Monthly Archives: December 2014

Who will be having a White Christmas this year


How many of will be dreaming of a White Christmas this year under this dreaded coalition have a listen to this YouTube then tell me?

My Christmas and New Year’s messages to both David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage is if you both care about poverty then take visit your nearest Foodbanks in your area as you will find a great examples of the massive disfunction at the heart of modern capitalism you need look no further than food production and distribution. Remember its the people power that votes you into office and the poeple power call calling on UKIP, LibDems and David Cameron All Must Go if you can deliver the goods.

#CameronMustGoNew research reveals that more than four million tons of food is being wasted by supermarkets and farmers every year — 40 per cent of the total. Meanwhile one million people now use food banks across Britain to ensure their families are able to eat one basic hot meal per day.

The government’s welfare reforms, including benefit sanctions and the hated Bedroom Tax, are a central factor in the explosion in the numbers of impoverished people turning to charity food banks.

A Sheffield University researcher Hannah Lambie-Mumford says the rise in demand for charity food is a clear signal “of the inadequacy of both social security provision and the processes by which it is delivered.”

Her report warns that as social security safety nets become weaker, there is a danger that charity food could become an integral part of welfare provision, or even a replacement for state-funded emergency welfare schemes.

Food price inflation in Britain is amongst the highest in Europe. The political Establishment are all singing from the same song sheet that austerity is here to stay and will be a permanent feature for a decade.

We used to talk about people falling through the welfare safety net. It seems that modern Britain is about to see that safety net itself removed.

Nigel-Farage-and-Nick-Clegg-The Lib Dems will duck a chance to end the Bedroom Tax – despite “opposing” it.

Nick Clegg’s party is refusing to back a Labour motion in the House of Commons that would axe the hated policy once and for all.

The Deputy PM announced in July his party would no longer support the tax after the Department for Work and Pensions found 300,000 victims are in rent arrears and only 4.5% have moved to smaller homes.

David Cameron will break his promise to reduce red tape for businesses by the end of this Parliament, according to an independent think tank.

A study by Reform reveals his ministers have cut away £1.2 billion worth of regulation since 2010, but added an extra £4.3 billion, and its authors say this increase of £3.1 billion is a conservative estimate.

The study also claims the government mistakenly counted as its biggest deregulatory success a decision by the Department for Work and Pensions to change the way that private pension providers account for inflation. Both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats pledged to tackle regulation in their 2010 manifestos.

This comes as Tory ministers struggle to meet their pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by next May, which experts have said is effectively “dead and buried”.

In 2011, the Prime Minister wrote an open letter to Cabinet ministers promising to lead the “first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation rather than increasing it”.

The report praises the Coalition’s efforts in trying to meet this challenge, but says it has ultimately been unsuccessful.

Its authors recommend the next Government sticks to a one-in, one-out rule whereby every extra £1 of new regulation must be offset by at least £1 of deregulation.

But a spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) rejected the claim in the report.

He said: “Across government we’ve led a relentless battle to ease the burden on business as part of our long term economic plan to help Britain succeed.

“Our efforts to cut domestic red-tape has been independently verified and received external scrutiny from the Regulatory Policy Committee. They have confirmed that by getting rid of pointless rules we’ve delivered a net saving to business of well over £1.5 billion a year.

“But we don’t want to stop there. We’re demanding every small business is exempt from new EU regulations and that every new law affecting business faces a tough competitiveness test.

“We are ramping up our pro-enterprise campaign in the EU to make sure that policy helps not hinders business -and we’re already seeing results.”

I’m under the strong impression that this coalition is failing the nation with their empty promises by helping the poorest out of poverty. I do recall a saying from relatives as a wee lad growing up they use to drill into me that a promise is a comfort to a fool. With this in mind this has been instilled into me until my adulthood which I have passed down to my children.

car1What I’m about to mention I make no apologies for causing a uproar with the establishment as they look after the few whilst the low, lower, disabled, and middle incomes has to pick up the crumbs of the table of the few just to make ends by turning to Foodbanks or loan sharks. The establishment may not like to read or hear those words but until the class war ends there will be continued poverty in communities as some people may have lost their incomes or had their benefits has been suspended due sanctions imposed by Department of Works and Pensions for a number of reasons as those who knows it, feels it. They are in an ideal position to speak out as they face it day in and out whilst this government is very much out of touch with people as they are more into their Westminister bubble than what they really care about their voters. That’s putting it mildly.

