benefit moves into local control resulting in increased bills for most people
4. 240 local commissioning groups made up of doctors, nurses and other professionals will take control of budgets to buy services for patients
5. Disability Living Allowance is scrapped
6. Benefit uprating begins - Nearly 9.5 million families will be affected, including 7 million in work, by £165 a year.
7. Welfare Benefit cap - no welfare claimants will receive in total more than the average annual household income after tax and national insurance
8. Universal Credit introduced

As if that isn’t bad enough, Cameron will rub salt into the wood by scrapping the 50p tax for high earners.

Without doubt it can only be described as a month of shame for the Tories, but they do not see it that way. They remain convinced they are in the right – and without an effective opposition they will undoubtedly stretch things further.

Over the coming weeks we must organise an effective opposition. The Labour party has failed to take that lead and though the trade unions have made some effort, the result has been limited. Hopefully the Bedroom Tax campaign will be the start of something powerful – a return to the mentality of the Poll Tax campaign. If we can bring about an effective challenge to the Tories there is a chance we can rebuild the left, but if we fail then we risk obscurity for at least a generation.

The clouds in last night’s silver lining

With results from parish, borough and AV voting now declared, the guest writer today continues the autopsy on Labour's performance in local elections. The guest writer today is Atul Hatwal, associate editor of Labour Uncut.

As Ed Miliband surveys the results after his first major test as leader he will have mixed emotions. Great in England, good in Wales, bad in Scotland and rapidly forgotten on AV.

A curate’s egg, whatever one of those might be.

While the dynamics of devolved government mean the results in Scotland and Wales are driven by regional factors, and AV is done for a generation at least, it’s the English local elections where the tea leaves for the next general election can be best read.

England is where Labour needs to win the key seats, and its England where Labour has proportionately lost most voters since 1997. Ostensibly, the results give a sound basis for hope.

Not quite street party territory, but at least a couple of glasses of sherry.

On this happy path, the numbers of new Labour councillors elected take Labour back to respectable mid-2000s levels of representation in local government. Gains in a single election on this scale have not been seen since the mid-1990s.

This is not to be lightly dismissed. Revival in local government is an essential pre-requisite for national success.

Then there’s the overall vote share. While not spectacular, it was much improved over the election last year and progress at this rate would lead to a solid Labour majority at the next general election.

But still, there’s doubt.

Can a national result be extrapolated from local elections? Is this really a foundation for victory built by winning back Labour sceptics? Or a house of cards made from passing protest votes?

A few months ago in this column, I highlighted Labour’s poll challenge by looking at three specific questions asked intermittently by YouGov in their daily and weekly polls, and tracked their responses over the previous three months. These questions examined voters’ attitudes to the defining issues for the next general election.

The updated results to Labour’s poll challenge hold the key to interpreting last nights mixed election results.

The three YouGov questions look below topline voting intentions to reveal how voters feel the government is hitting them in the wallet, their view of how the government is cutting the deficit and who they prefer as a leader – David Cameron or Ed Miliband.

The public’s answers over this year have involved responses from tens of thousands of people and give a clear view of the scale of the problem.To misquote William Cobbett, I defy you to agitate a man on a full wallet. The higher the wallet line, the better things are for the government. Because it focuses on peoples’ perceptions of their own financial future it gives quite a different response to doom and gloom about the general economic state of the country.

The wallet line has remained largely constant this year. In January, 74% of people didn’t view the coming year as posing a major financial drama. In April this had risen a little to 75%.

In key Labour battlegrounds such as London and the Midlands, there are the early rumblings of actual optimism. The latest figures show that well over 40% think the worst is over and that the situation will either get better next year or at least stay the same.

That’s three-quarters of Britain thinking that things aren’t actually so bad and almost half of the public in key English regions, rich with key seats, thinking things can only get better.

This doesn’t suggest an electoral situation ripe for people to reverse their vote from the general election last year.

But, while worry about personal finances is often a driver of change, it is not sufficient alone. Winning the economic argument is what is needed, and can make the difference on its own.

This is what the middle band on the graph tests. The deficit is the defining economic issue of the day and the public’s attitude to how the government goes about cutting it will be a key determinant in how people vote at the general election.

The results here for Labour are worst of all.

On this central economic argument, Labour has not only failed to make ground, it has fallen further behind. At the start of the year, the majority who felt the way the government was cutting the deficit was necessary compared to unnecessary was 17%. In April, this had grown to 28%.

Well over 50% of the public consistently believe that the government approach to cutting the deficit is necessary.

And voters remain in no doubt as to who to blame for these cuts.

In January, 41% of voters blamed the last Labour government for the cuts, compared to 25% blaming the current government and 24% blaming both. In April, it was virtually the same. 41% blamed the last Labour government, 25% the current government and 23% both.

The public’s basic position is that Labour is responsible for the deficit and the government’s cuts are necessary. If anything, people are becoming more, not less, convinced of it over time.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of economic policy, purely in political terms this is a huge problem. From the mid-1980s through to 1992, Labour made an economically cogent but politically suicidal case for higher taxation.

The deficit is this decade’s tax.

Ed Balls is a big beast who knows how to take the fight to the Tories. He’s added vigour and aggression to Labour’s attack on the economy. But when he became shadow chancellor, he set himself the measure of putting Labour “on the front foot” on the economy.

Three months into his tenure, beyond the rough and tumble of day to day debate on the economy where Labour’s performance has improved significantly, the party is now more distant than ever from being trusted on this defining economic question.

Perceptions of Labour as a realistic government in waiting are further undercut by the leader gap.

At the start of January, Cameron’s lead over Miliband as peoples’ preference for PM was 12%. By the end of April, this had been pegged back slightly to 10%.

While this measure is going in the right direction, the level of reduction in Cameron’s lead begs the question – why so little?

Miliband’s press operation has been much sharper since the appointment of Tom Baldwin and Bob Roberts at the start of the year, he has been getting the better of Cameron at prime minister’s questions on an increasingly regular basis and the government has gifted Labour a conveyor belt of gaffes and U-turns.

Forests, defence, the NHS, schools, universities – virtually no corner of public policy has been left without a government crisis entirely of its own making.

If, after all that, Cameron still has a double digit lead among voters as the preferred PM, its hard to think what will shift the numbers decisively.

Looking at the three elements of the graph in the round, the overall picture is not a pleasant one for Labour.

It describes an electorate for whom the personal financial salience of the cuts is limited. Where Labour is seen as the cause of the problem and opponents of the solution. And where leadership is something only Cameron can provide.

In this context, the happy path that starts with these English election results ultimately leads back to the general election of 1992, or maybe even 1987.

The reality is that yesterday’s result in England was a blind trail of protest votes. People aren’t enamoured of this government, and showed it. But the local elections weren’t a choice between Labour and Conservative; they were a chance to vent at the government.

