If early results prove to be representative of the national trend then tonight may not be as good for Labour as their spokespeople will suggest later today.
Of course it is good that votes have moved from the Lib Dems to Labour. This will come as no surprise whatsoever and should be welcomed. However, Labour’s failure to take control of Holyrood is devastating news and undoubtedly will demand the resignation of the leader of the Scottish labour Party.
In Wales, early signs are that Labour has done well and seems set for overall control of the Principality. Good news for Labour, but even here there has not been a huge swing and it remains touch and go as to whether an overall majority takes place.
In England the Tory vote seems to have largely held, although their Lib Dem partners are taking a severe bruising at the polls. Predictions indicate that if the English results were extrapolated into a General Election result it would mean Labour would have 340 seats (and an overall majority), Conservatives with 264 and the Lib Dems on 21.
All this indicates how Labour are failing to get their argument across effectively. Undoubtedly Lib Dem voters have switched, but most of these tend to be progressives and their discontent was already widely known. Tory voters on the other hand have remained faithful to their party and, in large part their vote has held.
In other words, Labour will need to do far more to convince Tory voters to switch to them when the General Election is called.
I have long argued that the Labour front bench need to up their game and Miliband must be more proactive in attacking Cameron at PMQs. Their rather wimpish style has proven to be ineffective and the vote today will be taken by the Tories as an affirmation that the majority remain content with the way the Tories are handling the economy.
As much as I hate admitting it, they are right. Labour has done too little to bring about a change of hearts and minds. Over the coming months they will need to do far more to bring Tory voters into the fold and guarantee a Labour victory. In particular, they will need to show Tory voters that Labour has an effective economic strategy that can address the deficit and that the party is capable of stabilising the economy and attract new industries and new business to this country.
In other words, before Labour start popping the champagne corks they need to look long and hard at the figures – if they are honest they will admit yesterday’s election has shown there is still a great deal more to do.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
By-election dirty tricks: fake gay leaflets delivered in Muslim areas
The Leicester South by-election has turned dirty. A leaflet purporting to be from the Liberal Democrats and featuring a picture of two men kissing has been distributed in an Asian area of the city. The materials, which campaign organisers have confirmed as fake, are clearly an attempt to inflame anti-gay sentiment in the largely Muslim Spinney Hills area.
The leaflet features a version of the party’s equality policies as channelled by the Daily Mail. If the lack of an imprint (text required by electoral law) or contact details doesn’t raise suspicions, the text erroneously describe former Treasury Secretary David Laws and Simon Hughes as front benchers:“We will force all schools to teach homosexuality as normal … Our front bench team Simon Hughes and David Laws are committed homosexuals, while Nick Clegg was recently voted by readers of Pink Times as the sexiest party leader.”
The operation to whip up anti-gay sentiment echoes a similar incident during the 2004 Leicester South by-election, which was won by now out-of-favour Liberal Democrat Parmjit Singh Gill. Liberal Democrat Party HQ responded by saying:
“Some of this leaflet is completely true and we are very proud of our record in championing gay rights. However, this a fake leaflet maliciously designed to incite hatred. It is disgusting attempt to provoke hate during the last days of a political campaign. It has no place in politics and it has no place in society.”
Now, I may not be a great fan of the Lib Dems, but this leaflet is a pretty tasteless example of how not to run politics. There can be no room in any election for attacks against any minority and the decent-thinking majority of voters should dismiss the contents of this leaflet as being the work of those opposed to true equality in this country.
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, 3 May 2011
CPI and housing: The deeper implications of the Welfare Reform Bill
Hidden in Clause 68 of the Welfare Reform Bill are proposals that will have a profound impact on housing in this country.
The Clause itself is deliberately vague, talking of ‘liabilities’ and ‘rent officer determinations’. It is only by close examination of parliamentary questions and references in the emergency budget that it becomes clear that Clause 68 will be used to introduce the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as the means by which Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is adjusted from 2013.
Much has been made of the impact that switching to CPI will have on benefits such as disability living allowance and job seekers allowance, which until this month were calculated using the more relevant Retail Price Index. But less recognised is the unique impact that linking to CPI will have on Local Housing Allowance.
Currently supporting over a million households to live in the private rented sector, LHA is a specific benefit to cover a specific cost – the roof over people’s heads. For this reason, it is linked not to RPI or any other fixed measure of inflation, but to the cost of local rents to ensure that the housing support people receive is based on the housing costs they actually pay.
Removing this link means that from 2013 housing support will be adjusted based on the changing cost of a random basket of consumer goods like washing machines and the cost of an average meal out – pretty much everything apart from the real cost of rents.
