George Osborne is having the last laugh

I’m reminded of a song I listened many years ago on one of my hobbit journeys recently with some fellow travellers we were having a discussion on various subjects from good friends we had and lost along the way, social mobility, mental health, post war syndrome, food, mobile, gas, electric, and oil price increases and Brexit, the list goes on. Somehow ‘Share Values’ came up and it sums up what our so called shared values in U.K. means in my eyes in a nutshell it’s called a rat race. See lyrics below:

Ah! Ya too rude
Oh what a rat race
Oh what a rat race
This is the rat race

Some a lawful, some a bastard, some a jacket
Oh what a rat race, rat race

Some a gorgan, some a hooligan, some a guine-gog
In this rat race, yeah!
Rat race
I’m singing
When the cats away
The mice will play
Political voilence fill ya city
Yea-ah!
Don’t involve Rasta in your say say
Rasta don’t work for no C.I.A.
Rat race, rat race, rat race
When you think is peace and safety
A sudden destruction
Collective security for surety
Yeah!

Don’t forget your history
Know your destiny
In the abundance of water
The fool is thirsty
Rat race, rat race, rat race

Oh it’s a disgrace to see the
Human-race in a rat race, rat race
You got the horse race
You got the dog race
You got the human-race
But this is a rat race, rat race

What a lark and see the hypocrites going along their way as they look down on people who are on state benefits. However there are some arguments that suggest that some people through no fault of their own who happens to be in certain situations which is the root cause of why they have ended up on state benefits such as they lose their jobs and mental health issues which can happen to any one of us at any stage of our lives. To be frank nobody likes to be on state benefits and it’s still shocking some people they view people who are on state benefits are of lower class and dare I say it as a way how parents educate their children to use say to their children to encourage them to use a form of caste discrimination to encourage their children to do better in their education to get a better job. The truth is this is one of the worse way to teach their children to discriminate against people who receive state benefits. Yes we can encourage our children to do better by showing them to study harder and reward them when they get a good grades result in their school report.

Changes to benefit rules coming into force this week could push 200,000 more children into poverty, say campaigners.

From Thursday, payments for some benefits will be limited to the first two children in a family.

The Child Poverty Action Group and Institute for Public Policy Research say some families will be almost £3,000 a year worse off under the new rules.

Ministers say they are determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage and make work pay.

The changes affect families who claim tax credits and Universal Credit – which is in the process of being rolled out and is due to replace tax credits completely by 2022.

The new rules mean that children born after Thursday 6 April into families where there are already two or more children will no longer be counted in benefit payments to their parents, under either tax credits or Universal Credit.

And from autumn 2018, families making new claims under Universal Credit will only receive payments for their first two children even if they were born before Thursday.

However, children already receiving Universal Credit or tax credit payments will not lose them for as long as their family’s existing claim continues.

And child benefits which are separate will be unaffected.

The latest official figures show that 872,000 families with more than two children were claiming tax credits in 2014-15.

And a similar number of families are likely to lose out under the changes, the researchers suggest.

In 2014-15, two thirds (65%) were working families and 68% had no more than three children, say the researchers.

Based on those figures, the researchers calculate that once the new policy is fully implemented an additional 100,000 adults and 200,000 children could face poverty.

Among those affected will be families with more than two children who are not currently on benefits but who might need to claim in future because of unforeseen redundancy, illness, separation or death, the researchers warn.

They also suggest that the policy could:

• Create an incentive for larger families to split
• Discourage single parents to form new “blended” families
• Penalise children in separated families who switch the parent with whom they live

“It may also leave women who become pregnant with a third child, for example through contraception failure, with a difficult choice between moving into poverty and having an abortion,” they add.

The researchers also criticise a lack of advance publicity about the change on the main universal credit website, particularly if the policy was intended “to inform parents’ choices about having children”.

Child Poverty Action Group’s chief executive Alison Garnham called it a “particularly pernicious cut because it suggests some children matter more than others”.

“It’s also illogical because no parent has a crystal ball,” she added.

“Families that can comfortably support a third child today could struggle tomorrow and have to claim Universal Credit because, sadly, health, jobs and relationships can fail.

“Surely children should not have their life chances damaged because of the number of siblings they have.”

It is claimed disabled people in the U.K. are ‘left behind in society’ and have ‘very poor’ life chances a report has found. 

This report by The Equality and Human Rights Commission said progress towards equality in the past 20 years was ‘littered with missed opportunities’.

It is reported on 25 June 2015 that the number of UK children classed as living in relative poverty remains 2.3 million, government figures suggest.

It’s been purported that the Department of Works and Pension annual estimate shows the proportion affected – almost one in six – was unchanged from 2011-12 to 2013-14.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said UK poverty levels were the “lowest since the mid-1980s” and showed government reforms were working.

But charities said proposed welfare changes would leave families worse off.

A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK’s average.

Average household income in 2013-14 – before housing costs – remained unchanged from 2012-13, at £453 a week – making the poverty line £272 a week.

Mr Duncan Smith told the Commons that government reforms of the welfare system were focused on “making work pay” and getting people into employment.

He said he remained “committed” to dealing with the “root causes” of poverty, saying employment was up by more than two million since 2010.

Shadow chancellor Chris Leslie accused the government of failing to make progress in cutting child poverty and raising incomes.

The figures represented a “depressing slow-down in the progress we should be making as a country”, he said.

Javed Khan, chief executive of children’s charity Barnardo’s, said every child living in poverty was a child that was being “let down”.

He said: “Government plans to cut struggling families’ incomes further by changing tax credits is deeply concerning… this government must ensure that change to the benefits system makes work pay for those on low incomes.”

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children’s Society, said there has been a “steady rise” over the last five years in the numbers of children living in poverty in households where parents work.

He said 200,000 more children have been pushed deeper into poverty over the past year.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said the figures made “grim reading”, adding: “The government is not going to meet the child poverty targets.”

It comes as the government has said it wants to change the way child poverty is measuredas it believes the current measurement is inadequate.

David Cameron’s official spokeswoman said the prime minister “remains committed to doing more work to eliminate child poverty and that is precisely why the government wants to look at having an approach that is focused more on tackling the root causes of poverty than treating the symptoms.”

It’s a sad day to every corner we turn we witness Junk Food Projects, Food Banks, Soup Kitchens and most of all the increase of homelessness, rough sleepers, mental health, learning disabilities, low income families depends on those new voluntary services to provide a service which in some cases lack funding and left to fend for themselves to raise the funding for a level playing field against big charities that receive the bulk of the funding from some councils.

What’s more disturbing is the government gives the talk but refuse to take action. It’s no wonder why some people who can use their votes refuse to hold both the government and the official opposition to account because of this, politicians are let off the hook and they are the ones who moan the most. To put it in a nutshell if you don’t vote, you don’t have a say.

There is a saying “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.‘

I will continue to defend Labour Government record during 1997-2010:

• Created the Future Jobs Fund, creating over 100,000 new job starts for young people, reducing youth unemployment.
• Introduced Connections, a service for young people which gave advice and information on jobs, careers, learning and training.
• Created the New Deal, which helped the long-term unemployed to find work.
• Introduced the National Wage(NMW), now fighting for real Living Wage.
• Introduced the right to 28 days of paid leave.
• Equally of rights between full and part-time workers.
• Increased paid maternity leave from 14 to 39 weeks, introduced 2 weeks of paid paternity leave.
• 70% reduction in the number of people in the number of people sleeping rough.
• 94% decrease in the number of families being placed into inadequate bed and breakfast accommodation.
• Repaired and improved 1 Million council houses to meet the Decent Homes Standard for council houses.

Isn’t ironic Just over half of the people who have received taxpayers’ money to help them buy a home under a government scheme did not need it, according to research.

About 4,000 households in England earning more than £100,000 annually are in the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme.

Official figures to December 2016 show more than 20,000 households who are not first-time buyers have been helped.

The initiative, which started in April 2013, aims to make buying a home more affordable.

It is suggested that research for the Government found 57% of those who signed up to it said they could have afforded to buy without access to the scheme.

Help to Buy was launched by then Chancellor George Osborne to attempt to encourage more housebuilding.

The government offers a 20% equity loan to buyers of newly-built properties and 40% in London, on properties worth up to £600,000.

The buyers have to put down a 5% deposit and, when the property is sold, the government reclaims its loan.

This means if the value of the home goes up, the government will make a profit.

Similar schemes were set up and have now ended in Scotland and Wales.