Based on the underlying factors picked-up by the wallet line, the argument gap and the leader gap, any pressure on Labour in a real election and the poll lead will collapse. Unless Labour can shift these key drivers, future mid-term victories or upturns in the headline polls will just be more false hope.

The sad truth is, one year on from the start of the Tory-led coalition, Labour’s journey has taken it back to square one.

No chances fro the young thanks to Gove

Last year, in a thoughtless and deliberate attack on students, the government announced they would be cutting the £560 million Education Maintenance Allowance, This scheme was introduced by the last Labour government and provided up to £30 a week for low income students, allowing them to stay in school or college after age 16. Payment was determined in the first instance according to eligibility – depending on the income of the parents, but if the student was found to fall within its criteria, weekly payments could then be paid if they attended all classes/ lectures during the week. This week, Michael Gove announced a fundamental U-turn in the government’s policy by revealing they will replace it with a £180m bursary targeted to the poorest students. In a pathetic attempt to justify his about face, the education secretary defended the huge cut by asking whether: “…it is socially just to be paying 45% of students a cash incentive to stay in learning when we could be concentrating our resources on removing barriers to learning faced by the poorest.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has actually already answered his question. They found EMA increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. So clearly the answer is “yes” – a point that has been made by students since the government went on their attack on further and higher education. Even accounting for the ‘deadweight costs’ (people who would have stayed in education regardless of the allowance), the costs of the scheme are exceeded by the higher wages recipients go on to earn in the future.Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside. The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.

From bleak mid-winter to a cold Spring

Reports yesterday indicated the UK economy shrank by less than previously thought in the last three months of 2010 and that, according to fresh data from the Office for National Statistics, gross domestic product (GDP) slipped by 0.5% in the period. Its initial estimate for the quarter suggested that the economy had contracted by 0.5% - with heavy snow blamed for the slump. The 0.5% fall is the largest quarterly contraction since the second quarter of 2009. At the same time as the economy was shrinking, unsecured debt rose by £768m in February, driven by an increase in personal loans and overdrafts, whilst the number of remortgaging loans approved stood at 35,725 in February, the Bank's figures show. This was up from 33,972 the previous month, slightly up on a previous high in November, and higher than the average of the previous six months of 31,674. What does this tell us? Well what it indicates is that more and more people are finding it hard to live within their means. Rising prices and Government cut backs mean nearly 50% of mums say they'll be forced to use savings, earmarked for their family's financial future, to cover household bills over the coming year according to research from Family Investments. The research revealed a staggering 47% of mothers will be cutting their family savings by nearly £400 and channelling the cash into covering their day to day living expenses. And in order to 'balance the books' they will be slashing savings in three ways. Firstly short term savings, typically the money normally saved in instant access accounts, (for this summer's holiday or emergency car repairs); this will be cut by £240 a year. Then there are cuts to the kids' savings by £60 a year; and parents will also be sacrificing their pension savings, which for nearly 20% of us average around £160 a month, in order to boost the household piggy bank. This means a combined total of over £1 billion will be cut from family savings across the country as households struggle to meet spiralling costs on everything from food and petrol to energy bills. And it's those energy bills that are creating the biggest headache; up around £37 a month, with over three quarters of adults worried about how they'll pay them. Over one third of us worry about covering the cost of that weekly supermarket bill which has gone up faster than the rate of inflation, according to research from investment bank UBS, adding another £35 a month to our household spending. And filling the car for the daily school run costs more too; with petrol prices hitting a new record high now topping £6 a gallon, and with the current situation in Libya and the Middle East worsening it means we're unlikely to see pump prices slashed in the near future. For many, things are only going to get worse. Each day we are hearing about redundancies. 1. Sheffield Council are planning 273 redundancies; 2. RAF are predicting 11,000 redundancies 3. Hampshire County Council will lose 1,200 jobs 4. London Midland will lose 1,200 jobs 5. Warwickshire County Council will shed 1,800 jobs 6. Meanwhile in the Royal Mail, two London mail centres could close as part of a Royal Mail restructuring plan, which puts over 700 workers and 1,000 managerial jobs on the chopping block. A further 1,700 head-office posts could go in a future review. 7. Northern Rock is to make 680 more redundancies this year – meaning nearly 4,000 will have been axed since its crash in 2007. The list just goes on and on and on. And what is Cameron’s solution? A nothing budget that will do little to stimulate growth. As for building business? Well Citizen Dave had this to say: "This government is backing small firms, it's getting behind the start-ups, it's getting behind the doers and the grafters who are going to get our economy moving and create the jobs and the wealth and the opportunity that we need." Pretty words Dave, but where is the evidence? You’ve taken away the Regional Development Agencies, you’ve taken away superb organisations like the West Midlands Observatory … and the other observatories around the country, you have done nothing to encourage the construction industry which contracted 2.3% last month alone. Even the service sector – noted for being a substantial employer throughout the country experienced hardships, with a 0.6% contraction last month. What will it take to knock into Citizen Dave, the people’s toff’s head the fundamental notion that is strategy just isn’t working and it is hurting people. The answer may be simple. On May 5th the people will have the opportunity to go to the polls and voice their discontent. In that election I urge every voter to vote for the candidate best able to knock out the sitting Tory or Lib Dem councillor. In wards where the Labour candidate has the highest chance, vote Labour. But if the Green, or Independent candidate is better positioned to win, then vote strategically. Naturally I draw the line on asking anyone to vote BNP or for any of the neo-fascist parties that will put themselves up in May. If we can force Cameron to face a loss of over 1,000 councillors and the loss of all seats in the Welsh and Scottish assemblies he could be forced to review his position. We have a golden opportunity ahead of us – we must not waste it.

Libya - an expensive price for Tory jingoism

Every day the government tell us the country was close to collapse when Labour left power. They insist the only way out of this ‘mess’ was the introduction of some of the most stringent cuts the country has seen since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

Already thousands have been affected and have either been reduced to short time or worse, have been made redundant as companies try to cope with a changing economic climate where the rate of inflation is now beyond the estimates the government made and a number of skill sectors find themselves either stagnant or in decline.

Meanwhile, unemployment exceeds 2.5m and more are likely as the year progresses. The Tories keep saying there isn’t enough money, so they cut essential services like Sure Start; they take away essential financial support for college students and they increase the cost of going to university threefold. In case that wasn’t enough, they sell off our beloved NHS and allow private enterprise to cream off profits from our sickness and ill-health.

They say we have no money in the coffers, but we have the funds to fire missiles on the people of Libya. The Ministry of Defence, in marked contrast to the Pentagon and the French armed forces, declines to say how many bombs or missiles have been fired from RAF Tornados or how many Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from HMS Triumph (a Trafalgar-class submarine which the MoD declined to identify until David Cameron named her in the Commons). However, defence sources say a total of seven Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired from Triumph, compared to at least 168 fired from US submarines and ships.

