by Owen Jones
When I read an article by Labour’s former General Secretary, Peter Watt, calling on the party to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda wholesale, I was reminded about how much this has all been turned around. You could say: “The Tories move Britain towards more neo-liberalism, New Labour stands pat; and the next Tory Government moved the country a little further right. New Labour loosened the corset of neo-liberalism, they never removed it.” If the likes of Watt have their way, that is what will happen if Labour win the next election.
Watt is a curious individual. He was, frankly, a terrible General Secretary, but he was treated badly by Gordon Brown and his undoubtedly bullying henchmen. He was effectively made a fall-guy for Labour’s donors’ scandal, and that was wrong.
That did not in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour: right-wing Tory Iain Dale published Watt’s insider account in January 2010, full of all sorts of hugely damaging revelations about the behind-the-scenes workings of the Brown regime. Watt presumably felt he was entitled to get his revenge against his unscrupulous former employer: but all he did was feed the right-wing press (who were delighted) and contribute – in however small a way – to the defeat of Labour in May 2010. Why anyone in the Labour Party would have any dealings with such an individual ever again is completely beyond me.
Watt says a lot about the loyalty (or lack thereof) many Blairite ultras have towards the Labour Party. They led repeated attempted coups – based on personality, not policy – against Brown; which the left, so often accused of disloyalty, had nothing to do with. Indeed, I remember a debate at Poplar and Limehouse CLP in which Blairite rebel Charles Clarke (hic) suggested left-wing Labour MP John McDonnell leave the Labour Party because of his disloyalty. Clarke lost his seat in 2010; McDonnell increased Labour’s majority. Now Labour is out of office, the likes of John Hutton and Alan Milburn are working as advisors to the Tory-led Government.
The Blairite ultras were demoralised by the defeat of David Miliband in Labour’s leadership election: but don’t kid yourself, they’re still kicking about alright, and they’re waiting in the wings for Ed Miliband’s failure, which they both anticipate and desire. As far as they are concerned, only a pure Blairite formula can deliver electoral success, and they do not wish this narrative to be disproved.
Peter Watt is far from alone among Blairite ultras in calling for Labour to accept the Tories’ spending plans. The Great Leader himself, Tony Blair, effectively called for Labour to accept the Tories’ economic policies in his memoirs; he even advised Cameron to resist the Lib Dems’ ‘Old Labour’ tendencies. The likes of Dan Hodges – who edits the Labour Uncut website, and is a committed opponent of Ed Miliband – have similarly called for Labour to accept the Tories’ cuts agenda.
There are Blairite maneuverings against Ed Miliband at the top of the Party, too. Both Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy are positioning themselves behind the scenes. Miliband has few real allies in the Shadow Cabinet: they effectively boil down to Peter Hain, Hilary Benn, John Denham and Sadiq Khan. So much of the policy vacuum can be explained by the continued strength of the Blairite right, and the failure of countervailing pressure from the left that would provide a support base for a genuinely progressive agenda.
Have no doubt: Blairite ultras like Peter Watt want us to capitulate to the Tories. In his article, Watt says “the first thing that we should do is just accept the Tory spending plans as set out in the spending review”. It would, he believes, “be bold and brave and, at a stroke, we will give ourselves permission to be heard again on the economy.”
Why we would be heard on the economy if we’re just parroting the line of the Government is a bizarre stance. Labour might as well second its press officers to George Osborne.
Indeed, if Labour were to take Watt’s advice, it should just shut shop and be done with it. What would be the point of it if it was backing the centrepiece of the Tories’ domestic agenda, the most sweeping cuts for nearly a century? Our differences would purely managerial: over issues like competence. But, frankly, we could do that from within the confines of the Conservative Party.
Blairite ultras like Peter Watt put socialists like myself in a curious position, because they force us to defend New Labour’s economic record against, well, New Labour. Blairite ultras buy into the myth that the deficit was caused by Labour’s overspending, rather than by a financial crash which caused a collapse in tax revenues and increased benefit payments to those thrown out of work.
In doing so, they become useful idiots for the Tory party. As the Conservative Party press team gleefully tweeted: “Ex-Labour Gen Sec Peter Watt implores his party 2 ‘stop fighting the cuts’ + ‘start talking bout the future’…ouch” The Tories use the siren voices of ultra-Blairism to vindicate their ideological offensive against the welfare state: ‘even sane people in the Labour Party agree with us’, they say. And, above all, they are a block on Labour developing a genuine coherent alternative to the Tory cuts agenda.