Gavin Barwell, the housing and planning minister, said: “We’re committed to helping more people find a home of their own with the support of a range of low-cost home ownership products.

“Our Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme continues to make home ownership a reality for thousands of people, especially first-time buyers right across the country.”

The government said it had committed £8.6 billion for the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme to allow it to run in England until 2021.

Labour’s shadow housing secretary John Healey said: “While the number of younger people who own a first home is in freefall, the number of government-backed affordable homes to buy has fallen by two-thirds since 2010 and badly targeted schemes like Help to Buy are not focused on those who most need a hand up.

“Labour would change that and make helping first-time buyers on ordinary incomes the priority for Help to Buy.”

George Osborne faced a Tory rebellion on Thursday night which could block his plans to cut benefits to thousands of disabled people.

Scores of Conservative MPs warned the Chancellor that they will force him to roll back on controversial Government plans to cut the welfare claims of 640,000 disabled people to save £1.3 billion.

One prominent backbencher warned that Mr Osborne has “zero chance” of getting the measure through Parliament.

The rebellion is a blow to Mr Osborne’s authority and came as MPs also vowed to oppose the Government next week over European Union taxes on tampons, solar panels and home insulation.

George Osborne’s budget will disproportionately benefit the rich, with little if any help given to the poor, according to a review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The richest 10% of Brits will benefit to the tune of £250 a year each from yesterday’s announcements alone.

And there was little or no benefit from yesterday’s tax and benefits announcements to the lowest 50% of earners – who will already be up to £1,500 a year worse off after tax and benefit changes introduced since May’s general election.

According to the IFS, some 43% of the population now don’t earn enough to pay income tax, and so will see no benefit from the Chancellor’s increase in the tax-free personal allowance.

But Mr Osborne tossed high earners a bung in the budget, by bumping the threshold for the higher rate of tax up to £45,000 a year.

Rich non-doms were given a year in which to sell or dispose of their UK based houses and assets before they have to pay tax on them.

Capital gains tax saw another cut, as did corporation tax which remains the lowest of any G20 country.

Those that can afford to save were given huge incentives to put money aside – with the Lifetime ISA offering a £1 bonus for every £4 saved up to £4,000 a year, and the upper annual limit on tax-free ISA savings lifted to a whopping £20,000.

And people living in social housing who have ‘spare rooms’ are still hit with the Bedroom Tax, owners of swanky second homes were told they could earn £1,000 tax-free by renting them out through AirBNB.

Child Poverty Action Group Chief Executive Alison Garnham said: “Yet again the independent evidence shows hard-up households are losing most while the better off gain from tax cuts paid for by all of us.

“And in the pipeline there are cuts to universal credit which will further clobber low-earners just as the cancelled tax credits would have.

“If it wants to be the party of working people, the Government needs to deliver a real living wage and help with high housing and childcare costs.”

And today it emerged that some 290,000 sick, vulnerable and disabled people will lose £4,100 a year.

To put this all into prospective it’s no wonder why that Phillip Hammond and other senior Tory MPs were hoping that Ice Queen Theresa May would call for early general elections that was never to be. This is why George Osborne is having the last laugh at disabled people and people who are on state benefits.

 

No such thing as a society

Ever notice when you or your family are walking in any city centres there seem to be an increase of homelessness and rough sleepers with begging bowls. Some people will walk pass them, others will put a couple of quid into the begging cup but the vast majority would just walk pass them and roll their eyes. There is a saying “those who knows it feels it”

In recent years we have the failure of the so called the “Big Society” in action, only for the government to try reinvent the big society under the guise of the so called “Share Society”. Let’s examine this for a moment and ask yourselves why are there so much foodbanks, soup kitchens, and junk food projects on the raise, could this be there are many people have become dependent on those services on the grounds of that the government and establishment are not doing enough to address why low incomes are turning to those projects which are low funding with no help from central and local governments or European Funding. Some parts of society are very quick to pass judgment on those people by saying “they brought it on themselves”

Do those high opinionated people really know the root causes of those people who are homeless and rough sleepers to make those assumptions?

Some of the foodbanks, junk food projects, and soup kitchens depend on people’s, churches, and supermarkets donations to help people just to survive or make ends meet by providing those services. To me those are the people who run those projects are the unsung heroes unfortunately the government pays lip services to them instead of helping them to promote those well-deserved projects. Take for instance well established companies puts a bid into the local government funding to help homeless and rough sleepers they make bold claims that they WILL provide a joined up services yet it seems a long wait and being bogged down with red tapes and yet after all of this they received the funding whilst the small projects get nil so much for the so called shared society.

The irony of this is when politicians are standing as candidates whether it’s local or general elections they all turn up to those projects to play lip services which is a insult to the organisers and on the odd occasions at full councils and in parliament opposition parties mention of those projects yet the current government airbrush it over with spin by claiming that they are doing more for homelessness and rough sleepers yet both previous and current governments still have not really addressed the real issues of homelessness and rough sleepers. If there is any white paper floating around there is very little that really mentions homelessness, rough sleepers, food banks, soup kitchens, and junk food projects however more can be done to address this by those project managers to lobby their MPs and local Councillors with their service users. 

“Don’t you just like it when some people say “they don’t do politics” They rather go to the pub and spend a few quid on a pint of real ale with their friends. Well every thing involves politics even the very water you drink involves politics this is the hush reality and fact of life and there is no getting away from it.

Some people would say they are do gooders and part of a movement there may be some truths in this this but let’s be very clear they are few of those people around compared to the majority of our society. I could not give a flying monkey whatever their religious beliefs as they help to fill a gap in any community that has a need which the government has consistently fail to address. I feel there is a need for a movement of change to help educate those who close their eyes and walk pass homelessness. Furthermore, there should be a strong ethical policy in place to address this issue of homelessness and rough sleepers with mental health. I really find it ironic that Central Government has cut funding to local government that provide services to address homelessness and people with mental health they are left to fend for themselves in a heartless society which plays in to Maggie Thatcher ideology “No such thing as a society”

 

Where is our NHS 350 million pounds was that was promised to us

I’m not one bit surprised by the media intentions towards David Cameron they were all over him from the beginning then they spat him out as soon as he lost the referendum by saying that he was the worst Prime Minister in history see article below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-cameron-rated-one-of-the-worst-prime-ministers-in-modern-history_uk_57ff5845e4b0ee335211a53b

What has the nation learned today let’s begin with the establishment was taken to High Court over Brexit. If the establishment had its way they would not give parliament its approval to give the house a vote. Therefore I’m glad that this has been resolved by the court to clarify that the need for parliament to give its approval before the Brexit process starts is of huge constitutional importance. QC Lord Pannick said the case raises an issue concerning the limits of the power of the executive. According to the attorney general Jeremy Wright, Ice Queen Theresa May does not require consent from Parliament to go ahead with getting Brexit under way, it was proper and established principle that government use the royal prerogative in such cases. Now it is claimed the house will have a vote after all then all of a sudden there will be no secord referendum See article below:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1994117/theresa-may-does-not-need-mps-approval-for-brexit-because-it-is-the-will-of-the-people-court-hears/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/20/theresa-may-to-tell-eus-other-leaders-there-will-be-no-second-referendum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37691270

It is said that the Foreign Secretary (Boris Johnson) has promised that those who prophesied doom over Brexit will be proven wrong. Well Joker Johnson there is a saying that a promise is a comfort to a fool. How about acknowledging that hate crimes have increased post Brexit against EU citizens, foreign nationals, Jews and Muslims in U.K. and what is the Conservatives are doing to address this issue. People don’t want lip services they want to see action taken against the perpetrators.