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said Tornado aircraft on Thursday launched “a number of guided Brimstone missiles at Libyan armoured vehicles which were threatening the civilian population of Ajdabiya”. He described Brimstone as a “high-precision, low collateral damage weapon optimised against demanding and mobile targets”. This was the first time the Tornados had fired weapons at Libyan targets since Saturday, the first night of the campaign.

Four Tornados were involved, probably firing no more than two bombs or Storm Shadow missiles each. The following night, the Tornados’ bombing run was aborted because a number of civilians, later identified as including western journalists, were found to be in the “intended target area”, the MoD has said. It is possible that no more than about eight bombs or missiles had been fired from RAF Tornados before the Brimstone attacks on Thursday night.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, said on Thursday that the RAF had flown 59 missions over Libya. The large majority have been reconnaissance missions. They have also included what the MoD emphasizes were the first Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft deployed in what it described as “hostile airspace”. The 10 Typhoons are only suitable for air-to-air combat, according to the MoD. The ground attack version apparently is not ready to take over the Tornados’ role – though defence sources point out that the high profile the Tornados are enjoying will make it much harder for the government to scrap them as soon as it would otherwise like to.

Now, if we take these estimates of weapon use – and they seem reliable, if not rather conservative, this would imply 15 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired at a total cost of £15m, four Storm Shadow cruise missiles costing £750,000 each – a total cost of £18m in missile use. Add to this the estimated 60 to 150 fly hours used by our aircraft for the 59 missions they have flown and this adds at least a further £4m to the cost.

Then you have our naval involvement. The Ministry of Defence has been reluctant to reveal how many ships are engaged in military activity, but we know of at least one submarine and there are almost certainly going to be others. Assuming only two ships are involved and only one of these is a submarine, then this increases the cost so far by a further £32m.

In other words, we have probably already spent betwee£25m and £60m on fighting this war in Libya. Looking at the situation over there logically, it is probable that our forces will be engaged in military activity for a few more weeks, because Gaddafi has made it abundantly clear he will not stand down. This could involve the use of our land forces to quell any resistance he might offer – all at an extra cost to the UK tax payer.

Now, before readers accuse me of over-exaggerating the costs, these figures are extremely conservative estimates, based on the very small amount of information coming from the MoD. The actual cost could be much higher.

You might ask why we are doing it – why are we spending so much of our money at a time when we are so hard up? It’s a good question. Fundamentally, the answer has nothing to do with humanitarianism, or the upholding of democratic principles. Since when have the Tories developed a penchant for supporting popular uprisings? They were silent when Castro fought Batista and they said little to support Ho Chi Minh when he took on the might of the US military. Similarly, Cameron and his cronies have never offered any kind of encouragement to ETA and the Basque separatists, or the IRA and their opposition to British colonialism.

No, the answer lies in oil! Osborne needs that to flow again so he can count on the UK economy growing again. If it doesn’t, inflation will increase and unemployment will rise. Indeed, without oil flows starting again there is a very real danger Labour could be proven right and we could slip into a double dip recession. Already Greece, Ireland and Portugal have become vulnerable and other countries could also fall.

The bottom line is this. We need to pull out of our involvement in Libya – we simply can’t afford it. If we can’t give our pensioners a decent income and offer them a robust health service, then we surely can’t afford the luxury of a jingoistic foray in the deserts of Libya.

Unfortunately, as always, the UK ignores the please from the left – until the body bags start coming back. We saw them coming from Iraq and we see still coming from Afghanistan. There is a very real danger we will soon see them coming from Libya.

We must do all we can to prevent another serviceman or woman dying on foreign soil.

The "no help for the poor" Budget

Despite the fact that yesterday’s budget offered little to ease the burden on thousands being made unemployed , the trade body that represents the majority of apprenticeship training providers in England (the Association of Learning Providers) has warmly welcomed the further expansion in the government’s apprenticeship programme which was announced in the Budget.

ALP said the challenge is to ensure a good proportion of the extra places go to young people as well as to converting members of the existing adult workforce into apprentices. Well whooppee-doo, but where do they hope to find these jobs, when companies are reluctant to take on new staff. Or are they going to market apprenticeships as an easy way for companies to acquire little more than slave labour?

Whatever their reason, ALP has been pressing ministers since this Tory-led government took office for adequate pre-apprenticeship provision to be in place to help school-leavers who aren’t eligible to start full apprenticeships. Reasonable, except they are setting up young people to fail – at the moment, the jobs aren’t there and with OBR growth forecasts looking bleak there is little reason to assume it will change.

So what are they key areas of the budget that might affect those less well off? Well, he has proposed a rise in the personal allowance for income tax (£3.3bn) and a rise in the child element of the child tax credit (£1.2bn). As for the rest – well Osborne and the Tories would have us believe his measures will help the world know “Britain is back in business”. But let’s look at some of these key proposals that will help industry so much.

First there is the decrease in corporation tax – well as companies are struggling to make profits this will hardly have a profound effect. In case he hasn’t read the news, many sectors are struggling to expand and some are actually in decline. Admittedly he did offer some tokens to the construction industry, but it was hardly a mass house rebuilding programme - which is something this country desperately needs if it is to adequately address housing problems and homelessness.

According to the FT last night, the winners were most companies and motorists, whilst the losers were banks, oil companies, tax avoiders and people in Lear Jets. In other words; no help for the 2.5m unemployed, no support for pensioners as they face nearly 5% inflation and watch their savings become meaningless; no support for the sick and disabled as they struggle to face daily living on a fixed income that is generally regarded as being below the poverty level; no concrete measures to combat global warming and encourage companies to adopt greener machinery and hybrid vehicles.

Noticeably, when Osborne down and listened to Ed Miliband deliver his response he looked singularly at the accusations being made against him. Admittedly Clegg tried to come to his aid by calling on Miliband to calm down – why Nick? Didn’t you like hearing the truth that you are mixing with a crowd that are creaming the wealth out of this country and sharing it amongst their capitalist cronies?

The sooner we can dump this government the better.

This morning, several thousand people working in the welfare to work sector will wake up realizing they are close to their last day in work as their redundancy notices finally expire. Thousands more in the same sector are waiting for the axe to fall on them. Osborne’s budget changes will have done nothing to save them and offer them little hope for finding alternative employment. Yet these are people that have given years of their lives to supporting and helping thousands of people out of joblessness. They never asked for huge salaries – indeed, many earned quite low incomes and nor did they want acclaim and fame. All they wanted was a little job security – but the Tories and the bosses took that away from them.