I don’t know where the political journey of the Blairite ultras will take them. It’s worth looking at the history of the neo-conservatives in the US: they started out as Democrats. Even as they became disenchanted with the Democrats, they couldn’t bring themselves to join the Republicans for cultural reasons: many were from working-class backgrounds and had grown up regarding them as the political wing of the wealthy. They eventually got over it, though, and became the most ardent Republicans around.
I’m not that interested about whether some Blairite ultras end up jumping ship or not. But they are – inarguably – allied to the Tories’ economic agenda, and they are more committed to ensuring Ed Miliband fails than helping Labour to succeed. They must be defeated, and be seen to be defeated, if Labour is to offer a genuine alternative to this horrendous government.
Showing posts with label Tory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tory. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Time to teach the Tories a lesson
It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that today I am urging you all to vote for your local Labour candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting they, or the Labour party as a whole have all the answers. Indeed they have a lot to answer for given our current economic situation. But voting Labour offers the best opportunity to give the Tories and their Lib Dem puppies a bloody nose.
In hundreds of wards throughout the country Labour are facing opposition from Tory, Lib Dem and Independent candidates. With The Tories and Lib Dems we all know where we stand – more cuts and the closure of many of our treasured frontline services. I may not like or agree with them, but at least they are honest(ish) about their intentions.
This isn’t the case with many Independent candidates, many of whom are little more than Tory apologists who didn’t have the guts to stand under a Conservative banner. They will try to tell you local government should not be about party politics.
Nonsense!
It has everything to do with party politics – from the development (or lack of it) of suitable social housing, through to maintenance of our road and leisure facilities – all these issues easily split along party lines.
Moreover, the Independents and Tories will tell you that Labour is the party of tax and spend. That argument is really becoming quite tiresome and is fundamentally untrue. Noticeably, no-one complains when frontline services were being maintained and jobs were secure. So, let me emphasise once again – our current economic crisis did not happen because of poor fiscal management, it occurred because of an international banking issue. Now, you may condemn Labour, but would you have wanted your bank to fail and loose all your savings or pension?
Given this, the only alternative is to go out today and en masse show the government we will not stand for their cuts, we will not accept the decimation of our services and we will not tolerate the mass redundancies and increased unemployment the Tories want to see.
Use your vote wisely and vote for a clear political force that can bring an end to Tory oppression of the working class.
In hundreds of wards throughout the country Labour are facing opposition from Tory, Lib Dem and Independent candidates. With The Tories and Lib Dems we all know where we stand – more cuts and the closure of many of our treasured frontline services. I may not like or agree with them, but at least they are honest(ish) about their intentions.
This isn’t the case with many Independent candidates, many of whom are little more than Tory apologists who didn’t have the guts to stand under a Conservative banner. They will try to tell you local government should not be about party politics.
Nonsense!
It has everything to do with party politics – from the development (or lack of it) of suitable social housing, through to maintenance of our road and leisure facilities – all these issues easily split along party lines.
Moreover, the Independents and Tories will tell you that Labour is the party of tax and spend. That argument is really becoming quite tiresome and is fundamentally untrue. Noticeably, no-one complains when frontline services were being maintained and jobs were secure. So, let me emphasise once again – our current economic crisis did not happen because of poor fiscal management, it occurred because of an international banking issue. Now, you may condemn Labour, but would you have wanted your bank to fail and loose all your savings or pension?
Given this, the only alternative is to go out today and en masse show the government we will not stand for their cuts, we will not accept the decimation of our services and we will not tolerate the mass redundancies and increased unemployment the Tories want to see.
Use your vote wisely and vote for a clear political force that can bring an end to Tory oppression of the working class.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Tory slash and burn economics are hurting the most deprived
A financial education charity has said tax and benefit changes coming into force today will leave households £200 worse off. Credit Action, a financial education charity, has calculated they will leave households £200 a year worse off.
According to their research reductions to what parents could claim in childcare costs through the working tax credit alone would leave some families worse off by up to £1,560 a year.