Intriguingly it now transpired that Joker Johnson (Boris Johnson) decided he wanted to support the remain camp then was hoodwinked into believing that if he supported the remain campaigner he would hamper his chances of succeeding his leadership campaign in the conservatives so he decided to switch over to the Brexit camp with a promise that he will become leader. See article below:

http://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-secret-remain-article-revealed-10619546

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/post-brexit-hate-crime-racism_uk_57ff7bf6e4b0e982146c0ac1

For all the spin that the establishment gives on Brexit it’s no wonder why Nissan is in panic mode and seeking assurances that the establishment that they will continue to keep UK a competitive nation to do business after it leaves the EU.  Thanks to the people who voted for Brexit people are being to see a raise in prices like household items, food, mobile, gas, and electricity bills.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/post-brexit-hate-crime-racism_uk_57ff7bf6e4b0e982146c0ac1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37688593

Michael Wilshaw in a must-read interview in the guardian newspaper more grammars “will actually lower standards for the great majority of children. That is my view. And it is socially divisive as well.” He can’t understand May’s assertion that grammars can be introduced in a way that lifts up all schools, and is aghast at her claim that the plans will not mean a return to a “binary system”. “What does that mean? If you are taking away the most able kids from the comprehensive system, you’re creating by another name secondary moderns. You can call it what you like It’s been alleged fewer than half of England’s grammar schools give poor pupils priority in allocating places. An analysis of the 163 grammar schools’ admissions policies found 90 do not take account of a child’s eligibility for free school meals. Then add David Morgan’s comments and article below:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/15/sir-michael-wilshaw-politicians-inevitably-come-up-against-people-like-me-chief-inspector-schools

In light of this the question I will to all the political parties in the UK now the vote for Brexit has taken place how many MEPs will continue stand for the European Parliament now Brexit has taken place. Moreover, will UKIP still continue to stand as candidates In European Parliament as their continued to be leaderless or will we see the return of Nigel Farage to emerge as the new leader of the one man party (UKIP).

Wow this something that is not new, now Steven Wolf decides that he will quite UKIP and go as an independent. See article below:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/ukip-mep-steven-woolfe-quits-party

Somehow I’m reassured that Labour Party have asked 170 questions to parliament to get some answers about the establishment position for the economy post Brexit to get an idea of the government stance.

The establishment should be ashamed of themselves for cutting Mental Health budget they give in one hand and take on the other hand. It was the Thatcher Government that started the cuts in Mental Health and Learning Disability hospitals and closed some of the hospitals and homes to sell it to the highest bidders who then in turned decided to not to build on the land just to wait until the right time to build luxury apartments. I take no lessons about blaming Labour mismanagement of the economy from the conservatives. How strange that even the King’s Fund have come out in favor of investing more funding in our NHS and at Prime Minister Question Time Ice Queen Theresa May was ducking the questions. See article from King’s Fund below:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/october/prime-ministers-questions-19-october-2016/

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/commitments-increase-mental-health-funding-not-reaching-front-line?utm_source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_term=socialshare

Let’s be honest it was the Conservatives who to introduce Private Finance Initiative(PFI) which they did in small parts during Thatcher and Major reign and when Labour got into power they carried on with much of the policy in public services.

I do seem to recall that a certain Boris Johnson saying that if the nation votes to leave the EU that our NHS will be better off out of EU by £350 million. If this is the case where is the money gone to as our NHS could do with this money now. An MP is demanding the health secretary investigates how a private firm running dozens of GP surgeries and NHS walk-in centres is handling its finances.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37656059

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-referendum-a7105546.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/04/theresa-may-refuses-to-guarantee-brexit-pledges-on-immigration-and-nhs

Conservatives in panic mode in 2015

Here is a bit of nostalgia for those who remember it well see youtube below:

Whilst on another hobbit journey towards the end of 2014, one had a sense of history rearing its ugly head again. Trade unions went on strike it was a matter of time the conservatives got their cages rattled again by the trade unions the Conservatives as usual ran like ostriches by burying their heads in the sand until the dust settles then they reappear with knee-jerk reaction policies by going for the jugular of the trade unions just like Mrs Milk Snatcher (Maggie Thatcher) did in the 1970s and 1980s. The difference is Maggie Thatcher has been resurrected from her grave under the guise of one David Cameron with his fatcats to continue notch up the pressure on trade union democratic rights to withdraw their labour until they receive a decent wage for a day’s work.

Let’s not forget some members of parliament (both Conservatives, and LibDems) did not get elected on a 40 per cent mandate yet they want to impose their will on the trade unions.

What a damn cheek of David Cameron to claim that he cares about our NHS. His only agenda is to privatize it to the highest bidder to make a fast buck to his rich pals worst still to come by forming an alliance with UKIP to introduce a health insurance to fund our Public sector. We know which side David Cameron is on of course it’s the private sector which plays into Labour hands.

Here is another youtube remind us all why we are Labour:

Ed Miliband is right to say to keep our NHS in public service. (This is a trade union slogan) this comes as no surprise this has played well into our leader’s hands which Ed Miliband responded to the proposals by slamming Tories for “waging war on the public sector.”

“The answer, in my view, when we have some of the toughest laws in the world, is not new legislation, it’s a proper approach to industrial relations,” he told Andrew Marr.

For all the right-wing media’s appetite for a crackdown, Mr Cameron has alienated not just low-paid workers in the public sector, but bosses too. When striking NHS unions are joined by Managers in Partnership, surely even our Etonian leaders must admit the times they are a-changin’.

He’s right it should come as no surprise that the Tories are doing what they’re paid for. Labour activists will be relieved their leaders can call a ploy a ploy. But whatever happened to aspiration?

The sheer hypocrisy of the Tories’ latest attack on trade unions shows their complete disdain for democracy, in unions, in workplaces or in the country as a whole.

As Paul Kenny of the GMB has pointed out, if you applied this test to the 303 Tory MPs who took up seats at the last general election, only 15 of them would have been elected.

And yet they were quite happy not just to take their seats but to go on and form a government.

Indeed, if they wanted to do something to increase participation in industrial action ballots they would start by scrapping anti-union laws which force postal ballots on trade unions and bring back workplace ballots.

But of course this proposal has nothing to do with democracy.

Rather, as TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady has said, it is about effectively ending the right to strike in the public sector.

Of course that is what really frightens the Tories. The wave of strikes across the public sector since 2010 has shown a trade union movement which is beginning to awaken.

Our movement is comprised of 6.5 million members, working in every industry in Britain. But it is also much more than that.

It represents many millions of workers, whether trade union members or not, up and down this country.

It represents their families, their neighbours and their communities, both rural and urban.

Our movement represents the young unemployed workers who cannot get jobs because this government took them away.

It represents the parents who have not only seen their children’s education destroyed by privatisations and fragmentation but have also been hammered by changes to the tax system.

It represents the children who turn up hungry to school every day because the government has forced their families into poverty.

When that movement begins to awaken, the Tories and their paymasters are right to be afraid.

And they will use every trick in the book, both legal and extra-legal, to protect their power and their privilege.

The time to fight back is now. Sweeping away this government of the rich for the rich at the general election in May will be a first step, but it is no more than a beginning.

It is the entire conservatives system which is rotten and that rot needs to be cut out from the core. I continue to maintain to get rid of the Tories and replace them with a Labour majority on 7 May 2015 or you will wake up on 8 May 2015 with with FIVE more years of Conservatives destroying our public service.

Who is UKIP kidding coalition with Labour Party

Many of us in the Labour Party will be campaigning for a Labour majority in General Elections 2015 and will not want to seek a deal from UKIPPERS as it goes against the core values of Labour. UKIP cannot even match up to Labour policies so by all mean sell your members down the drain UKIP as we all know what the Faragegate stand for to do a deal with the devil in order for the UK to come out of European Union and sell off our NHS to private insurance companies like the American style system. Now that UKIP has been caught out its all of a sudden oh no we changed our mind. It’s little wonder why UKIP is called a wishy washy party first UKIP claimed they are happy to form a coalition with Conservatives, now they want to be bed partners with Labour it’s no wonder why UKIPPERS can’t be trusted to help run the country or be trusted in a coalition with any political party.

We are consistently being deceived by UKIP and the Tories who both want an American led private health system but dare not say so as 99% of the public want to keep the NHS – Cameron lied when he said that there would be ‘no top down reorganisation’ and he is lying now when he says that he wants to protect the NHS On 9th September 1982 Thatcher proposed the dismantling of the NHS but the majority of her cabinet were horrified and rejected the idea the minority have been planning ever since to remove your rights to free health care.

Hey folks let’s not forget a youtube from 2012 proposed private insurance company based system of healthcare to be introduced in NHS see appendix 1 below:

Oh what a coincidence for the Farage brigade tried very hard to deny that they want to privatise our beloved NHS alleging policies develop and change over time. Here is something else that UKIPPERS don’t want you all to know there is a letter sent to to the leader of UKIP see appendix 2 below:

Dear Mr Farage, 

Yesterday you claimed “Ukip will keep the NHS free at the point of use”. Why should anyone believe this is anything but an opportunistic attempt to cover up your and your party’s longstanding conviction that the NHS should be privatised?

Will you answer the following specific questions about the NHS:

Did you tell a meeting in September 2012: “I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare. Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the market place of an insurance company than just us trustingly giving £100bn a year to central government and expecting them to organise the healthcare service from cradle to grave for us”?