Some in this sector are in their late fifties and will probably never work again. They had never intended to retire and until recently had hoped for a few more years work to build up a small amount of savings to help them in their later years. They won’t have that now – and the finger of blame lies firmly on the likes of Osborne, Duncan Smith and Cameron.

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people will march against this government to show them we can take their type of politics no longer. We will show the Tories you can’t mess with the working class and get away with it. Some of my readers may not see themselves as political, others are perhaps less left-wing than myself. But I am convinced all of you care about the people in this country.

Whatever you are doing on Saturday, if it can be delayed them join with us – come to London and let your voice be heard. Let Citizen Dave, the people’s toff know we will not sit idly by and watch thousands of good people in the welfare to work sector get pushed aside for the sake of a Tory dream.

If you don’t tomorrow the bosses may well be calling you in and giving you a redundancy notice!

We need to take the abuse out of politics

When I was about 13 or 14-years old I was an anarchist. Oh, I don’t mean the bomb-throwing bearded type with a cloak and a suspicious look type, or even the crazy, violent ‘I want to break up the G20 talks’ type. No, I was more the ‘I want to shock my parents’ type. You see, my parents were both lifelong Conservatives, with very traditional values and beliefs, so my radicalism came as quite a shock to both of them.

Nonetheless, and to their eternal credit, they never prevented me from exploring anarchist values and beliefs, or reading Proudhon and Kropotkin – as a far as a 13-year old is able to understand them anyway.

I vividly recall one night my mother raising the subject of my political beliefs and discussing the comparison between anarchism and ‘traditional’ political beliefs. That night we argued and tussled over key philosophical and political points until about 3 am. By the time I went to bed she had given me one of the greatest gifts of my life – and it is one I still cherish today – the ability to recognise the merits in another person’s argument.

You see, I cannot understand this 21st century notion of ‘trashing’ people – it just seems rude and uncaring to me. Why do we do it? Well, I am sure dome do it because it makes them feel good, while others do it because they feel if they win they feel stronger – a kind of return to the caveman mentality.

Why am I talking about this today? Well I have been reading through a lot of the left-wing press lately and some of the comments being made about David Cameron and George Osborne … and they disturb me.

You see, as regular readers will know, I am no fan of either of these two men. I find their political values and beliefs totally contradict everything I believe in. However, I am convinced they believe in their brand of Conservativism equally as strongly as I believe in socialism. I would argue whilst I think he is wrong, Cameron truly believes his ‘austerity measures’ will make Britain a safer, stronger, better place. And when he talks about the Big Society, he truly believes a politics based on the acts of individuals working together in local communities is far better than state intervention and public ownership of the means of production.

It is my opinion David Cameron is totally of the opinion anyone can achieve success, if they are willing to work and sacrifice. It is his view in such instances, the state should not intervene and ought to offer support to help the little man or woman become bigger.

He holds there will always be those who are advantaged and there is nothing wrong with acquiring money and property, as long as it is done legally and morally. If this results in some people being disadvantaged, then this is just the nature of capitalism. If they become poor, the state should prop them up for a time, but there must be an underlying principle of having to earn the support of the state.

He does not believe these things out of some malevolent belief demanding he protects his own self-interest although, as a human being, I am sure he includes himself in the pack of those whom he wants to help. There is nothing evil about any of the Conservative leadership – they are dedicated people, committed to their own personal values – and it may surprise some readers, but I do totally respect all of them, some more than others.

This does not mean I agree with anything they say, far from it, I think their views are dangerous, divisive and cruel. I hold modern Conservativism as practiced by this government will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people and reduce this country of a society of “them” and “us”.

But I do respect Cameron – he has a brain and a good one, he is a highly competent politician and daily demonstrates he is a master of his craft and he is an idealist. I have always been drawn to idealists, perhaps because I am one myself. We each want different things for this country, but we have a vision of how this country should be.

It is wrong to ridicule the Tory leadership; it will do nothing to forward the socialist cause and makes a mockery of the left argument. Instead, socialists need to recognise that in Cameron we have the most dangerous of enemies – a thinker with a philosophical path for the future for this country. This makes him the most dangerous kind of Conservative – and he should be treated accordingly.

Socialists need to review their arguments – remove the personality politics and keep attacking the issues. On blogs lately I notice how more right-wingers continue to attack me personally – even though I am careful to refrain from personal abuse. The right are starting to worry, because they know they are losing the argument – and like every kind of frightened animal, when it is in a corner it will use any means of attack before it gives in.

The left can and will win – we just need to keep up the pressure

Why the "New Labour" project failed

Since Ed Miliband’s election as leader of the Labour Party, I have been reflecting on why the membership has so readily walked away from the “New Labour” project and why the electorate failed to support Gordon Brown last May.

Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.

After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.

The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.

This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.

As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.

As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.

It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.

Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.

In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.

Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.

Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.

New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.

In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.

The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.

Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.

It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.

No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.

Caring Conservativism - A new kind of Thatcherism

On a separate forum I was reminded of a speech made by Neil Kinnock back in 1984. Now I am no great fan of Kinnock. His witch hunt of the left and the expulsion of honest socialists who were supporters of the Militant Tendency was the second biggest travesty to hit the Labour Party this century (this first being the rewriting of Clause lV of the Constitution of the Party).
Having said that, in this speech he really hit the button.

He said:

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you. I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment. I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right. I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay. I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford. I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies. I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light. I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient. I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding. I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up. I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income. If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday– • I warn you not to be ordinary • I warn you not to be young • I warn you not to fall ill • I warn you not to get old.

As Citizen Dave’s cuts start to bite, his words are as relevant today as they were all those years ago. The poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the ill are all being hurt by Cameron’s plans. But before we lay the blame wholly on Citizen Dave, let us look at who is the philosophical ‘father’ behind these measures – none other than the silent man himself, Iain Duncan Smith.

During his period as leader of the Conservative Party he was ineffectual and lacking any charisma, but as a ‘backroom boy’ he has been central to the development of current Tory policies. His think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, has been at the heart of many of the current policies and for the last few years has acted as a resource to ‘humanise’ modern Conservativism.

The trouble is that it has all been a guise to bring about Thatcherism under another name. The proposed welfare reforms will not bring about a level playing field for all, they will introduce inequality and disadvantage. Meanwhile, leading businessmen will continue to avoid tax, multinationals will continue to make large profits and those with money will continue to milk the system.

Twenty seven years later and we still haven’t learned – you can never trust the Tories

Which way for Tory Localism?