Other changes due to come into force today include a £1,000 rise in the threshold at which people start paying income tax - this will mean 500,000 people will be lifted out of paying income tax altogether, a freeze in the inheritance tax threshold, an extra 5% on stamp duty for homes worth more than £1m and restrictions on tax relief on pension contributions for those on more than £150,000 a year.
The government is also cutting childcare support through the working tax credit. The resolution foundation says this will cost 450,000 people, which includes almost 290,000 lone parents, an average of £436 a year. For some families with two or more children it could be up to £1560 lost. This little-noticed change will have a huge impact on hundreds of thousands of families, but particularly mothers who work part time for low pay. Cuts to childcare support make no sense if it simply makes it harder for parents to work – as the office for budget responsibility has warned – and so ends up costing the taxpayer more.
The biggest losers will be those earning more than £35,000, with someone on £50,000 seeing their take-home pay reduced by £500 a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The results of Osborne’s Budget are really quite frightening, especially for the poorer sector of our society. And what are the government doing to help them? Nothing – it seems they are oblivious to the demise of the average man and woman in this country. Understandable really, given that over 20 of the Cabinet are millionaires and have never really experienced hardship.
This bunch of elites and toffs are totally unaware of the economic realities facing society -
1. The VAT rise will cost families with children £450 this year alone
2. Tax credits and child benefit will be frozen from April
3. Petrol prices are soaring with the VAT rise adding 3p per litre
4. Economic growth has stalled
5. Unemployment is rising again – now at a 17 year high
6. Nearly 1 million young people are now out of work
But fear not, for the government have a strategy to help the less well off. Called the child poverty strategy, it aims to offer genuine opportunities to the most deprived people in Britain. Many disagree with the principles outlined in it pages and argue it is a bungling attempt to solve a critical problem.
Responding to the publication yesterday of the Government’s child poverty ‘strategy’ and social mobility strategy, the Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said:
“A child poverty ‘strategy’ which does not set out how poverty numbers will fall, and by when, is not a strategy and is incredibly disappointing and surprising given the Prime Minister’s stated commitment on tackling poverty.
“The ‘strategy’ is unlawful because it has not kept to the requirements laid down in law by Parliament. An expert Child Poverty Commission should have been set up and consulted in the strategy’s preparation. This failure shows in the poor quality of the ‘strategy’ itself.
“It is absolutely staggering to see in the 'strategy' cuts to housing benefit and support for sick and disabled families that will make poor families poorer. On top of benefit cuts, wage stagnation and rising prices for basics like food, fuel and clothes mean there is an immediate crisis for families. Urgently addressing the financial crisis for families should be the foundation for the strategy.
“Requirements on social inclusion and the progress Ministers expect to make on their targets by 2014 are missing. We are astonished to see a consultation on scrapping child poverty duties for local government promoted in the ‘strategy’, instead of being clearly ruled out.
“The ‘strategy’ starts from a false premise, suggesting that the last decade made no progress and did not address worklessness. In fact there’s been a downward trend for child poverty in workless households, but an upward trend for in-work poverty, which is now the larger problem.
“Although we finally have a document that tells us what the Government plans to do, it appears to do very little. Taken together with the social mobility strategy it is hard to see how they will have any traction on the major problem of child poverty we face. Britain could have the same low rates of child poverty as other European countries, but to achieve this we need a strategy that learns the lessons of what successful countries on child poverty have got right and addresses the structural unfairness in our own economy.”
On top of all this, on April 1st housing workers and their tenants faced the start of a two-year package of reforms to housing benefit that will have far-reaching effects on families and communities across the whole of the UK.
The new housing benefit caps for people in the private rented sector and the move to cut the number of properties people can choose from will have an immediate impact on families looking to find a new rented home.
There is also an important change to the levels of housing benefit that people in both the social and private sectors will receive if they have adult children at home.
From 1 April, tenants sharing their home with other adults need to collect more money from them to contribute towards the rent, or make up the difference from their own money. This will be an incentive to tenants to encourage their children to leave home and could also lead to greater risks of rent arrears.
Sarah Webb, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), said:
"People are going to have their options about where they can live cut significantly and it is likely that demand for the properties that remain available will be squeezed further.
"Government has argued that rents will fall as a result of the measures. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that landlords will respond to the changes by cutting their rents. Indeed, the latest surveys from across the sector suggest that rents are going up as demand outstrips supply and the number of new homes being built continues to be half of the level needed."