Food-banks-graph-20155Since the formation of this coalition we all have witnessed cuts in Public Services which is moving towards the Jaws of Doom, we will not recognize it in the next 10-25 on how Public Services was once was which also includes our welfare system. The sooner we recognize that Local Government will have changed drastically and most of the services we are all accustom to will have been contracted out to the private sector as this coalition wants to introduce the American system which in some case has not really benefited in America as the poor will not be able to afford to pay which is what the Conservatives, Libdems and UKIP wants to happen.

briownThis leads me to say that one of the best chancellor that we ever had was a person called Gordon Brown like him or loathe him history will judge him as a person who did more to tried to eradicate child poverty and dealing with the world banking crisis, introducing SureStart, National Minimum Wage, family friendly policies, Human Right Act, not joining the EU unless they met the five Criteria and the cheek of this coalition continues to play the blame game which has gone far beyond a scratch record. How many will have noticed that the coalition refuses to put the five economic tests were the criteria defined by the UK treasury under Gordon Brown that were to be used to assess the UK’s readiness to join the Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union (EMU), and so adopt the euro as its official currency. In principle, these tests were distinct from any political decision to join.

The five tests were as follows:

Are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others could live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis?

If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?

Would joining EMU create better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain?

What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK’s financial services industry, particularly the City‘s wholesale markets?

In summary, will joining EMU promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?

In addition to these self-imposed criteria, the UK would also have to meet the European Union‘s economic convergence criteria (“Maastricht criteria”) before being allowed to adopt the euro. One criterion is two years’ membership of ERM II, of which the UK is currently not a member. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the UK is not obliged to adopt the euro.

As the Brown government was voted out of office in the 2010 United Kingdom general election, the tests are no longer government policy.

The five tests were designed in 1997 by former British Labour Party Chancellor Gordon Brown and his then special adviser Ed Balls, allegedly in the back of a taxi while Brown was in the United States. Despite this uncertain pedigree, the International Monetary Fund deemed them to be “broadly consistent with the economic considerations that are relevant for assessing entry into a monetary union.”

The UK Treasury is responsible for assessing the tests. It first did so in October 1997, when it was decided that the UK economy was neither sufficiently converged with that of the rest of the EU, nor sufficiently flexible, to justify a recommendation of membership at that time. The government pledged to reassess the tests early in the next Parliament (which began in June 2001), and published a revised assessment of the five tests in June 2003. This assessment ran to around 250 pages and was backed up by eighteen supporting studies, on subjects such as housing, labour market flexibility, and the euro area’s monetary and fiscal frameworks.

The conclusions were broadly similar; the Treasury argued that:

  1. There had been significant progress on convergence since 1997, but there remained some significant structural differences, such as in the housing market.
  2. While UK flexibility had improved, they could not be confident that it is sufficient.
  3. Euro membership would increase investment, but only if convergenceand flexibility were sufficient.
  4. The City of London, Britain’s financial centre, would benefit from Eurozone membership.
  5. Growth, stability and employment would increase as a result of euro membership, but only if convergence and flexibility were sufficient.

On the basis of this assessment, the government ruled out UK membership of the euro for the duration of the 2001 Parliament. Since Labour was re-elected in 2005, the debate on theEuropean Constitution and subsequent Treaty of Lisbon upstaged that on the euro. Gordon Brown, in his first press conference as British Prime Minister (2007), ruled out membership for the foreseeable future, saying that the decision not to join had been right for Britain and for Europe. However, in late 2008, Jose Manuel Barroso (the European Commission President) stated differently; that UK leaders were seriously considering the switch amidst the financial crisis. Brown later denied this.

One of the underlying issues that stand in the way of monetary union is the structural difference between the UK housing market and those of many continental European countries. Although home ownership in Britain is near the European average, variable rate mortgages are more common, making the retail price index in Britain more influenced by interest rate changes. Nor am I’m begrudging the few or the many people who started from rags to riches which is a great story in itself but the reality is how many had the opportunity to do so.

ed-milibanWhen I listen to Ed Milibands recent speech in Gateshead on the deflect it gave me a sense of purpose and helps to ensure that we have to do our part to ensure that we have a Labour Government in place in 2015.

I enclosed two  copies of Ed Miliband’s speech for all to read:

Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, in a speech on the deficit, said:

My speech today is about the deficit.

Its place in our priorities.

How a Labour government would deal with it.

And how we would do so consistent with our values.

Eight days ago in the Autumn Statement, it became clear what the Tory plan for the country is.

They promised to clear the deficit in this Parliament and they have failed.

Now they say they want to run a big surplus by the end of the next Parliament.

And their plan is to return spending on public services to a share last seen in the 1930s: a time before there was a National Health Service and when young people left school at 14.

There is only one 35 per cent strategy in British politics today: the Tory plan for cutting back the state to that share of national income.

They have been exposed by the Autumn Statement for who they really are.

Not compassionate Conservatives at all.

But extreme, ideological and committed to a dramatic shrinking of the state, whatever the consequences.