Between 1997 and 2007, average rents increased by 70%, while the CPI rose by just 20%, illustrating just how quickly housing costs will outstrip LHA under the new system. Over time, the amount people receive will cover less and less of their housing costs.
Shelter joined up with the Chartered Institute of Housing to measure the impact this will have. Our research showed that by 2023, just ten years after the change comes in, 34% of local authorities outside of London will be unaffordable for people on LHA. Areas worst affected are concentrated in the East of England, East Midlands and the South West where rents have been rising fastest over recent years. In effect, claimants will find themselves priced out of huge swathes of the country.
What’s more, further analysis shows a pattern between the areas with the highest proportion of claimants in work and the highest rates of employment. Meanwhile, regions that will remain affordable in 2023 – the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber – are those with above average rates of economic inactivity and unemployment. In other words, people claiming LHA will be forced to live in places with fewer employment opportunities.
These findings are a serious challenge to the government’s key aim in reforming the welfare system – getting more people back into work – and are surely grounds for an urgent rethink before it’s too late. Shelter is urging MPs and Peers to support amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill that will ensure the rate of LHA remains linked to housing costs and accurately reflects rent rises.
But there is also a wider point to be made about the way these changes are being introduced. If Clause 68 is unclear on its intentions to reduce housing benefit, Clause 11 of the same Bill gives carte blanche to the Secretary of State to bring in further changes to the way housing support is calculated through secondary legislation. This opens the door for more cuts to housing benefit to be introduced without proper parliamentary scrutiny. This should be a serious cause for concern for anyone committed to accountability and the democratic process.
The Clause itself is deliberately vague, talking of ‘liabilities’ and ‘rent officer determinations’. It is only by close examination of parliamentary questions and references in the emergency budget that it becomes clear that Clause 68 will be used to introduce the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as the means by which Local Housing Allowance (LHA) is adjusted from 2013.
Much has been made of the impact that switching to CPI will have on benefits such as disability living allowance and job seekers allowance, which until this month were calculated using the more relevant Retail Price Index. But less recognised is the unique impact that linking to CPI will have on Local Housing Allowance.
Currently supporting over a million households to live in the private rented sector, LHA is a specific benefit to cover a specific cost – the roof over people’s heads. For this reason, it is linked not to RPI or any other fixed measure of inflation, but to the cost of local rents to ensure that the housing support people receive is based on the housing costs they actually pay.
Removing this link means that from 2013 housing support will be adjusted based on the changing cost of a random basket of consumer goods like washing machines and the cost of an average meal out – pretty much everything apart from the real cost of rents.
Between 1997 and 2007, average rents increased by 70%, while the CPI rose by just 20%, illustrating just how quickly housing costs will outstrip LHA under the new system. Over time, the amount people receive will cover less and less of their housing costs.
Shelter joined up with the Chartered Institute of Housing to measure the impact this will have. Our research showed that by 2023, just ten years after the change comes in, 34% of local authorities outside of London will be unaffordable for people on LHA. Areas worst affected are concentrated in the East of England, East Midlands and the South West where rents have been rising fastest over recent years. In effect, claimants will find themselves priced out of huge swathes of the country.
What’s more, further analysis shows a pattern between the areas with the highest proportion of claimants in work and the highest rates of employment. Meanwhile, regions that will remain affordable in 2023 – the North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humber – are those with above average rates of economic inactivity and unemployment. In other words, people claiming LHA will be forced to live in places with fewer employment opportunities.
These findings are a serious challenge to the government’s key aim in reforming the welfare system – getting more people back into work – and are surely grounds for an urgent rethink before it’s too late. Shelter is urging MPs and Peers to support amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill that will ensure the rate of LHA remains linked to housing costs and accurately reflects rent rises.
But there is also a wider point to be made about the way these changes are being introduced. If Clause 68 is unclear on its intentions to reduce housing benefit, Clause 11 of the same Bill gives carte blanche to the Secretary of State to bring in further changes to the way housing support is calculated through secondary legislation. This opens the door for more cuts to housing benefit to be introduced without proper parliamentary scrutiny. This should be a serious cause for concern for anyone committed to accountability and the democratic process.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Last chance for the "nothing" referendum
According to news reports the AV referendum debate is set to escalate as we move to within 48-hours of polling. Well, quite honestly something needed to happen because as lacklustre political issues go, this one arguably takes the cake.