The average rent in England and Wales edged ahead by 0.2% to £684 a month in February 2011, to leave the typical cost of being a tenant 3.9% higher than in February last year, according to letting agency network LSL Property Services.
Ms Webb added: "Where tenants face significant shortfalls the choice is going to be stark, find money from somewhere else or move. Given these are people on low incomes their ability to save by cutting back on other items is severely limited.
"Ultimately, this will mean low-income families moving from the communities where they have jobs, where their children are in schools, where they having strong social networks."
The full measures which have now come into force are:
1. There will no longer be a five bedroom Local Housing Allowance rate. Weekly Local Housing rates will not exceed £250 for a one bedroom property; £290 for a two bedroom property; £340 for a three bedroom property; £400 for a four bedroom property.
2. The £15 excess will be removed as soon as the Local Authority reviews a claim. Claimants will no longer be able to pocket any excess money after their rent is paid.
3. Non-dependants living in households of Housing Benefit claimants will see their deduction increases take effect from April 2011.
4. Disabled people with a long-term health condition who need overnight care or live with someone with similar needs, may now be able to claim Housing Benefit for a private rented property which has an additional bedroom for a non-resident carer.
Bearing all this in mind, how can the government legitimately talk about increasing fairness, supporting those who are less privileged and increasing the chances for the poor? Once again it seems the Tories are full of lies and dishonesty just so they can hang onto power.
According to their research reductions to what parents could claim in childcare costs through the working tax credit alone would leave some families worse off by up to £1,560 a year.
Other changes due to come into force today include a £1,000 rise in the threshold at which people start paying income tax - this will mean 500,000 people will be lifted out of paying income tax altogether, a freeze in the inheritance tax threshold, an extra 5% on stamp duty for homes worth more than £1m and restrictions on tax relief on pension contributions for those on more than £150,000 a year.
The government is also cutting childcare support through the working tax credit. The resolution foundation says this will cost 450,000 people, which includes almost 290,000 lone parents, an average of £436 a year. For some families with two or more children it could be up to £1560 lost. This little-noticed change will have a huge impact on hundreds of thousands of families, but particularly mothers who work part time for low pay. Cuts to childcare support make no sense if it simply makes it harder for parents to work – as the office for budget responsibility has warned – and so ends up costing the taxpayer more.
The biggest losers will be those earning more than £35,000, with someone on £50,000 seeing their take-home pay reduced by £500 a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The results of Osborne’s Budget are really quite frightening, especially for the poorer sector of our society. And what are the government doing to help them? Nothing – it seems they are oblivious to the demise of the average man and woman in this country. Understandable really, given that over 20 of the Cabinet are millionaires and have never really experienced hardship.
This bunch of elites and toffs are totally unaware of the economic realities facing society -
1. The VAT rise will cost families with children £450 this year alone
2. Tax credits and child benefit will be frozen from April
3. Petrol prices are soaring with the VAT rise adding 3p per litre
4. Economic growth has stalled
5. Unemployment is rising again – now at a 17 year high
6. Nearly 1 million young people are now out of work
But fear not, for the government have a strategy to help the less well off. Called the child poverty strategy, it aims to offer genuine opportunities to the most deprived people in Britain. Many disagree with the principles outlined in it pages and argue it is a bungling attempt to solve a critical problem.
Responding to the publication yesterday of the Government’s child poverty ‘strategy’ and social mobility strategy, the Chief Executive of Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said:
“A child poverty ‘strategy’ which does not set out how poverty numbers will fall, and by when, is not a strategy and is incredibly disappointing and surprising given the Prime Minister’s stated commitment on tackling poverty.
“The ‘strategy’ is unlawful because it has not kept to the requirements laid down in law by Parliament. An expert Child Poverty Commission should have been set up and consulted in the strategy’s preparation. This failure shows in the poor quality of the ‘strategy’ itself.
“It is absolutely staggering to see in the 'strategy' cuts to housing benefit and support for sick and disabled families that will make poor families poorer. On top of benefit cuts, wage stagnation and rising prices for basics like food, fuel and clothes mean there is an immediate crisis for families. Urgently addressing the financial crisis for families should be the foundation for the strategy.