They are doing it not because they have to do it but because they want to do it.

That is not our programme.

That will never be our programme.

And I do not believe it is the programme the British people want.

But the British people do want to know our approach.

And today I want to set it out.

We start from believing that this country needs a long-term plan to make the country work for working people again, not just for a privileged few at the top.

Now, some people have argued the deficit simply doesn’t matter to that mission and should not be our concern.

That’s wrong.

It matters.

Because unless there is a strategy for dealing with the deficit, it will be harmful to our economic stability.

And it is working people who will end up paying the price in the economic instability that is created.

Dealing with our debts is also necessary for funding our public services.

Higher debt interests payment squeeze out money for those services and for investment in the long-term potential of our country.

So there is no path to growth and prosperity for working people which does not tackle the deficit.

But what we need is a balanced approach, which deals with our debts, but does so sensibly.

Today, I want to lay out the principles of our alternative.

Not a shadow Budget, but a sense of how we will approach these issues in government.

This is the central contrast between our approach and the Conservatives’:

We will deal with our debts but we will never return to the 1930s.

We won’t take risks with our public finances but we won’t take risks either with our public services, our National Health Service.

Our tough and balanced approach will balance the books through an economy based on high wages and high skills, common sense spending reductions and fair choices on tax.

Their unbalanced approach of 1930s public spending and unfunded tax cuts will put at risk our National Health Service, undermine our economic future and threaten working families.

Today I want to lay out the five principles which underpin my approach, principles which learn from the experience of the last five years and indeed our time in government.

Our first principle is that we will set a credible and sensible goal for dealing with our debts.

This starts with getting the national debt falling as a proportion of national income as soon as possible within the next Parliament.

This is essential if we are to prevent debt interest payments mounting up.

And we will also have a surplus on the current budget so that revenues more than cover day to day spending, again as soon as possible in the next Parliament.

This draws the right distinction between current and capital spending.

Productive investment in our infrastructure should be seen differently from day to day spending because it often has a greater economic return.

Indeed, the history of our country has been a failure to invest in our infrastructure and our economic foundations, which are so important for competitiveness, growth and tax revenues.

Our rule is right for two reasons.

Because it targets the right aim and it does not set an arbitrary date.

There is a lesson from this Parliament about the huge uncertainty there is around deficit reduction.

The easy thing is for politicians to claim great certainty when there is not.

The right thing to do is to set a clear objective with a realistic destination – balancing the books and the debt falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament – and this is what we have done.

Nothing does more to undermine credibility than setting an objective and failing to meet it.

So this is our destination for fiscal policy in the next Parliament.

The Tory destination is different.
By setting an objective of an overall surplus, they are driving their scale of spending reductions.

The second principle is that a successful deficit reduction strategy depends upon reform of our economy.

That is the biggest lesson of the failures of this government.

For some time, I have heard people claim that our economic argument around the cost of living crisis has been missing the main economic challenge, of tackling the deficit.

But the facts are now in: it turns out that tackling the cost of living crisis is in fact essential for tackling the deficit.

This has become crystal clear since 2010.

For the first three years of the Parliament, we saw little or no growth in the economy.

And as a result the government spectacularly failed in their deficit reduction strategy.

Now, finally, growth has resumed, but what became clear in the Autumn Statement is that the character of growth is such that they are still failing.

Two thirds of people moving into work are paid less than the living wage.

That is bad for families.

But it has also totally undermined the government’s deficit plan.

Last week, the Office of Budget Responsibility confirmed that income tax and national insurance receipts are £43 billion a year lower than forecast in 2010.

Sixty percent of the drop in tax receipts in the last year is because of weaker wage growth.

And it is set to get worse as wage growth has been revised down until 2017.

And we see the failure in social security too.

This is the government of the bedroom tax and the strivers’ tax.

But yet they are failing to meet their promises on social security spending.

Not because they are generous.

But because of their failing economic strategy.

Welfare spending is higher than expected because of economic and social failure.
Exactly the same pattern as we saw under the Tories in the 1980s.

This time, higher tax credit bills and higher housing benefit bills subsidising a low wage economy.

They attack the sick and disabled, the low paid and the poor and still raise the bills of sickness, low pay and poverty.

That is why it must be a principle of deficit reduction that we have a different economic strategy building a higher wage, higher skill economy, not the low wage, low skill economy we have.

Putting our young people back to work will improve tax revenues and cut the social security bill.

Raising the minimum wage will do the same.

So will dealing with the scandal of zero-hours contracts and ensuring people have more regular hours.

And reforming the banks, transforming vocational education, a revolution in apprenticeships, helping nurture the businesses of tomorrow: all are part of building the economy we need to both deliver for working people and pay down the deficit.