 Can you confirm that your Deputy Leader congratulated the current Government on “bringing a whiff of privatisation into the beleaguered National Health Service” and warned that “the very existence of the NHS stifles competition”?                                                                                                                                                               

Do you disagree with your new recruit Douglas Carswell who in 2012 called for “open market” in healthcare contracts and in 2013 he supported the Government’s catastrophic top-down reorganisation of the NHS, even calling it, of all things, “modest”?  

Will you instruct Douglas Carswell, who voted for the Health and Social Care Act, to support Clive Efford MP’s Bill to stop the privatisation of the NHS?

Why did you endorse a 2013 article from Jonathan Stanley in the process describing him as “A UKIP health spokesman” – in which he suggested allowing GPs to “charge a flat fee to see non-emergency cases”?

Did you, in 2013, when speaking specifically about jobs in the NHS say, “there is plenty of room for cuts and efficiencies”?

 It is clear you have long believed cutting the NHS even further, increasing privatisation and charging patients for vital health services.

Labour, by contrast, has a costed plan to boost the frontline, which you refuse to match.

 Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham MP

Shadow Health Secretary

UKIP continues to be economically with the truth by nicking some of Labour policies which they fail to inform their membership the whole truth and have the gull to claim they are the party of working class is so laughable. Here’s is a classic example for you all; UKIP says that they want to implement the Australian point system in UK for their immigration policy. The sting to this is, it’s a Labour Policy which they failed to implement during the last days of a Labour government.

Lastly why we are not surprised by the desperation of UKIP put a legal challenge to prevent UK from continuing to comply with the European Arrest Warrant which failed.

Three high court judges rejected the Treasurer Stuart Wheeler’s bid to block moves to rejoin the scheme which facilitates cross-border extradition.

Wheeler tried to argue that under existing UK law there should be a referendum before such a “transfer of power”.

He seems to conveniently forgot about Members of Parliament voted to support the warrant and 35 other EU justice powers on 10 Nov 2014 and Labour will put forward a motion on opposition day The EU Arrest Warrant on the 19 November 2014 just before the Rochester and Strood by-election which I’m almost sure will be supported by cross party voting for it.

Many of our Labour supporters has a very strong message for ” UKIP “On Yer Bike you must be desperate to sell your members to the devil. Not in my name”

 

 

My thoughts on why Britain needs a pay rise

Here is why we all should lend our support to have a pay increase in UK see below two youtube:

 

Many of you will have noticed that the right-wing press never want to report Britain needs a pay rise as they had no choice but to report it could it be that they want to see a Conservative and UKIP coalition.  I can only come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter as those marchers are a bunch of hard lefties. This demonstration also took place in Glasgow, and Belfast to coincide with England people from all walks of life turned up to show their anger at this vile coalition who are offering a below inflation 1% whilst Members of Parliament are happy to receive their pay increase which amounts to 11% in 2015 and the European Parliament MEPs gets €96,246 which does not includes their benefits.

 

Midwives who took strike action this week for the first time ever are among tens of thousands of trade unionists taking to the streets of London and no one can claim that they don’t know the value of labour.

A march from the Thames Embankment to Hyde Park will see heroic trade unionists joined by students, housing campaigners, anti-nuclear activists and many others in calls for a new politics of hope at the TUC’s Britain Needs a Pay Rise march and rally.

Meanwhile thousands more are expected to join a sister march and rally taking place in Glasgow dubbed A Just Scotland: Decent Work, Dignified Lives.

The demonstration comes after half a million workers in the NHS downed tools this week in the first health strike since the Thatcher era and low-paid civil servants brought government to a standstill.

Members of the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), which is not affiliated to the TUC, received an ecstatic message from the union’s chief executive Cathy Warwick urging them to take to the streets.

She said: “I really encourage those that can make it to join us on Saturday so that we can show the government just how strong their feelings are and how much support there is for fair pay.

“Our members are not asking to be paid like bankers, just for a fair reward for the work they do. Enough’s enough and now is the time to take a stand.”

TUC research has found the average worker is now a whopping £50 a week worse off than in 2007.

On the 17 October the TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady, said she will address crowds in Hyde Park launched a rallying cry for a fairer Britain.

“After the longest and deepest pay squeeze in recorded history, it’s time to end the lock-out that has kept the vast majority from sharing in the economic recovery.

“An economy that finds money for tax cuts for the rich and boardroom greed, while the rest face a pay squeeze and big cuts to the welfare system that any of us might need is no longer working for the many.”

And lecturers’ union UCU leader Sally Hunt will use her speech in Hyde Park to blast the “narrow nationalism” of Ukip.

“Britain needs more than just a pay rise, we need real change,” she is set to say.

I have to say that I’m intrigued to say which I don’t normally do even the  private sector workers have taken to the streets on 18 October they also belong to trade unions.  Also public sector workers pay the same tax as everyone else. It is also wrong to say public sector are not wealth creators a very narrow view.  My local authority for example works with the business sector to help enable growth in businesses be they large or small, we are also putting in reserves to create business opportunity that is wealth creation.

Never in this country have those who fight for democracy and social justice carried a greater burden or faced the possibility of bigger losses of human rights, human freedoms, human dignity and wellbeing than they do right now. As the poor and disabled suffer and have to pick up the crumbs from the dining tables of the fatcats, and bankers. They rather put their finance in offshore accounts rather than paying their fair share of taxes.

Yet the The TaxPayers’ Alliance have produced a report, and assisted  by Harry Phibbs concerning the vast amount of space Trade unions are provided with in public sector buildings – at little of now charge. It amounted to at least 273,753 square feet in 2013-14. This is more than the total floor space of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow nothing more than a distraction as to why the trade union members when on strike on 18 October which they play into the hands of Conservatives and UKIP.

Let us all not forget It was your government that lost us the triple A Fitch and Moody credit rating, inflicted socially and economically damaging austerity on only the poorest, whilst handing out our money to the millionaires, and your government that borrowed more money in 4 years than Labour did in 13. And Labour had the global recession caused by irresponsible bankers to deal with. And they did. No austerity cuts from them.

We were out of recession in 2010, and you, Mr Cameron, with YOUR government’s policies that manufacture gross wealth inequalities, caused another recession. Be a man. Tell the truth.

I say to them we will fight them at the hustings, we will fight them at the ballot box; we will fight them for the minds of the People. We shall never surrender.

In 2015 if people let the Tories win the only thing they will guarantee is years and years of more austerity. On such a scale that it will scare the UK in such a way it will never recover. That is the stark truth. The Tories want to destroy social justice, equality and fairness.

Their overriding plan is to sell of every single public service to private companies. Regardless of standards, commitments to service, protection for those least able to get by and with no regard to the real economic impact having hundreds of thousands more people on the dole. Have no doubt this is what the Tories want and are hoping you will fall for it all over again. They want another £20 billion in cuts. That is on top of the multi billions already taken away. Now no matter the lies and spin the cuts have done nothing to bring down the deficit and that money seems to just vanish, but it’s going somewhere?

When people say there is no difference between the political parties they really need to think before they say that. The only hope every single public service and public sector worker have is with Labour winning in 2015. If not then what is happening now will seem tame in comparison.

 

 

No 2 LibDeMs Coalition deal

Please listen to the political song and broadcast below:

Intriguingly I read in the press that Nick Clegg has set out the first demand that the Liberal Democrats would make if they were asked by Ed Miliband to form a coalition government with Labour: “Don’t break the bank.”

His words are likely to annoy the shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, who would challenge any suggestion that government finances would be unsafe in his hands. They will please Labour MPs and many grass-roots Liberal Democrat activists, however, showing that the Deputy Prime Minister is making public overtures to Labour, while accusing the Conservatives of having changed “dramatically” – for the worse.

In an interview to be broadcast on Monday night on BBC Radio 4, Mr Clegg said: “There is just no doubt in my mind that if there were a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, we the Liberal Democrats would absolutely insist that government would not break the bank.”

He implied that the Labour Party now looks more like a potential party of government than it did three years ago. He said: “I think they’ve changed. I think there’s nothing like the prospect of reality in an election to get politicians to think again and the Labour Party, which is a party unused to sharing power with others is realising that it might have to.”

Mr Clegg also suggested that the Liberal Democrats are finding the Conservatives increasingly hard to deal with. He claimed: “The Conservative Party has changed quite dramatically since we entered into coalition with them. They’ve become much more ideological, they’ve returned much more to a lot of their familiar theme tunes.