“Requirements on social inclusion and the progress Ministers expect to make on their targets by 2014 are missing. We are astonished to see a consultation on scrapping child poverty duties for local government promoted in the ‘strategy’, instead of being clearly ruled out.
“The ‘strategy’ starts from a false premise, suggesting that the last decade made no progress and did not address worklessness. In fact there’s been a downward trend for child poverty in workless households, but an upward trend for in-work poverty, which is now the larger problem.
“Although we finally have a document that tells us what the Government plans to do, it appears to do very little. Taken together with the social mobility strategy it is hard to see how they will have any traction on the major problem of child poverty we face. Britain could have the same low rates of child poverty as other European countries, but to achieve this we need a strategy that learns the lessons of what successful countries on child poverty have got right and addresses the structural unfairness in our own economy.”
On top of all this, on April 1st housing workers and their tenants faced the start of a two-year package of reforms to housing benefit that will have far-reaching effects on families and communities across the whole of the UK.
The new housing benefit caps for people in the private rented sector and the move to cut the number of properties people can choose from will have an immediate impact on families looking to find a new rented home.
There is also an important change to the levels of housing benefit that people in both the social and private sectors will receive if they have adult children at home.
From 1 April, tenants sharing their home with other adults need to collect more money from them to contribute towards the rent, or make up the difference from their own money. This will be an incentive to tenants to encourage their children to leave home and could also lead to greater risks of rent arrears.
Sarah Webb, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), said:
"People are going to have their options about where they can live cut significantly and it is likely that demand for the properties that remain available will be squeezed further.
"Government has argued that rents will fall as a result of the measures. There is no evidence at this time to suggest that landlords will respond to the changes by cutting their rents. Indeed, the latest surveys from across the sector suggest that rents are going up as demand outstrips supply and the number of new homes being built continues to be half of the level needed."
The average rent in England and Wales edged ahead by 0.2% to £684 a month in February 2011, to leave the typical cost of being a tenant 3.9% higher than in February last year, according to letting agency network LSL Property Services.
Ms Webb added: "Where tenants face significant shortfalls the choice is going to be stark, find money from somewhere else or move. Given these are people on low incomes their ability to save by cutting back on other items is severely limited.
"Ultimately, this will mean low-income families moving from the communities where they have jobs, where their children are in schools, where they having strong social networks."
The full measures which have now come into force are:
1. There will no longer be a five bedroom Local Housing Allowance rate. Weekly Local Housing rates will not exceed £250 for a one bedroom property; £290 for a two bedroom property; £340 for a three bedroom property; £400 for a four bedroom property.
2. The £15 excess will be removed as soon as the Local Authority reviews a claim. Claimants will no longer be able to pocket any excess money after their rent is paid.
3. Non-dependants living in households of Housing Benefit claimants will see their deduction increases take effect from April 2011.
4. Disabled people with a long-term health condition who need overnight care or live with someone with similar needs, may now be able to claim Housing Benefit for a private rented property which has an additional bedroom for a non-resident carer.
Bearing all this in mind, how can the government legitimately talk about increasing fairness, supporting those who are less privileged and increasing the chances for the poor? Once again it seems the Tories are full of lies and dishonesty just so they can hang onto power.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
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!
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!
Monday, 28 February 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
How the Coalition ignores the unemployed
Already the coalition is starting to show signs of attacking our hard earned welfare system. Over the coming months, 2.6 million people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit will be reassessed and ‘judged’ as to whether they are fit for work. Now accessing IB in the first place is not exactly easy and requires the co-operation of a GP, so one can only assume the Con-Dems are unwilling to accept medical opinion because they want to get these ‘skivers’ back to work.
Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.
You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:
“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.
Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.
Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?
If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:
- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work
It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.
Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.
So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?
Will they revitalise British industry? No.
Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.
Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.
But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.
But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.
Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.
Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.
You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:
“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.
Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.
Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?
If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:
- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work
It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.
Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.
So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?
Will they revitalise British industry? No.
Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.
Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.
But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.
But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.
Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.
at
03:29
0
comments
Labels:
IB,
Incapacity benefit,
Labour,
Thatcherite,
Tory,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
IB,
Incapacity benefit,
Labour,
Thatcherite,
Tory,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Friday, 28 May 2010
The saga of MP expenses continues ...