This is the modern agenda for both successful businesses and social justice.

And there is a lesson for Labour here.

The last Labour government increased spending year on year, using the proceeds of economic growth to make our country fairer.

That option will not be available to us.

And nor would it deal with the root causes of an economy that does not work for working people.

Higher spending is not the answer to the long-term economic crisis that we have identified.

Unless we fundamentally reshape our economy, we will only ever be able to compensate people for unfairness and inequality.

That is why our agenda for creating social justice is about big reform not big spending.

And because the Tories do not have this plan they cannot meet their deficit reduction objectives.

Our third principle is that Britain needs common sense spending reductions, not slash and burn.

And we have already set out ways in which we can save money.

An end to the winter fuel allowance for the wealthiest pensioners.

Capping child benefit rises at 1 per cent a year in 2016/17 as part of meeting a welfare cap.

Abolishing police commissioner elections and merging police procurement services to save money.

Selling off unwanted government assets.

And our zero-based review of every pound spent by government will be coming forward with reports for savings across Whitehall and the public sector between now and the election.

Of course, the reality is that much of the detailed work about spending reductions can only take place when we have the full resources of government at our disposal.

But I want to be clear about what the backdrop will be for a Labour government.

We have said previously we will raise extra resources for our NHS and protect our commitments to international development.

And our manifesto will also spell out a very limited number of other areas which will have spending protected.

Outside those areas and departments, we’ve already said that for the first year of the next government most departmental budgets will fall.

But it won’t just be for the first year.

Outside protected areas, for other departments, there will be cuts in spending.

And we should plan on it being for every year until the current budget is in balance.

And yesterday, as our zero-based review continues, Ed Balls wrote to our shadow cabinet colleagues spelling this out.

But this cannot be simply about chipping away at departmental budgets.

We must take the opportunity to do what no government has properly done: reshape public services so that they deliver better for people, doing more for social justice with less.

Here we should take inspiration from what Labour local government has been able to do and give them the chance to do more.

We will devolve unprecedented levels of spending from Whitehall to local people over a whole range of areas, including transport, skills and back to work programmes.

Local government leaders rightly want control over these budgets.

They know those budgets will be smaller than what is spent at the moment.

But they know they will make better decisions because they are local decisions that suit local needs.

And just as we need to spend money better by giving power to local people, so too by breaking down the old bureaucracies.

For example, our agenda for whole person care, integrating physical health, mental health and social care, is the way to afford world-class 21st century health care when we face such difficult times.

Helping people stay out of hospital and get the care they need at home.

And there must be a new emphasis on prevention: from tackling childhood obesity and better public health to GP access.

This is a clear message from Labour that we are planning for a world of falling budgets but we will change the way government works so that we can better deliver on our values.

And, as I said, reforms like this are what Labour in local government has done over these past years.

Labour councils all-round the country have shown even in very tough times that they can still improve services.

And today the report of our zero-based review into local government is showing how we can make further savings of £500 million.

These changes are necessary to balance the books.

The Tory 35 per cent strategy is not.

Their strategy would mean overall cuts of an unprecedented scale.

The equivalent of more than the whole budget for schools.

Or three times more than the entire budget for social care.

Or nearly half of the budget for our NHS.

I want the British people to know what this really means: it is a recipe for the disintegration of our public services.

And, also, for a permanent cost of living crisis because we won’t be investing in the skills, infrastructure and education we need for good quality jobs.

We already know from this Parliament what that means: a low wage, low skill economy, falling tax revenues and higher social security bills.

So we know what the result will be: the Tories might be able to deliver the cuts they have promised, but they won’t be able to cut the deficit as they promised.

Our fourth principle is that we should ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden so that we can meet our mission of a country that works for working people.

This government famously claimed that we were all in it together.

The reality has been completely the opposite.

This year, they have asked families with children to contribute five times more to deficit reduction than the banks.

And now for the future, theirs is the only deficit reduction plan in history which seems to involve asking the wealthy to pay nothing more.

Indeed they have refused to deny that they would cut the 45p top rate of tax for the highest earners still further.

We will make different choices.

So we will levy a Mansion Tax on the most expensive homes over £2 million and clamp down on tax avoidance to help fund the NHS.

We will have a tax on bankers’ bonuses to help fund a programme to put young people back to work.

We will close boardroom tax loopholes to abolish the bedroom tax.

We will not go ahead with a further cut in Corporation tax so we can instead cut business rates for small firms.

And we will reverse the millionaires’ tax cut and ensure that those with incomes over £150,000 pay the 50p tax rate to contribute to deficit reduction.

And we will also need to do a lot more to tackle one of the biggest scandals in our country: tax avoidance by some multinational firms.