“I think it would be best for everybody if the Conservative Party were to rediscover a talent for actually talking to mainstream voters about mainstream concerns.”

The Liberal Democrats have suffered a run of disastrous opinion poll findings, and their candidate in last week’s Wythenshawe by election lost her deposit, which suggests they will lose seats in next year’s general election. But they have a track record of holding on in places where they have a strong presence, as they demonstrated when they won to Eastleigh by-election after Chris Huhne resigned.

Here the famous song that Nick Clegg did which really cuts no ice with anybody:

Here are a few examples of the work practices of the LibDems working in partnership with their bedroom partners Conservatives:

Can somebody remind us who help to push through the dreaded zero hour contacts?

Well if you are not sure then look no further as many can tell you it was the Conservatives bedroom partners:

The government has run out of ideas and failed to tackle the scourge of zero-hours contracts, unions and the Labour Party claimed yesterday.

They sounded their warning as Business Secretary Vince Cable prepared to launch a consultation on the controversial contracts but ruled out an outright ban, claiming they offer “welcome flexibility” for some workers.

Mr Cable insisted the contracts had a place in the labour market even though there had been evidence of abuse.

The 12-week consultation will include the possibility of banning “exclusivity contracts” which offer no guarantee of work and stop people working for another employer.

Mr Cable said: “A growing number of employers and individuals today are using zero-hours contracts. While for many people they offer a welcome flexibility to accommodate childcare or top up monthly earnings, for others it is clear that there has been evidence of abuse around this type of employment which can offer limited employment rights and job security.

“We believe they have a place in today’s labour market and are not proposing to ban them outright, but we also want to make sure that people are getting a fair deal.

While business groups welcomed the announcement and the decision against a ban, union leaders said it showed the coalition was “desperately short on solutions.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “The growth of zero-hours contracts is one of the reasons why so many hard-working people are fearful for their jobs and struggling to make ends meet, in spite of the recovery.

“But while the government has identified some of the problems faced by those with zero job security it’s desperately short on solutions to curb the use of these contracts.”

GMB national officer Mick Rix added: “This snail’s pace reaction to what is clearly an urgent problem will not bring any Christmas cheer to exploited low-paid workers on zero-hours contracts and similar contracts offering employment insecurity.

“It is regrettable that the government is not outlawing the use of zero-hours contracts even though it admits there is abuse.”

Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna said: “Ministers have failed to act on this worrying rise in zero-hours contracts.

“Having spent months saying they will investigate, all that has emerged is a consultation on proposals which do not go far enough to tackle exploitation and bad practice.”

Oh dear me another reminder who helped the conservatives to implement the dreaded Bedroom Tax again. If you want further reminder then look no further:

LET’S hear it for David Nuttall, the only Tory MP with the guts and rhinoceros skin to match to attend the debate on Ian Lavery’s bedroom tax Bill and vote against it.
The Bury North MP was the lone voice opposing Lavery’s Housing Benefit and Universal Credit in the Social Housing Sector Bill while 226 voted in favour.

Unfortunately, the Bill has no chance of becoming law because the massed ranks of Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs will be deployed against it.

The conservative coalition that voted as one to cut income tax for the richest 1 per cent will display similar unanimity in supporting the government’s dishonest and brutal tax on some of the poorest people in Britain.

Two-thirds of those affected are disabled, which explains the mass booing of George Osborne last summer when he had the front to turn up to award prizes to Paralympic competitors.

The tax is dishonest because it is based on the false premise that tenants can downsize to smaller properties and refuse to do so.
The National Housing Federation (NHF) reported last year that 180,000 tenants were “underoccupying” two-bedroom homes while only 70,000 one-bedroom flats were available.

In fact, the idea of underoccupation is faulty since it takes no account of the circumstances in which households live, especially when one or more members has a disability.

Had the government been seriously perturbed about a shortage of larger properties being available for families, it would have agreed with housing campaigners that there should be a concerted initiative to build council homes.

The same applies to the very real dearth of one-bedroom accommodation needed by growing numbers of single homeless people as well as those living in homes too big for their needs who would like to downsize.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats have not considered personal circumstances or personal wishes.

They have hunted for ways to dispossess people in social housing and to impose punitive taxes on them as part of an austerity agenda designed to further skew the division of national income towards the rich minority.

The tax has had the effect its opponents forecast before pro-government MPs pushed this measure through Parliament.

It has claimed the lives of tenants driven beyond despair to commit suicide. Others have been plunged into severe depression as the result of escalating debt and the threat of eviction.

According to the NHF, two-thirds of households affected by the tax are now in rent arrears while one in seven have received eviction risk letters.

Labour has pledged to repeal bedroom tax legislation if it wins next year’s general election.

In Holyrood, the Scottish National Party government has said that it will fund the £50 million bedroom tax shortfall, effectively axing the tax in Scotland.

The Department of Work and Pensions admitted last month that a legal loophole meant that social housing tenants who had lived in their homes since January 1 1996 and claimed housing benefit since then would not be subject to the bedroom tax.

It has since announced that this loophole will be closed as of March 3, but the writing is on the wall for this unjust measure.

The bedroom tax has so many similarities to Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax, not least in the nature of its victims and their inability to pay up even if they chose to.

The sooner it is killed off the better.

Here is another Tory policy in partnership with the LibDems voted:

The government’s assault on the poor includes abolishing council tax benefit. This is just as pernicious as the bedroom tax but has received less publicity. It came in on May 1.

Prior to this, council tax benefit was means-tested and administered by local authorities.

If you were on employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance, or your income was at that level, you received 100 per cent council tax benefit, leaving you with nothing to pay.

Slightly higher incomes were means-tested, so that you could still receive some council tax benefit.

In place of council tax benefit, the government introduced a “council tax-reduction scheme.”

The name suggests lower council tax bills. It is nothing of the sort.

It is simply a subsidy from government to local authorities to replace council tax benefit.

But the big difference is that the “council tax-reduction” subsidy is only 80 per cent the amount that a local authority used to receive in council tax benefit.

So claimants who were receiving 100 per cent council tax benefit now only have 80 per cent of their council tax bill reduced, leaving them to pay 20 per cent. Around two million people are affected.

The difference between 100 per cent council tax benefit and 80 per cent council tax reduction is £400 million – that’s the amount cut by the government.

It never ceases to amaze me how this government can believe that someone who receives what the state decides is the bare minimum required to survive – and pay for food, heating, lighting and other essentials – can suddenly be asked to find extra money from that subsistence amount.

Jobseeker’s allowance was not calculated to include a 20 per cent contribution towards council tax, just as it was not calculated to include the bedroom tax.

The government’s intention is to blame local authorities for this cut.

By simply giving local authorities a pot of money equivalent to 80 per cent of the amount that they used to receive in council tax benefit, it can claim that if local authorities pass the 20 per cent shortfall onto each council taxpayer, that is their choice.

The government can say that local authorities could choose to reduce council tax by 100 per cent – on a means-tested basis – but have decided not to.

Of course, it is a fake choice. If a local authority decides to retain 100 per cent reduction of council tax, it will have to find the extra 20 per cent from its budget. So will be looking at making cuts elsewhere.

It falls to local authorities to collect council tax, and so we are suddenly back to the days of the poll tax.

Brent and Southwark councils have each issued thousands of applications for liability orders in the magistrate’s court, predominantly against people who previously received 100 per cent council tax benefit and are now being asked to find £2 to £5 per week towards council tax, even though their other benefits have not increased accordingly.

The method of challenging a council tax bill is immensely complex.

Each local authority has its own “council tax-reduction scheme,” which it should publish on its website.

That scheme sets out how the council tax will be reduced, on the basis of means-testing etc.

If you receive a council tax bill and you want to challenge it, you have to check your circumstances against the scheme published by your council.

If the council has got your details wrong and you should be entitled to a higher reduction, first of all complain to the council.

If the council refuses to change its decision or fails to reply within two months, you appeal to the valuation tribunal.

The appeal can only be on the basis that the council has wrongly applied its own scheme and your circumstances mean that you should be entitled to a greater reduction under the scheme.

The tribunal will not hear appeals arguing you cannot afford to pay the council tax.

Each council must also operate a council tax discretionary relief scheme or council tax hardship scheme and details should be in the published council tax-reduction scheme.

These are little-known provisions which give councils a discretion to reduce council tax liability in particular circumstances, usually applied to war pensioners or the very seriously disabled.

These discretionary relief schemes can help in the short-term to reduce council tax bills for those in real poverty.