Over the last few months, many Members of Parliament have been exposed for claiming excessive or inappropriate expenses. As a result we have seen the public attitude towards politics and the political system diminish. Indeed, in the last election I found many people on the street were disillusioned - even though their (then) constituency MP, David Kidney, had been seen to be beyond reproach.
Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, promised to clean up British politics and Cameron stated that any Tory MP found to have abused the system would be required to pay the money back. it is therefore interesting to note that amongst the top 20 MPs claiming the largest amount, only 6 are Labour and of these 3 appealed and had their repayment eliminated or reduced. Only 1 Labour politician (Barbara Follett) has an amount still outstanding. Compare this with the Tories and we see that amongst those 'top 20' there remains over £46,000 of debt! Now we are not talking about lesser known MPs (past and present) here - people like David Heathcote-Amory, who owes £23,569. or Michael Spicer, who owes £10,000.
And what of the Lib-Dems? Well until today their record was reasonably good. A few had been caught out with the amendments to the rules but, by and large, their debts had fallen in between one and three thousand pounds and broadly speaking, these had been paid. But now we have the revelation that the First Secretary to the Treasury, had falsely (either through error, omission or commission) claimed for over £40,000 of expenses. Now, the fact David Laws is gay is really of little interest to me quite honestly - it is his own affair and I trust it is a happy and loving relationship, because over the coming days he will need to call on it.
No, my concern is that a man who is central to running the finances of this country fudged the records because he wanted to hide information (he wanted to keep his sexuality secret). How can we trust a politician who acts in such a manner? Will he hold back other inconvenient secrets about the state of the country should they arise?
In many respects this is a tragic case, because Laws is undoubtedly a consummate professional and a talented MP, although I have grave misgivings about his political and economic views. Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics and Laws is about to find out that it will pass excruciatingly slowly, with the red-top newspapers anxious to exploit any sexual whimsy the can obtain. I doubt Mr Laws will read this blog, but should he I would urge him to take courage and seek the support and love of your partner. At the same time I would also advocate a full and public apology followed by an immediate resignation from the government. In doing so he will show to the public an air of remorse and contrition that will allow them to quickly forgive. Then, in a few months, if G-d forbid the Con-Dems are still in power, he can return to the front bench and use his acute brain for the betterment of this country.
No doubt we will see over the next few days how things unfold.
Tacitus
Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister, promised to clean up British politics and Cameron stated that any Tory MP found to have abused the system would be required to pay the money back. it is therefore interesting to note that amongst the top 20 MPs claiming the largest amount, only 6 are Labour and of these 3 appealed and had their repayment eliminated or reduced. Only 1 Labour politician (Barbara Follett) has an amount still outstanding. Compare this with the Tories and we see that amongst those 'top 20' there remains over £46,000 of debt! Now we are not talking about lesser known MPs (past and present) here - people like David Heathcote-Amory, who owes £23,569. or Michael Spicer, who owes £10,000.
And what of the Lib-Dems? Well until today their record was reasonably good. A few had been caught out with the amendments to the rules but, by and large, their debts had fallen in between one and three thousand pounds and broadly speaking, these had been paid. But now we have the revelation that the First Secretary to the Treasury, had falsely (either through error, omission or commission) claimed for over £40,000 of expenses. Now, the fact David Laws is gay is really of little interest to me quite honestly - it is his own affair and I trust it is a happy and loving relationship, because over the coming days he will need to call on it.
No, my concern is that a man who is central to running the finances of this country fudged the records because he wanted to hide information (he wanted to keep his sexuality secret). How can we trust a politician who acts in such a manner? Will he hold back other inconvenient secrets about the state of the country should they arise?
In many respects this is a tragic case, because Laws is undoubtedly a consummate professional and a talented MP, although I have grave misgivings about his political and economic views. Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics and Laws is about to find out that it will pass excruciatingly slowly, with the red-top newspapers anxious to exploit any sexual whimsy the can obtain. I doubt Mr Laws will read this blog, but should he I would urge him to take courage and seek the support and love of your partner. At the same time I would also advocate a full and public apology followed by an immediate resignation from the government. In doing so he will show to the public an air of remorse and contrition that will allow them to quickly forgive. Then, in a few months, if G-d forbid the Con-Dems are still in power, he can return to the front bench and use his acute brain for the betterment of this country.
No doubt we will see over the next few days how things unfold.
Tacitus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