This is what I mean by fairer, different choices so we can build a fairer, more equal country.

Some of the wealthiest in our society, who often have the loudest voices, will vociferously complain about some of these measures, including the Mansion Tax.

But it is right and fair for the country.

In these hard times, we are determined to do everything we can to protect everyday taxpayers from bearing an increased burden and to do all we can to protect public services.

And those who have done best, under this government and indeed under the last, must pay their fair share.

We want successful entrepreneurs and those who do well to be rewarded.

But we must pull together as a society not drift apart and we cannot do that if deficit reduction is simply on the backs of everyday people.

Our fifth principle is that this party will only make new commitments that are credible, costed and funded, not unfunded promises.

I understand why some people want us to make manifesto proposals funded by additional borrowing.

But while there is a deficit to be cleared it would be wrong to do that.

This is an essential test of credibility.

I said earlier there was huge uncertainty about the deficit because of economic circumstances and on the basis of recent experience.

That makes it all the more important that parties do not spray around unfunded commitments they cannot keep.

It is why we will only make commitments in our manifesto that are properly funded.

Not commitments that depend on extra borrowing.

That’s why we’ve explained how we will pay for every policy that we’ve put forward: costed, credible and funded.

And what a contrast with our opponents: the Conservative Party has pledged to make tax cuts when they have absolutely no idea how they will fund them.

Tax cuts that will cost over £7 billion a year at the end of the Parliament.

And even more, £16 billion a year, if they happen earlier in the Parliament.

The Tories cannot say how they would fund their tax cuts skewed to help the wealthiest.

This is not responsible and not right.

And the British people should be in no doubt what the Tory promise means: they will pay the price for tax cuts one way or another.

They will pay the price in higher VAT or even bigger cuts to public services.

And it says it all about the Tories’ priorities and ours.

Their priority is unfunded tax cuts.

My priority is to save our National Health Service.

So these are the principles of deficit reduction a Labour government will follow:

Balancing the current budget and debt falling, not destroying productive investment.

An economic strategy to bring the deficit down, not drive it up.
Sensible reductions in spending, not slash and burn of our public services.

The wealthiest bearing the biggest burden, not everyday people.

And fully funded commitments, without additional borrowing, not unfunded tax cuts that put our NHS at risk.

So I can announce our first pledge of the general election campaign:

We will build a strong economic foundation and balance the books.

We will cut the deficit every year while securing the future of the NHS.

And none of our manifesto commitments will require additional borrowing.

These are my clear commitments to the British people.

This is now a fight for the soul of our country.

It is a fight about who we want to be.

And how we want to live together.

The Tory vision is clear: a country that works only for the wealthy few, with public spending back to 1930s levels and unfunded tax cuts put before the NHS.

My vision is different: a country and an economy that works for everyday people, a balanced plan to clear the deficit and secure the future of our NHS.

That is the choice I will now go out and fight for.

That is the choice the country faces.

Ends

It is great to be here in Great Yarmouth.

And it is great to be here with Lara Norris, our brilliant parliamentary candidate.

She calls herself a “Mum on a mission”.

And Lara, I am proud to support you.

Now we have people here today from different backgrounds, different parties, including people who aren’t Labour.

That’s because we’re trying to do politics in a different way and this is mainly your chance to ask me questions.

But I want to say a few words at the start about how I want to change the country.

Above all, how we make Britain a country that works for everyday people again, and not just a privileged few, the richest in our country.

And today, I want to talk about how our approach to immigration fits into this.

I know how big an issue this is in Great Yarmouth.

So on this issue, let me say something about me, something about Labour and something about the changes I will bring. 

I am the son of immigrants, parents who came here as refugees fleeing from the Nazis.

I am incredibly grateful and proud that Britain enabled my parents to build a home here and have a family.

They worked hard and made their contribution to this country.

And I am proud of the contribution that immigrants of all origins, races and faiths have made to Britain over the years. 

But for that contribution to benefit all our citizens and not just some, immigration has got to be properly managed and there have to be the right rules in place. 

That’s why I have been determined to change Labour’s approach to immigration since we lost the General Election in 2010. 

When people worry about the real impact immigration has, this Labour Party will always respond to those concerns, not dismiss them.

It isn’t prejudiced to worry about immigration, it is understandable.

So let me say how we will act to address peoples’ concerns.

People want there to be control of immigration. 

And I agree. 

That means strengthening our borders, with proper entry and exit checks.

And we will introduce those checks.

It means longer controls when new countries enter the European Union: we got it wrong in the past and we’ve learnt from it.

And my point today is also that control doesn’t stop at the borders.

It is also about fair rules when people get here. 

Fair rules means people integrating into communities and learning English. 

It’s what my parents did.