If you simply can’t afford to pay your council tax but are not entitled to discretionary relief and you can’t argue that the council misapplied its own scheme, then you will eventually receive a summons to the magistrate’s court so that the council can obtain a liability order.

There are some technical arguments here – is the amount on the summons the correct amount, has the council applied the right time limits?

But, again, if the only reason why you are not paying your council tax is because you can’t afford to, the magistrate’s court has no discretion but to make a liability order. Poverty is not a defence.

In many ways, this is the new poll tax. Its aim is that everyone, even the poorest, should contribute to council tax.

It is implemented by local authorities – which may or may not have agreed with the cut depending on their political composition – and so local authorities take the political blame.

But, unlike the poll tax and much more like the bedroom tax, it is a tax on the poor.

It is a tax on people who were previously assessed as being so poor that they should receive 100 per cent discount on their council tax, through council tax benefit.

Garden Court Chambers, where a colleague work, has launched Legal Action on Council Tax.

The website contains detailed legal information as to how to appeal to a valuation tribunal and what happens when you are summonsed to the magistrate’s court.

No legal aid is available and so applicants have to represent themselves. Our hope is that the dissemination of information will give applicants the tools to make the argument and do just that.

Perhaps the best hope is that, like the poll tax, the collecting authorities and the courts will become so overwhelmed that government has to give in.

I’m sure many will continue to remember that the LibDems continue to vote for cuts to Legal Aid remember:

 

Here is a flavor of the interim collins report

I’m sure that most will have heard or read about Labour Party reform of the trade union links which in some quarters would have said that it is the best thing since slice cake by saying that it is a bold move by Ed Miliband and some people may have read the Interim Collins Report for your perusal I have decided to enclose the full documentation and decided to add a few concerns at the end of the report from various sources that I have been receiving and would like the National Executives of the Labour Party to clarify:

1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LABOUR PARTY AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF OUR AFFILIATE ORGANISATIONS.

Trade unions and affiliated organisations hold a special place inside the Labour Party.

They founded the party over a century ago. Indeed, until 1918, Labour was entirely composed of affiliated organisations – individual membership was not possible. That changed after the First World War, when individuals were welcomed into the party’s ranks for the first time. But recognising the continued importance of the trade unions and socialist societies, the party adopted a federal structure which amalgamated the individual membership, organised around Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), alongside an affiliates’ section.

The federal structure remains in place today and already, during this consultation, a number of party members and affiliates have said to me that while it should remain so it also has to change. There is a recognition that the connection, particularly as it relates to trade unions, must become more transparent.

Trade union affiliation fees are paid to the Labour Party out of trade union political funds.

These funds are comprised of the political levy payments of individual people who chose to join a trade union. Margaret Thatcher’s government established a legal right for all trade unionists to contract out of paying that levy. We do not believe there is any need to change the laws around the right of trade unions to hold political funds.

Trade unions that affiliate to the Labour Party are required to pay fees on behalf of each of their members who pay into the union’s political fund. On this basis the trade unions are collectively affiliated to the party and have representation within the party’s structures in proportion to the level of their affiliation.

The individual levy paying trade unionists are in turn connected to the party through their trade unions, and have the right to select trade union delegates who participate in Labour’s structures at a local and national level. Individual trade unionists also have the right to cast a ballot in the election of the Labour Party Leader. They do not have the right to take part in local or parliamentary selections.

Ed Miliband has now said this process should be changed, so that instead of trade union levy-payers being automatically affiliated these individuals are instead able to make an active, deliberate choice on whether to be part of the Labour Party.

He wants them to have a real choice about affiliating to Labour – and then a real voice as individuals within the party. This new relationship is intended to transform Labour into a much bigger party of working people while also putting the link with trade unions on a modern and more secure footing. The prize is a party more rooted in the lives of working people with many more thousands of trade unionists given the opportunity to be an active part of the Labour Party at a local level.

Ed does not want this individual relationship with trade union members to damage the collective relationship and the institutional links between the party and the union organisations. Ed wants to mend – not end – the link.

I want to hear your views on how we meet Ed Miliband’s objective that “Individual

Trade Union members should choose to join Labour through the affiliation fee, not be automatically affiliated” – and also how we meet the need for a collective voice inside the party.

We also recognise, and wish to learn from, existing schemes that already give trade union members the ability to make positive choices about affiliation.

The objective would be to convert as many as possible of the levy-payers of affiliated unions into individual membership of our party. The corresponding aim is a party that is stronger in the workplace, our communities and neighbourhoods, in real contact with working people from all walks of life.

I now wish to consult Labour’s members, supporters and members of our affiliated organisations on what this means.

It clearly means a potential new cohort of party members. But what would their

membership mean – what rights would they have, would they get all these rights immediately, and how similar or different would those membership rights look in comparison to existing CLP members of the party?

As the party Leader has acknowledged, moving to this new system of affiliation has big and historic implications for both the trade unions and the Labour Party which need to be worked through. Changes to the nature and scale of affiliated membership inevitably throw up questions about the way affiliated organisations are represented in the party and participate in its structures.

For instance, currently affiliated organisations have a 33 per cent share of the Electoral College for choosing leaders and deputy leaders along with MPs and members.

Each member of those organisations is balloted. Trade union members must tick a box indicating their support for Labour’s values before voting. There is already a plan to introduce a new section for registered supporters worth up to 10 per cent of this college, reducing the other three to 30 per cent each. We will need to consider what implications there are for the Electoral College over time, as we move to a different system.

A clear question that should be addressed during this consultation is what are the consequences for the Electoral College used to elect our Leader and Deputy Leader, in particular the Trade Union and Affiliates section.

It would be very helpful to have views in relation to the following questions:

• What kind of relationship with the party do you think those individuals who choose to affiliate want or expect?

• What rights should they receive? Should their rights differ from CLP members and if so how?

• What ideas do you have for how members of affiliated organisations might have a closer individual engagement with Labour and a real voice inside the party, particularly at the local level?

• How do we ensure that the collective voice of trade unions is still heard in the Labour Party?

• Once individual affiliated members have had an active choice about whether to be part of the Labour Party, do you believe that we would need to consider the consequences for other party structures including conference and the rules for electing leaders?

• What views do you have about the practical timeframe for agreeing and implementing changes to affiliation and related issues?

• Do you have any other ideas you wish to contribute to this review about how to deepen the relationship between Labour and working people.

2. STANDARDISING CONSTITUENCY DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

Since the Nolan Report on party funding in the late 1990s, which formed the basis of the regulatory system we have today, Labour has moved away from the old practice of sponsorship of MPs towards the current one of support for constituency organisations.

This was introduced so as to remove any question that financial support could be used to exercise influence over elected representatives, whilst recognising the legitimate and healthy role that trade unions and other organisations can play in funding local political parties.

Ed Miliband has underlined the value of local agreements between Constituency Labour

Parties and trade unions, saying they help to keep parties connected to the needs of working people. However, he has also said that such agreements need to be properly regulated and overseen so that nobody can allege that individuals are being put under pressure at a local level. It is therefore intended to establish standard constituency agreements with trade unions.

• What ideas do you have about the form that such agreements should take?

• What do you think should be the process for signing off and registering such agreements?

• Do you have any other suggestions about issues raised in this section?

3. USING PRIMARIES TO ENGAGE A WIDER PUBLIC IN LABOUR’S SELECTIONS OF CANDIDATES.

Labour members are the lifeblood of our party. It is essential that the rights that come with membership are recognised and understood. Party members play a crucial role in holding their MP to account, selecting their parliamentary candidate, selecting the Leader and Deputy Leader, picking delegates for annual conference, and much more besides.

No-one knows better than the thousands of activists who spend their time knocking on doors that our party must always be reaching to Labour voters and potential Labour voters.

Ed Miliband has already opened our party out to people on the outside who do not want to become full members by introducing a registered supporters’ scheme. Now he has identified the next step in opening up our politics.

Ed has proposed that, for the next London Mayoral election, Labour will use a “primary” to select our candidate. Any Londoner should be eligible to vote in that selection provided they have registered as a supporter of the Labour Party at any time up to the ballot. This draws on experience in other countries, which have seen an enormous outreach to new supporters in the course of a primary process.

He also asked for an examination of this idea in other internal party selections, such as in future parliamentary selections where a sitting MP is retiring and where the local party has dwindled so that the choice of who represents such constituencies is not limited to just a handful of people.

It would be helpful to have views and suggestions in response to the following questions:

• Should individuals who register as supporters in London ahead of the mayoral selection be charged a small sum to finance the administration of the primary? In

France this was One Euro.