Apparently Paul Boateng will call for Chris Huhne to resign because he has argued has expressed anger in recent days over the way the No lobby - a cross-party group which shares some financial backers with the Conservatives - has conducted its campaign. Well now, that’s going to happen, isn’t it. I mean, a minister who is a member of a party that hasn’t been in office of any kind since 1915 is naturally going to relinquish that power.
The “Yes” campaign have been little better. In a platform that will be shared by that great political luminary, Eddie Izzard and Lord Paddy Ashdown, they will claim that politicians with safe seats under the current First Past The Post system earn more money from second jobs and that reform would force MPs to spend more time working for their constituents.
How naïve do these people think we are? Do they truly believe what they are saying? Because if they do then I am very worried. The reality is far more likely that whichever system is adopted, it will little difference to the work output of many MPs. The facts of the matter are that many MPs, of all political persuasions, work very hard for their constituents and work long hours in the service of the people who voted them into office.
Of course there are exceptions and we regularly hear examples of how some of our elected representatives fail to attend Westminster regularly. Gordon Brown and David Miliband have been less than regular faces over the past few months, but I very much doubt AV would have forced them into the chamber. In fact, the evidence would indicate their majorities would be slightly larger under this mongrelised version of proportional representation so, using the “Yes” analysis they would be even less likely to turn up.
The hard reality is that the referendum has failed to engage the hearts and minds of voters. Like many activists I have been spending the last three weeks knocking on doors and many voters are not even aware a referendum is even taking place. With only two full days of campaigning left, both camps are desperate to engage with voters and get their supporters to the polling station.
Unfortunately, when the votes are finally cast and counted it is more than likely the poll will be less than 50% of the electorate – leaving it open for both sides to argue the conclusion is not a full representation of the people’s will.
Far from finally solving the problem of whether or not the UK will adopt AV, the referendum is likely to create more questions than answers.
Apparently Paul Boateng will call for Chris Huhne to resign because he has argued has expressed anger in recent days over the way the No lobby - a cross-party group which shares some financial backers with the Conservatives - has conducted its campaign. Well now, that’s going to happen, isn’t it. I mean, a minister who is a member of a party that hasn’t been in office of any kind since 1915 is naturally going to relinquish that power.
The “Yes” campaign have been little better. In a platform that will be shared by that great political luminary, Eddie Izzard and Lord Paddy Ashdown, they will claim that politicians with safe seats under the current First Past The Post system earn more money from second jobs and that reform would force MPs to spend more time working for their constituents.
How naïve do these people think we are? Do they truly believe what they are saying? Because if they do then I am very worried. The reality is far more likely that whichever system is adopted, it will little difference to the work output of many MPs. The facts of the matter are that many MPs, of all political persuasions, work very hard for their constituents and work long hours in the service of the people who voted them into office.
Of course there are exceptions and we regularly hear examples of how some of our elected representatives fail to attend Westminster regularly. Gordon Brown and David Miliband have been less than regular faces over the past few months, but I very much doubt AV would have forced them into the chamber. In fact, the evidence would indicate their majorities would be slightly larger under this mongrelised version of proportional representation so, using the “Yes” analysis they would be even less likely to turn up.
The hard reality is that the referendum has failed to engage the hearts and minds of voters. Like many activists I have been spending the last three weeks knocking on doors and many voters are not even aware a referendum is even taking place. With only two full days of campaigning left, both camps are desperate to engage with voters and get their supporters to the polling station.
Unfortunately, when the votes are finally cast and counted it is more than likely the poll will be less than 50% of the electorate – leaving it open for both sides to argue the conclusion is not a full representation of the people’s will.
Far from finally solving the problem of whether or not the UK will adopt AV, the referendum is likely to create more questions than answers.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
Why we celebrate Worker's Day
Today we celebrate a holiday that is under threat from the Tories. They share this passion for its abolition along with the past fascist governments of Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal. In an attempt to take control of the worker’s holiday, in 1955, the Roman Catholic Church dedicated May 1 to "Saint Joseph the Worker". The Catholic Church considers Saint Joseph the patron saint of (among others) workers, craftsmen, immigrants and "people fighting communism". Needless to say they did not succeed.
Readers of this blog will be aware of the fact that I hold that for centuries the working class of this country have been down-trodden and oppressed. They will also know how strongly I hold that the principles of socialism need to be carried forward until the scourge of capitalism is removed from this country and every other nation.
The working class have a long international tradition for fighting this oppression and history shows how, in every instance, capitalism and the ‘state’ moved against ordinary people to maintain the status quo.