Fair rules means that entitlement to benefits needs to be earned. 

You should contribute before you claim.

So when people come here they won’t be able to claim benefits for at least two years. 

But it isn’t just the benefits system that needs to be fair. 

I think for too long, we’ve ignored what’s been happening at work: to people’s jobs and wages.

We know that so many workplaces are so far from being fair today. 

And that is especially true in some workplaces with a large number of workers who have come from overseas.

There are truly shocking stories of people in Britain today having their wages stolen and having to live in the most appalling conditions: exploited because they come here from abroad.

When people can be exploited for low wages or endangered at work, it drags the whole system down, undercutting the pay and conditions of local workers.

We must end the epidemic of exploitation.

We must stop people’s living standards being undermined by scandalous undercutting.

And we have a plan to do it. 

We will increase the fines for firms who avoid the National Minimum Wage. 

We will stop agency contracts being used to undercut permanent staff. 

We will ban recruitment agencies from hiring only from abroad.

And today, I am announcing that the next Labour government will go further still: 

We are serving notice on employers who bring workers here under duress or on false terms and pay them significantly lower wages, with worse terms and conditions. 

We will make it a criminal offence to undercut pay or conditions by exploiting migrant workers.

Only Labour has a plan to deal with all this.

Today we are announcing our pledge on immigration for what a Labour government will do:

We will control immigration with fair rules.

People who come here won’t be able to claim benefits for at least two years.

And we will make it illegal for employers to undercut wages by exploiting workers.

This is what I promise to do.

What I won’t do is make false promises to you.

David Cameron promised that immigration would be cut to the “tens of thousands”.

People may have heard on the news recently that he’s broken that promise.

Net migration is now in fact higher than it was in 2010.

We won’t make false promises and we won’t offer you false solutions either.

Like leaving the European Union.

I just don’t think that’s the right thing to do.

Great Yarmouth has always relied on trade. 

I’ve got to tell you, I believe leaving the EU would be a disaster for jobs, business and families here.

Instead of false promises or false solutions, we will seek to offer clear, credible and concrete solutions which help build a country that works for you.

And what we are doing on immigration is part of a plan for working people.

Dealing with our debts, but never slashing and burning public services.

A sensible approach on immigration, not false promises or false solutions.

Putting the NHS first, not privatising it.

Doing right by the next generation, not destroying the promise of a better future for our young people.

And tackling the cost-of-living crisis, with a higher minimum wage, freezing energy bills and creating good jobs.

I am fighting at this election for a Britain that works for you and your family.

I believe that we can make it happen. 

And I look forward to doing it together. 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

My thoughts on the Autumn Budget Statement


A Political Broadcast Here is why Nick Clegg, David Cameron and his chums  Must Go 

 

Business and community leaders hoping for a piece of pie from the Autumn Statement to be handed down to all regions from Whitehall were left with eggs thrown in their face.

When we dig down through all the layers to the roots of the causes, we find three fundamental causes of social problems: ignorance, apathy, and greed. The ultimate remedy for social problems therefore must confront all three root causes. It does little good to just run down the street shouting “share the rent!” or “stop war!”. Uttering a slogan does no good unless it arouses sympathy.

As an example of the interplay between ignorance, apathy, and greed, consider the problem of pollution. Suppose the most efficient preventative is a pollution charge based on the damage caused by each pollutant. However, the government regulates pollution instead, a policy failure that needlessly reduces employment and economic growth. One possible cause is ignorance.
But suppose the best policy is known. The owners of the polluting industries seek to influence legislation to prevent the best policy. Because of their campaign contributions and other favors, the government adopts the poorer policy. The cause in this case is greed, both by the influence seeker and by corrupted politicians.

Greed is wanting and taking more than one morally deserves. The mere desire for wealth is avarice, rather than greed. By itself, avarice does no harm, and may even do social good as a motivator to produce wealth. The desire of the owners and managers of polluting industries to avoid the social cost of their pollution is greed, a morally undeserved portion of income. Greed can take the form of seeking undeserved subsidies or privileges, or protection from competition. Greed also motivates dictators, politicians, and government officials to seek and maintain their power.

Greed alone is not sufficient for policy failure, since the question then is why the people do not organize to counter the influence of the greedy interests and power seekers. The answer is the apathy of the voters. With the benefits concentrated among a few interests, and the costs spread among the whole population, the incentives of the greedy dominate the incentives of the masses. For the average voter, the cost of organizing and lobbying is greater than his own benefit, since the benefit goes to everybody.

But these benefits and costs are still not sufficient to cause the policy failure. Voters could overcome their financial and time cost of getting informed and organizing an opposition if they were sufficiently interested and aroused to contribute resources to defeat the minority interests. Besides their low financial incentive, there is a low sympathetic incentive. Apathy combined with low commercial returns is sufficient to prevent social action.