• Should the Labour Party consider the use of new methods of voting, including voting on-line, in undertaking the London mayoral selection primary?

• Do you agree that primaries should be used in certain parliamentary selections? If so, what criteria should the party follow in deciding when a primary should be used?

• Who should be eligible to take part in a constituency-based primary selection?

• Do you have any other suggestions about issues raised in this section?

4. ENSURING FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN LABOUR SELECTIONS.

Ed Miliband has stressed that he wants to ensure that every candidate selection in the

Labour Party happens in the fairest way. To that end, he has said that there will be a new code of conduct for those seeking selection and new spending limits in those selections, including for outside organisations as well as individual candidates. The objective is to create a level playing field for individuals who wish to become Labour candidates which is not distorted by money and resources. Similarly, election to be the Leader and Deputy

Leader of the Labour Party should be a battle of ideas and ability, and never descend into an arms race over who has the money to pay for the most leaflets or the resources to make the most phone calls.

• What proposals do you have for a new code of conduct for use in candidate selections?

In particular, how would you amend or add to the existing code of conduct for selections?

• What do you believe would be a fair level at which to impose a spending cap on candidates, and their supporters, in a parliamentary selection?

• What do you believe would be a fair level at which to impose a spending cap on candidates, and their supporters, in a mayoral selection or a European selection?

• What do you believe would be a fair level at which to impose a spending cap on candidates, and supporters of candidates, in elections for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party?

• How do you believe that the code of conduct and the spending limit could best be policed and enforced?

• What activities should be banned during a selection?

• Are they any activities that the party should help to facilitate?

• What sanctions do you think should apply where the rules are breached? Do you have any other suggestions about issues raised in this section?

Now here is some concerns from some quarters of the labour movement  Perhaps the wildest inaccuracy in Ed Miliband’s plan to distance Labour from the trade union movement is his claim that it will “let people back into our politics.”

Labour, in common with the other major parliamentary parties, has increasingly squeezed out democratic decision-making and entrenched power in the leadership.

Annual conference decisions are routinely brushed aside as irrelevant, with their general purpose to provide an uncritical audience for front-bench speakers.

The major role for party delegates is to applaud or, if considered young or diverse enough, to form the backdrop for the leader’s set piece.

No wonder Miliband has been quite happy to leave the trade union movement with 50 per cent of the conference vote. It makes no difference.

Conference can overwhelmingly pass a motion backing renationalisation of the railways only to be told that this is not party policy, indicating that real decision-making remains the preserve of a small coterie that does not even feel compelled to explain its stance.

So much for the nonsense spouted by Tory Party chairman Grant Shapps who spoke of “union barons” being able to “buy Labour’s policies and pick Labour’s leader.”

If trade union leaders really did contribute to party funds dependent on policies being acceptable to them, Labour would not be wedded to the austerity-lite agenda espoused by Miliband and Ed Balls.

The reality is that trade unions and their members invest to secure a Labour government.

The unions play their part in the formal democracy that remains within Labour, but they accept that working out policies is a party responsibility.

Unfortunately, Miliband’s actions over the past half-year exemplify the paucity of accountable democracy within the party.

He made a personal announcement that he would change the relationship between Labour and the unions in a panic response to hysterical media coverage of events in Falkirk.

In the event, despite vilification of Unite and its members, investigations by the police and the party discerned no wrongdoing, but by then the die was cast.

The relationship would change even though the details were up in the air.

Labour members have had no meaningful input. The entire process has been kept within a small leadership cabal and their decisions will be placed before the March 1 party conference on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

How many of the hundreds of thousands of trade unionists who pay the political levy will feel motivated to pay £3 to involve themselves more closely in Labour Party business?

Most trade unionists pay the levy because they support their union’s involvement in the political sphere and want a viable electoral alternative to the employers’ parties.

The accumulated payments contributed by levy-payers are used for union political campaigning or direct donations to Labour, according to membership-answerable decisions by the leadership.

It is the most honest and democratically accountable of all methods of party funding.

Miliband is now intent on ending Labour’s federal relationship and substituting party leadership for union.

This could only work if trade unionists were genuinely fired up by Labour’s plans for government, which is doubtful.

Talk from Miliband and Balls about “tough” decisions, further cuts in public spending, a pay freeze and private good, public bad will not generate a head of steam for higher party membership and healthy finances.

Miliband and company will regret the decision to dance to a media-orchestrated anti-union tune. The unions remain Labour’s greatest strength.

This nothing more than grandstanding to the Tories to say to them look we are dealing with the trade unions and what are you doing to deal with your fatcats donors and we are putting the challenge back to you do you support a cap on donations to political parties.

Ed Balls full speech

I would like to add my couple of pennies worth:

1)I’m sure many would relate to this never went cold and hungry under the last government. I have under this one. It’s freezing here in the West Midlands, and I doubt many here can afford to heat their homes adequately now, with the massive fuel price hikes. I never thought I would find so much comfort and joy from the humble hot water bottle. So being cold is painful and makes me very miserable indeed. I sometime have nightmares of finding out where to put rice on the table for the family. Horrible, and a real fear, as I really do have to take care to keep them warm. Crashing out on the sofa with three hot water bottles at times, on my feet saving gas for household baths later.

Ah, warm. It’s wonderful to know that we all can do our part this year and in 2015 to prepare ourselves to get rid of this coalition to make way for an incoming Labour Government.

2) What I really strongly object to is when Tory Millionaires exploits people who are in receipt of benefits and they feel that they take advantage of them because they have a few properties on Benefits street( James Turner Street Winson Green Birmingham)

3) After watching PMQs I did some reflection over the weekend I’m some will agree or beg to disagree with the replies given by David Cameron to the opposition wittingly with the same old lines it’s Labour’s fault.

4) Notice recently how conveniently the Coalition has gloss over the sum of 167,000 drop in unemployment drowned out the figure of 147,000 headlines on 22 Jan 2013 more people joining the millions of self-employed without a regular salary.

5) After the release of the latest Office for National Statistics data the so called big quarterly increases in employment on record. More jobs means security, peace of mind and opportunity.

What David Cameron failed to mention at PMQs:

1) the Statistics also revealed a big rise in numbers registered as self-employed taking the total to 4.36 million. Another 1.4 were working part-time because they couldn’t get full time job.

2) On average 6 people are chasing every job that is going. Wages for those with work are flatlining.

3) Average pay raises remained way behind inflation at an annual 0.9% to November 2013 leaving most people facing another real terms fall.

4) The figures show only the top 10% of earners fell behind the CPI rate – which excludes the costs of buying and owning a home such as mortgage interest repayments – with an average increase of 2%. It said it made its claims by taking into account cuts to income tax and national insurance.

5) The figures were “highly selective” and did not take into account changes to benefits

6) These highly selective figures from the Tories do not even include the impact of things like cuts to tax credits and child benefit which have hit working families hard.

7) Under the current government, real annual wages had fallen by £1,600 since 2010 and figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that “families are on average £891 worse off as a result of tax and benefit changes since 2010”.

Intriguingly Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said there is “no immediate need to increase interest rates”

The case for a rate rise would be examined in next month’s inflation report, but that it was important to look at the whole labour market, not just one indicator.

On Wednesday, the jobless rate fell to 7.1%, close to the 7% at which Mr Carney said he would consider a rise.

He also said the change, when it comes, would be very gradual.

Mr Carney was asked whether it was a problem that the unemployment rate had come down so much faster than the Bank of England had been expecting.

The Bank was not expecting the rate to fall to 7% for another two years.

“If our forecast is going to be wrong it’s better to be wrong in that direction,” he said.

He said that the 7% figure was one that he had used to capture the idea that unemployment was going to have to fall considerably before he would “even begin to think about” raising rates.

A decision for the whole of the rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) but that it was “really about overall conditions in the whole labour market”, and he did not want to focus on just one indicator.

He said that productivity in the labour market was also an issue and that there were still many people working fewer hours than they wanted to.

He played down the importance of the increased growth forecast from the International Monetary Fund, pointing out that “it’s coming off a low base” and the economy had still not recovered to its 2008 levels.

“The worst of the crisis is behind us but the financial system is not functioning as well as it could,” he said. “Uncertainty among households and businesses is still preventing investment.”

Mr Carney’s comments echoed those made by Paul Fisher, a member of the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), in a speech earlier on Thursday.

Mr Fisher said: “My own judgement is that we are still some way off the point where it is appropriate to start raising bank rate and that when it is time, it would be appropriate to do so only gradually.”