Research by the New Local Government Network showed that the key ingredients to success in sub-regional partnerships included building up an evidence-base and sound understanding of the sub-regional economy, good leadership with vision and ambition for the partnership, and operational capacity to ensure that the local area is capable of delivery. Placing a new “duty to co-operate” on local authorities, public bodies and private bodies that are critical to delivery, such as infrastructure providers, is helpful. However, in order to overcome natural barriers to collaboration – such as fear over loss of sovereignty, a lack of clarity over accountability, local political interests or issues around resources – the most powerful tool is devolution of a strong financial or policy-based power to make worthwhile the time-consuming and costly business of partnership.
Moreover Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were backed by substantial financial clout from central government, and with access to sources of funding from Europe which was match-funded by central government. Indeed it is reported that it could cost as much as £1.4 billion to wind them down and complete existing programmes. Meanwhile, the LEPs come with no budgets to encourage their formation. The much-heralded Regional Growth Fund of £1.4 billion over three years is nowhere close to the sum given to RDAs, and will not be solely dedicated to LEPs.

The government has set out some of the roles it foresees LEPs fulfilling, most notably around local transport, housing and planning, as part of an integrated approach to growth and infrastructure development. LEPs are also to play a key role in pooling and aligning funding streams to support housing delivery, setting out key infrastructure priorities, and supporting or co-ordinating projects.

However, a round key issues such as skills and welfare to work (the second most common theme in the 56 original bids received by government after rebalancing the economy), there is little evidence yet of the devolution of powers concerning the commissioning or strategic delivery of welfare to work
programmes. The recommendation they “work with” local employers, Jobcentre Plus, and learning providers to help workless people into jobs is fairly nominal. Nor will the ability to “make representations” on the development of national planning policy mean much when planning is such an integral part of regional growth.

For a government that has set such store by its commitment to localism and decentralisation, there are still real concerns about the willingness of Whitehall to let go. In the transition from RDAs, there remain key concerns about what will happen to some of their main functions which are likely to be drawn up to central government and its agencies rather than devolved to LEPs or to local authorities. Inward investment and key sector development will be centralised, and skills funding will be routed through the national Skills Agency straight to colleges and training organisations. These are crucial levers to drive local economies.

As the Total Place approach appears to have run into the sand across Whitehall, it is vital that pressure is maintained in encouraging central government to become more integrated and more willing to devolve budgets and powers.

The government’s broader public service reform agenda also provides a challenge to Britain’s future growth. The localism agenda, for example, aimed at empowering individuals and communities to have more say over their localities, holds many potential problems to integrated, strategic economic development.
On planning, despite a “national presumption in favour of sustainable development on all planning applications”, there is a fear that the bottom-up approach this government is taking – by giving local residents and communities more planning powers and abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies – could be anti-development. The New Homes Bonus is the cornerstone of the government’s framework for encouraging housing growth. It provides a few small incentives but it remains to be seen if this is enough to drive regeneration. Current evidence would suggest it is a long way off-target.

Alongside this, there is rapid and substantial reform across public services that is in grave danger of fragmenting local delivery and working against moves to create better integration. Direct elections for police commissioners, commissioning directly by GPs, and free schools all provide new, and potentially conflicting, forms of accountability at a local level, which could mean that driving and leading economic regeneration becomes more disparate and difficult.

Moreover, financial challenges faced by localities through Cameron’s intense squeeze on public sector spending, and particularly the local government settlement, means localities have a sizeable economic task ahead of them. The government continues to argue they are “confident” the private sector will fill the gap in employment, but between the first quarter of 2000 and the start of the recession, more than a fifth of all job creation came from the public sector. The need for private sector rebalancing may be urgent in areas that have benefited most from the expansion of the public sector, such as many of the formerly industrial economies of the north east and north west, but there is no evidence to suggest this is about to take place. This will leave many localities badly affected by this poor design in policy.

Take Swansea for example. This is a fairly modern city that, at one time relied on heavy industry coming from car manufacture, steel and aluminium production. As this degenerated over the last 20 years, it was replaced by an array of public services. Local and central government, Welsh Assembly and DVLA – these were just a few of the broad range of government offices that came in to pick up the slack of joblessness in the area. Now many of these government departments are being closed or downsized, leaving the threat of large scale unemployment looming over the city. Over 30% of the population works in the public sector and any shrinkage in jobs seems, at the moment, to be replaced by the emergence of a new private sector.

All this gives additional credence to the argument that Tory localism has been ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill-timed. It will leave communities in South Wales, the Midlands, the North-West and North-East totally devastated, unless Cameron and Pickles radically rethink their strategy and now implement a rescue plan. With no evidence of this forthcoming it bodes badly for people in these communities.

Tory public services will never be "open"

In the Daily Telegraph today, David Cameron writes about his vision for “open public services”. Quite what this means, when he intends to sack thousands of council workers and civil servants, remains to be seen.

Then, later in the article it all he becomes clear. First the prime minister described his vision of "open public services" and this is soon followed by his promise to release public services from the "grip of state control".

In other words, he is going to either privatise large chunks of public services or sub-contract them out to private enterprises. So, we can soon look forward to schools being run by organisations like Serco, or perhaps your local hospital might be renamed the Bristol Royal BUPA Centre , or the BMI Royal Hospital for Sick Children.

When you go to sign on, you might be met by an A4e worker, who would review your claim and sort out your benefit entitlement. Perhaps sections of our local constabularies could be part run by G4S or Reliance Security, but don’t worry, because the training industry will be waiting to ensure all the ‘private firm’ police have SIA cards, in accordance with security industry requirements.

Cameron argues this approach would make public services more accountable, but has he ever asked questions of any of the PFI contractors? Has he ever tried to acquire information about the inner workings of defence or welfare to work contractors? They are not ruled by the strictures of Freedom of Information, so they can keep their books closed and prying eyes out. This is the sort of openness he is really offering.

He also talks about public services needing an injection of creativity and innovation and here he has a point. For too long services have followed a route that sometimes defied logic, simply because ‘this has been how we always do it’.

There’s no doubt there is a need for a review of service delivery across the board, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is tantamount to lunacy. It will destroy jobs, make services less accessible because they will be driven by profit and not need, reduce accountability and threaten those who most use services.

The trade union movement need to force Cameron to rethink his entire policy and show how ill-conceive it really is. PCS and Unison should tackle this issue headlong and if the government threaten to proceed, organise full-scale strike action to force Cameron to rethink his ideas.

Will that happen? In my view, I think it unlikely. More probable is the unions will organise a demo or two and maybe a petition. Cameron will then barnstorm his ideas through and before we know it, we will be in the kind of society Thatcher could only dream of – scary isn’t it.

Universally unfair credits: No justice for the poor

Well the day has finally come. Later today the government will set out how it intends to overhaul the welfare system to try to make work pay better and to tackle the "benefit culture". With it will come a new "universal credit", new sanctions for those turning down jobs and a cap on benefits paid to a single family.

According to Cameron, current rules "encourage people to act irresponsibly".
The reason behind all these changes? Is it because they want to make benefits fairer for all? No. Is it because they want to ensure those who are hurt hardest by the unfairness in society are protected? No.