Apathy, greed, and ignorance are mutually reinforcing. Some folks take more than they morally deserve, but in ignorance. Many people are apathetic about a social problem because they are not informed. People can be aroused to action with a well-formulated presentation of some problem that evokes their sympathy, as is done with appeals to charity. The reduction of ignorance is also related to greed, since sympathy can replace greed with giving. The desire of a person for the goods of others or goods that harm others can be reduced by any sympathy he has for the well-being of others. A greedy person might steal from strangers but not from a friend. Mull over that folk’s. Hope it make’s sense!

When will this coalition will learn that there is child poverty and poverty in the UK and it happened to increase under their watch and they continue to blame Labour for all their mismanagement the public have caught on that they are being hoodwinked. Well there is no other way to but it more bluntly David Cameron must go.  Labour was right about the financial crash with Gordon Brown and Ed Balls was right about what Osborne should not hcar1ave done in destroying the growth Labour left in 2010. Across the board it is Labour that was right about the economy not the Tories. Osborne caused the massive recession/depression caused by his austerity drive.  A price that millions of people are still paying for with low wages and poor living standards.

George Osborne would destroy even more if he gets another chance in 2015. Low wages, Zero Hour Contracts, rising costs in housing, food and energy and nothing to look forward to. That is all that awaits under another five years of the Tories. Oh an a deficit that never goes down but only up. That is the price that happens when you do not grow your way out of debt. It is of course fantasy for the CBI and Cameron to make out the UK is growing. There are many bogus statistics beGO1ing used to make out the economy is strong. The bogus numbers of new jobs for one.

If people want a better life for them and their family, they will not find it in backing Osborne. Its time for change and that means getting Labour back to sort out the mess the Tories created. Only then will the economy really start to recover.

The Chancellor’s Autumn statement this week confirmed what people in the whole country already know; living standards are falling and this is not only hurting households up and down the country, but also damaging the economy.

The Coalition has failed the economic tests they set themselves. They have broken their promise to balance the books by next year, and will have to borrow £219 billion more than they planned, because wages are low and we can’t keep up with the rising cost of living. People are already DC1£1600 a year worse off under this Government and the official forecasts for wages have been downgraded this year and next year. But the Chancellor has still not reversed his £3 billion tax cut for millionaires, while everyone else on ordinary incomes struggles.

The announcement on Stamp Duty was welcome, but it is not enough to help people who can’t yet dream of getting on the housing ladder and it does not provide the revenue for the NHS that a Mansion Tax would create. Scrapping Air Passenger Duty for children will help some families, but the Chancellor doesn’t seem to realise that so many families can’t even contemplate a holiday abroad.

Following the Chancellor’s statement, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that “colossal” spending cuts will be required, because the Government has made the wrong choices and they have the wrong priorities. Despite this, the Prime Minister plans to cut taxes for higher rate tax payers, while freezing tax credits for those on low incomes.

This week, we needed to hear real action on wages so that people arehh fairly paid for their work, living standards finally begin to rise and everyone in the country can start to feel the economic recovery. But the Chancellor, once again, failed to deliver.

George Osborne told voters that Britain faces a choice between squandering economic security or finishing the job, adding: “I say we stay the course. We stay on course to prosperity.”

After four-and-a-half years of his stewardship of the economy, wages have been continuously adrift of prices and he wants to maintain this course. The Chancellor is happy to preside over an economy where a stuttering recovery benefits only a tiny section of society.

The rich and powerful still thrive on their accumulated wealth, sky-high salaries, bonuses, share allocations and gold-lined pension pots while a million people in the world’s sixth-biggest economy depend on foodbanks.

Osborne trots out the same old tired line that employment is the best way to escape hardship even though as many people from working families are in poverty as those in which no-one has a job.

This is because the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition has driven down the value of in-work benefits while the cost of rents, fares, food, clothing, holidays and recreation has risen steadily.

Millions of public-sector workers have seen the value of their pay decline by at least 10 per cent since the conservative coalition took office and carried through a conspiracy to impoverish the working class.

Freezing pay and benefits is not only cruel and unfair to families doing their best to survive.

It also undermines the Chancellor’s supposed central task of balancing the books by the end of this Parliament.

He admitted yesterday that this year’s deficit is expected to hit £91.3 billion rather than £86.6bn.

This is a direct result of coalition policies that force people to take low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs on which they pay no income tax and have to apply for in-work benefits.

No amount of gimmicks in which Osborne “unveils” spending commitments already announced, plays around with business rates and stamp duty on house sales or suggests legislation to lock an incoming government into a pledge to eradicate the deficit by 2018 can disguise the bankruptcy of his chancellorship.