In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labour Unions passed a resolution stating that eight hours would constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886. The resolution called for a general strike to achieve the goal, since legislative methods had already failed. With workers being forced to work ten, twelve, and fourteen hours a day, rank-and-file support for the eight-hour movement grew rapidly, despite the indifference and hostility of many union leaders. By April 1886, 250,000 workers were involved in the May Day movement.
Working classes have existed since the development of agriculture, about ten thousand years ago. Serfs, slaves, tradespeople and others were forced to turn over the fruits of their labour to an exploiting class. But the modern working class - the class of "free labour," whose exploitation is hidden by the wage system - is only several hundred years old. Although its exploitation is masked, it is no less brutal. Men, women and children are forced to work long hours in miserable conditions just to eke out a bare subsistence.
Ultimately, this led the International Socialist Conference meeting in 1904 to call on "all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace." The congress made it "mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers."
Today we honour the decisions made at that meeting and take a few moments to remember those working class martyrs who fought selflessly for our rights, without any care for their own personal safety. Their names will not be forgotten:
Peterloo Massacre
John Ashton
John Ashworth
William Bradshaw
Thomas Buckley
Robert Campbell
James Crompton
Edmund Dawson
William Dawson
Margaret Downes
William Evans
William Fildes
Mary Heys
Sarah Jones
John Lees
Arthur Neil
Martha Partington
John Rhodes
Joshua Whitworth
Llanelli Rail Strike
Readers of this blog will be aware of the fact that I hold that for centuries the working class of this country have been down-trodden and oppressed. They will also know how strongly I hold that the principles of socialism need to be carried forward until the scourge of capitalism is removed from this country and every other nation.
The working class have a long international tradition for fighting this oppression and history shows how, in every instance, capitalism and the ‘state’ moved against ordinary people to maintain the status quo.
In 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labour Unions passed a resolution stating that eight hours would constitute a legal day's work from and after May 1, 1886. The resolution called for a general strike to achieve the goal, since legislative methods had already failed. With workers being forced to work ten, twelve, and fourteen hours a day, rank-and-file support for the eight-hour movement grew rapidly, despite the indifference and hostility of many union leaders. By April 1886, 250,000 workers were involved in the May Day movement.
Working classes have existed since the development of agriculture, about ten thousand years ago. Serfs, slaves, tradespeople and others were forced to turn over the fruits of their labour to an exploiting class. But the modern working class - the class of "free labour," whose exploitation is hidden by the wage system - is only several hundred years old. Although its exploitation is masked, it is no less brutal. Men, women and children are forced to work long hours in miserable conditions just to eke out a bare subsistence.
Ultimately, this led the International Socialist Conference meeting in 1904 to call on "all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace." The congress made it "mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers."
Today we honour the decisions made at that meeting and take a few moments to remember those working class martyrs who fought selflessly for our rights, without any care for their own personal safety. Their names will not be forgotten:
Peterloo Massacre
John Ashton
John Ashworth
William Bradshaw
Thomas Buckley
Robert Campbell
James Crompton
Edmund Dawson
William Dawson
Margaret Downes
William Evans
William Fildes
Mary Heys
Sarah Jones
John Lees
Arthur Neil
Martha Partington
John Rhodes
Joshua Whitworth
Llanelli Rail Strike
Leonard Worsell
John 'Jac' John
Stirling Martyrs
John 'Jac' John
Stirling Martyrs
John Baird
Andrew Hardie
The list is endless and sadly, rarely includes the names of thousands of unsung warriors who worked throughout their life for all we have today.
Most readers of this blog will not be marching under union banners today. Instead we will enjoy a day of well-earned rest with our families. So, when you light your barbeque this afternoon, or go for a drink in your favourite watering hole, remember those martyrs who gave their lives so you could enjoy your day of peace.
They must never be forgotten and the Tories must never be allowed to desecrate on e of the most important days in the calendar for working class people. On this we refuse to lie down and like the socialists who fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War the cry must go out …..
Non Pasaran!
Andrew Hardie
The list is endless and sadly, rarely includes the names of thousands of unsung warriors who worked throughout their life for all we have today.
Most readers of this blog will not be marching under union banners today. Instead we will enjoy a day of well-earned rest with our families. So, when you light your barbeque this afternoon, or go for a drink in your favourite watering hole, remember those martyrs who gave their lives so you could enjoy your day of peace.
They must never be forgotten and the Tories must never be allowed to desecrate on e of the most important days in the calendar for working class people. On this we refuse to lie down and like the socialists who fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War the cry must go out …..
Non Pasaran!
Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden dead - Barack Obama
Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden dead - Barack Obama
Bin Laden was top of the US "most wanted" list Continue reading the main story
Source - BBC News
Al-Qaeda founder and leader Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US forces in Pakistan, President Obama has said.
The al-Qaeda leader was killed in a ground operation outside Islamabad based on US intelligence, the first lead for which emerged last August.
Mr Obama said after "a firefight", US forces took possession of his body.
Bin Laden was accused of being behind a number of atrocities, including the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.
He was top of the US "most wanted" list.
Mr Obama said it was "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaeda".
The US has put its embassies around the world on alert, warning Americans of the possibility of al-Qaeda reprisal attacks for Bin Laden's killing.
Crowds gathered outside the White House in Washington DC, chanting "USA, USA" after the news emerged.
Bin Laden approved the 9/11 attacks in which nearly 3,000 people died, saying later that the results had exceeded his expectations.
He evaded the forces of the US and its allies for almost a decade, despite a $25m bounty on his head.
His death will be seen as a major blow to al-Qaeda but also raises fears of reprisal attacks, correspondents say.
Mr Obama said he had been briefed last August on a possible lead to Bin Laden's whereabouts.
"It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground," Mr Obama said.
"I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.
"And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorised an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice," the president said.
On Sunday a small team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, north of Islamabad.
After a "firefight" Bin Laden was killed and his body taken by US forces, the president said.
He said "no Americans were harmed" in the operation.
Former US President Bill Clinton said in a statement: "This is a profoundly important moment not just for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in al-Qaeda's other attacks but for people all over the world who want to build a common future of peace, freedom, and cooperation for our children."
Mr Clinton's successor, President George W Bush, described the news as a "momentous achievement".
"The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," Mr Bush said in a statement.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says that, to many in the West, Bin Laden became the embodiment of global terrorism, but to others he was a hero, a devout Muslim who fought two world superpowers in the name of jihad.
The son of a wealthy Saudi construction family, Bin Laden grew up in a privileged world. But soon after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan he joined the mujahideen there and fought alongside them with his Arab followers, a group that later formed the nucleus for al-Qaeda.
After declaring war on America in 1998, Bin Laden is widely believed to have been behind the bombings of US embassies in East Africa, a billion-dollar US warship, and the attacks on New York and Washington.
Bin Laden was top of the US "most wanted" list Continue reading the main story
Source - BBC News
Al-Qaeda founder and leader Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US forces in Pakistan, President Obama has said.
The al-Qaeda leader was killed in a ground operation outside Islamabad based on US intelligence, the first lead for which emerged last August.
Mr Obama said after "a firefight", US forces took possession of his body.
Bin Laden was accused of being behind a number of atrocities, including the attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.
He was top of the US "most wanted" list.
Mr Obama said it was "the most significant achievement to date in our nation's effort to defeat al-Qaeda".
The US has put its embassies around the world on alert, warning Americans of the possibility of al-Qaeda reprisal attacks for Bin Laden's killing.
Crowds gathered outside the White House in Washington DC, chanting "USA, USA" after the news emerged.
Bin Laden approved the 9/11 attacks in which nearly 3,000 people died, saying later that the results had exceeded his expectations.
He evaded the forces of the US and its allies for almost a decade, despite a $25m bounty on his head.
His death will be seen as a major blow to al-Qaeda but also raises fears of reprisal attacks, correspondents say.
Mr Obama said he had been briefed last August on a possible lead to Bin Laden's whereabouts.
"It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground," Mr Obama said.
"I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located Bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.
"And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorised an operation to get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice," the president said.
On Sunday a small team of US forces undertook the operation in Abbottabad, north of Islamabad.
After a "firefight" Bin Laden was killed and his body taken by US forces, the president said.
He said "no Americans were harmed" in the operation.
Former US President Bill Clinton said in a statement: "This is a profoundly important moment not just for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in al-Qaeda's other attacks but for people all over the world who want to build a common future of peace, freedom, and cooperation for our children."
Mr Clinton's successor, President George W Bush, described the news as a "momentous achievement".
"The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," Mr Bush said in a statement.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says that, to many in the West, Bin Laden became the embodiment of global terrorism, but to others he was a hero, a devout Muslim who fought two world superpowers in the name of jihad.
The son of a wealthy Saudi construction family, Bin Laden grew up in a privileged world. But soon after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan he joined the mujahideen there and fought alongside them with his Arab followers, a group that later formed the nucleus for al-Qaeda.
After declaring war on America in 1998, Bin Laden is widely believed to have been behind the bombings of US embassies in East Africa, a billion-dollar US warship, and the attacks on New York and Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