According to ministers in the Department of Work and Pensions, five million people of working age are on out-of-work benefits, 1.4 million of those for nearly a decade, while unemployment has become entrenched in many communities. In the view of these Tories, many of whom are millionaires who have never been on benefit; this shows the current system is not working.

Ahead of the announcement, David Cameron said the "collective culture of responsibility" which had underpinned the benefits system for more than 50 years had eroded in recent years.

"The benefits system has created a benefit culture," he said. "It does not just allow people to act irresponsibly but often actively encourages them to do so."

As usual the Tories are determined to attack the small number (and even DWP are admitting the numbers are less than they have been saying) of people who abuse the benefit system. Nobody in the Tory party mentions anything about the number of companies or individuals who regularly abuse the tax system and, courtesy of clever accountants avoid paying millions in taxes.

Take for example Vodaphone, who have managed to save billions through effective use of tax havens. Oh it’s legal enough, but is it moral? Well there you have the $64,000 question.

Just as the Tories were coming into power a number of businesses saw the opportunity of a lifetime. In a study at that time, around one quarter of all self-employed people in the UK were considering moving themselves and their businesses abroad over the next five years. Is this how Cameron is going to promote business and help the unemployed find work?

It has been well documented that Philip Green has structured the ownership of the Arcadia group (which owns Topshop and Dorothy Perkins) so that neither he, nor his wife pay UK income tax on profits paid out by the group as dividends. Because Mrs Green lives in Monaco, she saves a packet. If dividends were instead paid to Mr Green as a UK tax resident, he would be subject to UK income tax at an effective rate of 36.1% (42.5% additional rate less 10% credit).

But you don’t hear the Tories whining on about these folk, and why? Because they and others like them bankroll the Tory party, Green is close buddies with Cameron – don’t forget he was asked by the prime minister to do an analysis of government spending and procurement. So we can’t expect these buddies to fall out too soon.

No, as usual it is the poor who will be beaten and bruised today. There will be no fairness, no equality and no justice for those needing welfare benefits.

Some things in life never change

Who care about Big Brother anyway?

Why are we so frightened of taking on the Tories and fighting their cuts? They have been in power now for almost nine months and in that time they have attacked our health service to such an extent the very existence of the NHS, as we know it, is threatened.

At the same time, they have guaranteed all the schools desperately in need of building renovations will need to live in squalor, whilst the middle classes luxuriate in their squeaky new academies. Younger kids will suffer too, as Sure Start programmes have their funds cut and childcare facilities dwindle.

Normally the Tories hold the needs of the military as sacred, but not any longer. Trainee pilots, along with a raft of other personnel, are heading to the job centre to join increasing numbers of people being forced to sign on.

Social care, police, climate change, transport and local services have all been ravaged because of the Tories love of the “smaller state” and a desperate need to keep spending to a minimum. So what have the unions done? Well, Unison ran a petition to collect one million names to defend services – last heard they were still collecting.

As for all the other unions? They have tub-thumped loudly enough, but in terms of real action … most of us are still holding our breath.

The Labour party hasn’t been much better. Ed Miliband has been largely ineffective at PMQs and his colleagues in the shadow cabinet might as well go and enjoy a winter break. No-one would notice if they went. At the recent student marches to defend EMA and oppose the hike in student fees, the number of Labour constituency banners were noticeable by their absence.

So its little wonder the general public isn’t angry. If the politicians can’t be bothered, then why should the electorate. On the whole the average Joe or Sally is too busy surviving on a day to day basis to worry about how to fight cuts.

I’ve been sat here today wondering why people aren’t getting more outraged each time they hear the news and I think I worked it out. What do you do if you think you are going to hear bad news? Well, one option is to fight, but if the likelihood is that nothing will change, then many will choose to opt for flight. Folk who go along this route try to escape the realities of their own misery by living out fantasies.

Many of these will have switched on daytime TV this morning and what are they greeted by? Programmes like “Wanted down under”, where viewers are shown lovely homes and sunny, happy lifestyles in Australia – a thriving future where everyone smiles and lives worried-free whilst enjoying barbies and good friends. Interestingly, they never showed any film of what life was like during the flooding.

Or, views might choose “Homes under the hammer” – a programme where ‘ordinary ‘ people buy cheap houses at auction and after some cosmetic changes, sell the house, making thousands of pounds profit. If they don’t sell, they might rent the property and live off the profit. Again the programme ignores why the house was on the market in the first place. In reality, it was probably because it was repossessed, leaving the original owner homeless.

If none of these programmes take your fancy, you can watch “Flog it”. A programme where ‘ordinary people take items they have found in their attic, or heirlooms that have just been hanging around. These unexpected little trinkets are then sold at auction. Not sure about readers to this blog, but in my attic there’s just a pile of old junk and rusty tools. No heirlooms here.

In the evenings viewers can watch Eastenders, Coronation Street or Home and Away – soaps that prove every time that no matter how hard life may seem, there is always someone worse off than you – so be grateful!

Don’t fancy the soaps? That’s OK, there’s always Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, NCIS or CSI – escapism at its finest.

We are being fed lies by the government, deceit by the politicians and the media help to perpetuate it. By offering us a diet of third rate nonsense, they allow the public the escapism they feel they need.

Remember George Orwell’s book “1984”? In it he described a totalitarian society where dissent was eliminated. In order to keep this harsh society intact, the Ministry of Truth offered every citizen an alterative reality. Well today, our ‘ministry’ sits in the corner and helps control our lives.

Just like Orwell’s world was controlled by Big Brother (BB), an idealized character that constantly watched over and supposedly protected everyone, so the government has become the new BB. As a result of their effective management of us through the media, we never argue or debate what they are doing – even when it is against our best interests.

In 1984, the society was controlled completely and lived according to two simple axioms. In 2010, it is no longer fiction and we have brought them into the real world. Today we are living them on a day-to-day basis:

Long live Big Brother
Ignorance is Strength

Rather than hating what is happening to us, the PR men and the media have convinced us there is always someone worse off. Instead of fighting back, we live in the security of known misery.

Anyway, you will have to excuse me. I would love to continue this argument and analyse how the cuts are affecting all of us, but “This Morning” is about to start ……

Oh please, come off it Cameron!

I simply don't believe it. David Cameron has rejected accusations that his Big Society policy is simply a mask for government spending cuts. Where is this man coming from?

He and his cromnies have devastated services and at the same time dumped the problem on the Third Sector, whilst cutting their funding as well.

I suppose the next thing you know, he'll be arguing we needn't wash our hands as bacteria doesn't respond to washing! Might sound outrageous, but he's already asking us to believe the ridiculous.

Do politicians really care?