Not that he is without friends. Director general John Cridland of the bosses’ CBI sees the changes on stamp duty and business rates as “a shot in the arm for families and growing firms as they look towards 2015.”

Stamp duty massaging has more to do with countering Labour’s mansion tax, which, despite the high-profile whingeing of a cabal of overpaid entertainers, is popular with voters.

It’s worth noting that while a mansion tax would hit all properties valued at over £2 million, the conservative coalition’s rejigged stamp duty would affect only those up for sale and it would be paid by purchasers not by the current owners who pocket the cash.

Austerity is a codeword for “fleece the working class.” It has nothing to do with economic prudence or responsibility.

There is no value in promising to tinker with the government’s economic direction.

It has to be reversed through higher taxes on big business and the wealthy, transformation of the minimum wage into a living wage and substantially higher pensions and benefits.

The trend to privatisation, which has hit Royal Mail, the NHS, Forensic Science Services, Plasma Resources and state school playing fields, must also be halted.

Bringing back into public ownership our rail, gas, electricity and water services should be the initial step in taking control of the economy and making it operate in the interests of working people.

‘It’s rare that a PMQs can be described as a classic of the genre. Too often they are forced, trite, staged and bland affairs. In fact, most of those we’ve seen in the past six months could be described that way. Ed Miliband has rarely gotten out of his comfort zone and neither has the Prime Minister. The two have become locked in a deathly dull dance off between Ed “NHS” Miliband and David “OLTEP” Cameron.

Yet PMQs on Wednesday  4 December 2014  was different. Perhaps because – coming immediately before the Autumn Statement – the pressure is off. Whilst these sessions are usually the keynote event of the week in Westminster (for good or often ill) this time it was a mere prelude, the background music before the crash of the orchestra. A kick-about before the cup final.

And yet it was a warm up with a bit of energy about it. A bit of malice, venom and spite. And it was Ed Miliband’s best PMQs for ages.

The theme was straightforward but effective. David Cameron has broken his promises. And there are a litany of them to choose from – the deficit, immigration, the NHS were Miliband’s weapons of choice – but they all serve to hammer away at the Tories strongest cards (Cameron and competence), “Cleggifying” the Prime Minister as an untrustworthy and unscrupulous charlatan who will say whatever he needs to say to get elected, but can’t or won’t deliver. Cameron’s response to being challenged on his failings was pitiful. He tried to list Miliband’s alleged broken promises (none memorable or particularly significant), he puffed out his chest and he waved his glasses. But he didn’t land so much as a glancing blow. For Miliband, in this most overlooked of PMQs, he’d surged to victory by brutally exposing Cameron’s weak underbelly trust and delivery.

The downside of such an approach of course is that every time the public hears one politician attack another as untrustworthy, unreliable or a failure, their instant reaction is to think that all politicians are as bad as each other. But with Miliband’s leadership rating as low as they are, that’s a risk (grim and depressing as it sounds) that he can take at this stage. The upside is that when it comes to taking apart someone like Cameron – who is light on detail and heavy on moist-eyed promises – it’s rather effective. The TV debates could be rather interesting if they take on the tone of today’s session.

And what made this week’s PMQs a real classic was what happened after Miliband had sat down. Cameron – relishing the opportunity to goad the Shadow Chancellor (he’s obsessed with him, if you hadn’t noticed yet) – accused Balls of being a “Masosadist”. The already buoyant and boistrous Labour benches howled in barely disguised glee and amusement. Cameron claimed he meant Masochist, but it seems more likely that whilst aiming for S&M, he landed instead at M&S. His attempts to clarify his embarrassment only saw him sink deeper into the smutty muck.

And before we moved onto the Autumn Statement, there was Skinner. There had to be Skinner. And his question was on the economy. It was rather on message by the Beast of Bolsover’s standards. He asked why this government have increased government debt by more in this parliament than the Labour government did in 13 years. The Labour benches roared, Cameron spied an opportunity to blame Labour regardless, but the battle way won for the opposition.

Except today of course, this is just the first battle of a longer war. It’s one that will be even more ignored than most PMQs sessions. It’s one for those who are gluttons for punishment.

One for the Masosadists, as the Prime Minister might say.’ It’s raising hundreds of Millions pounds for the taxpayer. It’s doing what private companies do not. Its paying money back into the system. Yet the Tories want to flog it off cheap so some company can get a cheap deal and of course pay less back. It No doubt if we look closer those gaining financially from this move will be downers to the Tory Party.

If the boot was on the other foot it would also be the other Tory Party, UKIP taking the backhander to sell of our public assets.

We do not need the Tories and we certainly do not need UKIP. We need Labour.