Well now we have it from the horse’s mouth – the middle classes are going to suffer too. According to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, the middle classes are unaware of the scale of government spending cuts that will hit them this year.

In other words, Tory England is going to hurt about as much as it does for us oiks, who survive on a day to day basis. No great surprise there! The news comes hot in pursuit of other reports that Birmingham City Council is to axe 7,000 jobs as part of their cuts programme.

Birmingham has always been a candidate for mass redundancies, particularly as the Council is Tory-led, with significant back-up from the Lib-Dems. In fact, the Council has never been noted for its care for its workforce (see a more detailed report here) and these announcements will have a profound effect on working people in Birmingham.

Clarke is right to point out they will suffer as a result of these cuts, but he should have told the whole truth – everyone will hurt, and in a very big and painful way. So, why did he isolate just the middle classes? Easy, you only have to look at the fact he gave the interview to the Daily Telegraph to find your answer. He is desperately trying to shore up Tory votes and where better to reach out to middle class Tories than in their very own rag?

In three months time local elections will fall again and good money is on a landslide loss of seats for both Tories and Lib-Dems. Look at any map and see which councils they run and you quickly realise the close links they have with the middle classes – Woking, Westminster, Stafford, Basingstoke and Shrewsbury and Atcham – not exactly poverty crisis points dominated by an ‘underclass’ of poor.

But wouldn’t it be nice if one day a Tory or a Liberal Democrat politician were to turn around and fight for the rights of the working classes? Of course that’s not going to happen – after all, what does David Cameron, have in common with the average worker, or single parent. His estimated (albeit disputed) personal wealth of £30m places him in a totally different league. Indeed, in his Cabinet, Cameron has eighteen millionaires, including Nick Clegg, although in his defence, little Nick only owns about £1.8m.

All of this led Sadiq Khan to suggest these rich Tories were unable to empathise with the average worker. Speaking to James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph, he said:

That they are rich is relevant because of the lack of empathy. I’m not saying that they can’t empathise – but they just don’t get it.

For them, tightening your belt is taking two holidays a year instead of three . . . or having one au pair rather than two. I think it is a problem if you have a cabinet that doesn’t understand the real challenges that people face. If you have a background that is one-dimensional and have not had the life experiences or understood what sacrifice means to ordinary punters, I would say it is difficult.

But Khan needs to be careful. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has an estimated personal wealth of around £4m, Ed Balls is the son of a professor, and attended a fee-paying school; Harriet Harman went to St Pauls and her aunt is a countess; and Shaun Woodward is a multimillionaire with homes in several countries.

In short it seems none of the party leaders have much in common with any of us working folks. They all live in safe financial cocoons, with chauffeur-driven transport, where foreign holidays are expected and their annual clothing budget is probably more than the average person pays in a decade.

Not sure about my readers, but I haven’t been away for a holiday for three years and when I did, it was to Devon (don’t knock it – gorgeous county and wonderful people). Last year I spent approximately £100 on clothing – and that includes socks and underwear. I don’t drive, so I have to rely on busses and my monthly pass costs me £40. I was looking forward to getting an older person’s bus pass soon, but my local area seem likely to scrap that.

I’m not complaining about my life – more would be nice, of course, but I am happy with things the way they are. What angers me is when politicians try to tell me they know what its like to be me. Or how those with far more money than me tell me they know what is like to worry about money.

Yesterday I toured around the power companies, because if I stayed with my current supplier I would have to pay £12 more a month. If Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clarke and Clegg can tell me they did the same I will sit back and shut up.

Until then I have a right to be angry.

Pricing universities out of reach

When I was 18 I wasn’t very interested in studying, so the idea of going to university never really raised its head. In those days, like many of my generation, all I wanted was a few beers of a night and the chance to meet lots of girls. So I went to work in a job I hated, on a salary that offered no real opportunity for expansion and with no real career prospects.

Fortunately ten years later my thinking had changed and I applied to do a degree. Now I was never one of those academic elite who felt able to go to Oxbridge. I was closer to one of those oiks that went to what they now call a new university – in those days we called them polytechnics.

I was very grateful for my place and particularly relieved that I was given a full grant and even a few pounds extra because I was a mature student. Had I have been forced to pay student fees there is no way I could have afforded to go. I was a husband and a father (though I was to be divorced just weeks before going to ‘the poly’.

I studied hard, managed to obtain a good degree and went on later to gain a teaching qualification and a master’s degree. Because of circumstances I had an employer who paid for both of these postgraduate qualifications – again if I had been forced to pay the fees myself I would not have been able to afford them.

I am in no doubt I have been very fortunate.

Today I hear Oxford will probably charge £9,000 a year for tuition fees to study at their illustrious university – slightly less than the annual salary of someone on a statutory minimum wage and substantially more than the amount a married couple receive on the dole.

For someone like myself, who went back to education later in life this huge hike in fees is a disgrace and divisive. It will mean very few working class people will be able to think about going to Oxford or any of the other ‘red bricks’– even if intellectually they would be able to cope with the standards required.

So we have a situation, thanks to Cameron and Clegg, where the working class, and particularly those who are out of work, can never aspire to entering the portals of academia. Effectively they have made learning beyond the financial reach of the poor, the underprivileged, the unemployed, the disabled and ordinary working class folk with families who want to return to education.

Oh, and what about the single mothers who want a chance to develop their lives once their baby is old enough to be handed to a childminder?

It is an absolute disgrace and epitomises the divisiveness of this government – where the ‘haves’ can get the opportunities, and the ‘have not’s’ are forced to struggle through life, trying to make ends meet. No doubt Cameron would prefer the kind of society epitomised in the book “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist”. As society where the privileged have all the finer things in life and the working class scrape an existence, fighting a daily battle to survive

No guesses as to which side of the fence Clegg and Cameron want to sit on!

Cameron v. Miliband - who will win?

Another week of PMQs is over and, as usual, Cameron reduced the debate to personal snipes against the Labour leader. It is a regular tactic and he as applied it on many occasions as a mechanism to deflect attention away from himself and back onto the opposition.

It adds little or nothing to the debate, but it has been a useful tool to silence Miliband. It is therefore not surprising the Guardian reports that polls suggest only 25% of the population thought Ed Miliband would make a better prime minister. Not that Cameron should feel too smug, because only 38% voted for him.

The polls also indicate support within the Labour party isn’t overwhelming for EM. Indeed, if they are to be believed, 38% of Labour members – and 42% of people who backed the party are uncertain about Miliband as a possible prime minister.

By any stretch of the imagination these aren’t welcome statistics. Of course, we know psephologists and number crunchers love to play games and polls are seldom a true reflection of the national picture. What they indicate is that young Ed isn’t doing as well as he would have perhaps hoped.

Naturally, some opponents are already saying things would have been different if his brother had been elected. Perhaps, but would the soul of the Labour party have been safe in his hands? On reflection, I doubt it – what we would have seen is a continuation of New Labour, but with different labelling.

At PMQs today, Ed faired well and managed to score a few decent broadsides into Cameron’s hull. However, the good ship Conservativism is far from sunk and EM will need to dramatically up his game if he hopes to play with the big boys.

One rain doesn’t make a monsoon, but I hope that at least it heralds the start of the rainy season. At the moment I am left with the niggling doubt EM was given a good result on a platter. He will not be so fortunate in the weeks to come and will need to show a far hardier, earthy quality in his responses.

He might like to take a few lessons from Ed “rottweiler” Balls in this respect – a little thuggery in EM’s delivery would go a long way to push the party forward and reinforce his position as the leader of the loyal opposition. Add to that more spontaneity and you may find the electorate will warm to him, and find him less wooden.

One thing is for sure – Ed Miliband cannot continue the way he is going and that opposition to Tory cuts alone will be enough to win the next General Election. May 2010 demonstrated we have become far more media-centred when it comes to party leaders. Labour tried to paint Gordon Brown as a man with knowledge, wisdom and the courage to take Britain through this crisis. He may have had all those qualities, but the electorate were unconvinced and found Brown stiff, aloof and unapproachable, whilst Clegg was seen to be likable and trustworthy.

Time has shown the latter to be incorrect, but it still doesn’t give the Labour party the excuse to repeat the same mistakes with EM – he needs to be groomed (and quickly) to become far tougher, far more forceful and far more clearer in his delivery.

He has a long way to go.

GDP and the White Christmas .. or just a whitewash?

The drop in GDP growth was largely due to snow according to Osborne. Huh?

So when we next get results from ONS is he going to tell us the decline was due to the moon not being in alignment with Taurus? Or perhaps we are moving closer to double dip recession because last week David Cameron walked under a ladder just as a black cat crossed his path?

When he took office, Osborne made it quite clear he had a Plan A (although he admitted there was no plan B). Is he now saying the plan didn’t cover certain eventualities? In my language that isn’t a plan – it’s a hodge-podge of ideas cobbled together on the back of a fag packet and made to look like a plan.

The consequence of this ‘plan’ is that, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, workers will now have to tighten their belts and hold back on pay claims. Silly question – does that include bankers?

So we can look forward to inflation at 5%, unemployment hitting 3m, substantially reduced services, higher costs for those wanting to go to university, steeper food and fuel prices, more people facing homelessness and more people being forced to go bankrupt.

Oh yes, life is much better under the Conservatives!

Big Society or Big Gamble?

Despite the resignation of Andy Coulson last week, the Communications Office at Number 10 has managed to produce some wonderful ‘spin’.

At first glance, publication by the Centre for Social Justice of their “Outcome-based government” report should have been a huge torpedo in the hull of the administration. Until now, IDS, the founder of the CSJ has been Cameron’s ‘right-hand’ man and his suggestion that cuts are being implemented in the ‘wrong way’ will have come as a shock to senior Tories. However, deft handling by spin gurus ensured IDS’ call for a radical review of austerity measures moved from being a criticism of governmentstrategy to becoming a critique of the Big Society.

During the May 2010 election a number of Tory candidates voiced their criticism of the policy, but with the government intent on dramatically reducing the deficit, this discontent has turned from smouldering on the edges to a significant fire within the backbenches.

Senior Tories are blaming Steve Hilton, Downing Street Director of Strategy and Cameron’s “blue skies thinker” for pushing ahead with the Big Society, even though most members of the public find it “incomprehensible”. Some backbenchers’ fear the agenda is in crisis because Downing Street has been forced to deny the flagship policy may be close to collapse because of cutbacks.

Band-aiding by spin-doctors wasn’t helped by t pronouncements by Sir Stephen Bubb, of Acevo, which represents voluntary organisations, who said the nation’s charities were facing a “perfect storm” of rising costs, higher tax bills because of the VAT rise and swingeing cuts in funding. As if that wasn’t enough to reduce the gurus to tears, he added: “This is impairing our ability to support those most in need.”

On Thursday, third sector leaders will meet with Nicholas Hurd, the charities minister, who will attempt to reassure them. A large part of this restabilisation will pick up the point made earlier this week by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that three-quarters of charities do not receive any Government money. At the meeting, Hurd will emphasise that Government proposals on the Work Programme and rehabilitation for prisoners for example, will bring significant opportunities for voluntary groups in the coming years.

Of course, this assumes the third sector will have the opportunity to play a significant role in the delivery of the Work Programme. With news today of over 200 redundancies at Framework, the housing charity, 1,400 at Remploy and news that 26% of organisations had solid plans in place to cut paid staff numbers during the next three months, the prognosis for the third sector doesn’t look good.

There are signs the government are looking at the Work Programme as a ‘cure all’, offering a mechanism to reduce unemployment, help disabled workers and fund a financially strapped third sector. It is a high-risk, ‘winner-take-all’ gamble that may well chance the face of third sector involvement in the W2W sector.
More importantly, it is a strategy that could well leave hundreds of thousands of unemployed people without any possibility of support whilst they look for work. At a time when jobs are hard to come by, that further reinforces the evidence to label the ideology of this government as ‘Uncaring Conservativism”.

.. And its goodbye from him

The news tonight that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alan Johnson has resigned from his post must come with deep sadness to anyone with an ounce of moral conscience and caring for their fellow human beings.

Johnson was never destined to be a great chancellor and at a political level, the Labour party will not regret his passing. However, at a personal level it would be hoped that every member, at whatever level, will tonight be wishing him and his family every good wish and prayer. No doubt the media will go out of their way to invade his privacy over the coming days and this writer wishes all his family well as they preapre to face this unfortunate onslaught.

But his departure is good news for the Labour party and his replacement, Ed Balls will undoubtedly give Osborne cause to be quaking in his boots tonight. Until now Cameron and Osborne have been able to rely on clichéd soundbites, deceit and a generally condescending attitude to barge their policies through.

They will not be so fortunate with Balls – he is a political bruiser. Now, Osborne is sufficiently talented to not be too concerned about that – but what will worry him is the fact that Balls has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than Osborne can muster throughout his entire political life.

Couple these two attributes together and you have grounds for the Tories to be worrying. The news this week that inflation could soar well above OBR forecasts, coupled with evidence that VAT is biting harder than the Tories had hoped will be pounced on by Balls.

His appointment as Shadow Chancellor is welcome news to those who have been opposed to Tory austerity measures. Osborne will need to be well-briefed if he is going to be able to have even half a chance of looking credible as a chancellor. Like the hunter he is, Balls already has Gove’s scalp under his belt. Now his eyes will be focused on Osborne.

Let the hunt begin.