Mr Carney was asked about whether he would be happy for an independent Scotland to use the pound.

He stressed that it would not be his decision and the central bank would implement whatever Parliament decided.

But he revealed that he would be visiting Scotland next week to discuss it with First Minister Alex Salmond.

Hey folks my plan is working

Now we all learning that George Osborne is claiming “I completely reject that forward guidance is a failure,” he told a panel on monetary policy in Davos.

He added that the Bank’s clear communication had helped create “a very strong set of data in the UK”.

BoE governor Mark Carney had said an interest rate rise would not be on the agenda until unemployment fell to 7%.

But figures on Wednesday showed again that the unemployment rate had fallen much faster than the Bank expected.

Chancellor Osborne stressed that the unemployment rate was still only at 7.1%, and quoted Mr Carney’s comment from a BBC Newsnight interview on Thursday that there was no need for an immediate rise in interest rates.

The Bank of England had not been expecting the jobless rate to hit 7% for another two years.

In a separate speech, made in Davos on Friday, Mr Carney said that the UK’s unemployment rate had fallen “faster” than the Bank had anticipated when it first set 7% as a trigger for a possible review of interest rates.

However, he said that this would not lead to a hurried rate rise, and re-affirmed that the 7% unemployment marker “is merely the point at which the MPC begins to even think about adjusting policy”.

He added that any review of forward guidance would come in February’s Bank of England inflation report, and that “The MPC will consider a range of options to update our guidance”. He did not suggest that forward guidance was to be abandoned.

But Mr Osborne said in his speech that the debate over forward guidance was only taking place because there was a recovery underway, highlighting the differences with the “gloomy debate” about the economy at Davos last year.

He added that the growth in the economy was evidence that monetary policy had worked and that he had expanded the range of tools available to the Bank of England.

On the sidelines after the discussion, a delegate describing himself as a market participant leapt to the defence of Mr Osborne and Mr Carney, saying it was perfectly clear that the 7% had been a threshold and not a trigger for the raising of interest rates.

Mr Carney, in his Friday speech, said that the UK’s economic recovery “has some way to run before it would be appropriate to consider moving away from the emergency settling of monetary policy”.

“It is widely recognised that our 7% threshold is not a trigger for raising the bank rate. Last August, the MPC said that when the 7% unemployment threshold was reached, there should be no assumption of an immediate, automatic change to its policy stance,” he said.

However, others have said that Mr Carney’s comments this week have shown that the forward guidance policy failed.

Economists at JP Morgan Chase said: “The guidance framework has not just failed to offer the clarity the monetary policy committee was seeking, but has, in our view, created unnecessary confusion and volatility in rate expectations.”

Schroders’ European Economist, Azad Zangana, was also critical of the policy. However he defended the Bank’s mis-forecast on the unemployment rate.

“Most economists, including ourselves, came to similar conclusions (on unemployment) last year,” he said.

But he added: “We are critical of the use of forward guidance in the first place and the way that it relies on a single indicator to provide households, businesses and financial markets with a signal on the path of interest rates.”

Here is another of Iain Duncan smiths idea which has gone to pots What a cheek of Iain Duncan Smith tried to make claims on 23 January 2014 his welfare reform was a success that had been deliberately misrepresented by his opponents.

It’s not surprising that Work and Pension Secretary has decided to attack people on benefits wittingly in the history of welfare reform. He takes another step by trying to insult our intellectual by trying to say that he is only doing what Thatcher would have done if she was still leader of the Conservatives.

I’m sure by now there are many people will recognize that the welfare system needs reforming but not at the expense of wasting tax payers money on grand projects

Please find enclosed for your perusal Ed Balls full speech:

Can Labour Change Britain?

Thanks Jessica.

And thanks to all of you for giving up your Saturday to be here today.

The title of today’s conference is ‘Can Labour Change Britain?’

And with the next General Election in sight, I want to set out today how this Labour generation can rise to the challenge.

Jessica, I first started attending these Fabian New Year conferences over 25 years ago.

I remember hearing the then Shadow Foreign Secretary Gerald Kaufman debating the pros and cons of unilateral nuclear disarmament…

… and a young rising star called Tony Blair, who had just written an article for a fashionable magazine of the day, called Marxism Today.

How times changed!

When I first started coming to these conferences, the fight to rid Labour of Militant was won, and Labour was finally putting the corrosive internal party division of past decades behind us.

But even as Neil Kinnock fought valiantly for sanity, and even as the Tory government of the day cut taxes for the wealthy, while child poverty rose and long-term unemployment became entrenched…

… we had still not yet re-established ourselves as a credible voice for the hopes and aspirations of working people.

Already out of power for a decade, a return to government was still a long way off.

So I am proud that today, under Ed Miliband’s leadership, this Labour generation has learned from that long and bleak period in opposition.

Just over three and a half years after a General Election defeat, this Labour movement is more united, more in touch and more determined than ever.

Yes, we once again we have a Tory government cutting taxes for the rich, while over 900,000 young people are struggling to find work and child poverty is forecast to rise.

But this time Ed Miliband and Labour are leading the debate, setting the agenda and speaking up for working people – middle and lower income Britain – facing a cost of living crisis.

As Ed Miliband said in his speech last week:

“This cost-of-living crisis is about the pound in people’s pocket today. But it is not just about that. It reaches deeply into people’s lives. Deeply into the way our country is run. Deeply into who our country is run for. And because the problems are deep, the solutions need to be too. “

Ed is right.

This is no time for steady as she goes.

No time for propping up the status quo.

Our country is crying out for real and lasting change.

And it is this new Labour generation – from the leadership out across our party – that is now preparing a credible and radical programme for government that I believe can win public trust.

WHY UNCHANGED TORIES CAN’T CHANGE BRITAIN

So Labour has changed over the past twenty five years.

But as for the Tories – divided on Europe, stigmatising the vulnerable, dismantling the NHS – they haven’t changed at all.

And there is a reason why we are all expecting a nasty, vicious, negative and backward-looking election campaign.

Because if this election is about credible change and a positive vision for the future, then the Tories will lose.

David Cameron had his chance to stand for change in 2010.

After the global financial crisis and with the MPs’ expenses scandal fresh in everyone’s minds, people wanted change then too.

But David Cameron failed to win public support or articulate a vision.

He failed to win a majority.

He failed to convince the country that the Conservative Party had changed and had earned the right to change Britain.

And as the last three years have shown, the country was right not to trust the Conservatives.

But to fully understand this Tory failure, and the challenge ahead for Labour, we need to be clear about what’s gone wrong and what needs to change.

Living Standards

Ed Miliband has been right to argue that the cost of living crisis is undermining support for a Tory-led government that promised to make people better off.

This government promised strong and balanced growth, rising living standards and the budget deficit gone by 2015.

The Tories and their supporters are now working hard to persuade the public that any growth in our economy is a vindication of their economic policies and disproves our critique that the Budget and Spending Reviews of 2010 choked off the recovery and flat-lined the economy.

But the Tories have delivered the slowest recovery for over 100 years, real wages down by an average of £1600 a year for working people, and painful public spending cuts extended well into the next parliament because three years of flatlining means that government borrowing has been £200bn higher than planned.

Simply to catch up all the lost ground since 2010 we need 1.5 per cent growth each quarter between now and the general election.

And Tory claims their plan is working are not going to wash with working people who are seeing their living standards falling and for whom this is no recovery at all.

Because the current cost-of-living crisis is not just about people on tax credits, zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage. It’s also about millions of middle-class families who never thought that life would be such a struggle.

And in the last 24 hours David Cameron has gone from not wanting to talk about the cost-of-living crisis to effectively telling people they’ve never had it so good.

A desperate attempt to use highly misleading and selective statistics to tell people they are better off when they feel worse off. It makes the Tories look even more out of touch than before.

As the IFS has made clear, household incomes will be substantially lower in 2015 than in 2010. No amount of smoke-and-mirrors can allow David Cameron to wriggle out of this basic fact: hard working people are worse off under the Tories.

David Cameron’s and George Osborne’s plan may have worked for a privileged few at the top.

But for the million young people trapped out of work…

For millions of ordinary families, worried about how to make ends meet when wages are falling, and prices are going up…

For the young couples struggling to get on the housing ladder while the chronic shortage of homes forces up prices…

For the aspirational majority who work hard, pay their taxes, who want to get on and not just get by, but who are working harder for less as the cost of living keeps on rising…

… this Tory plan isn’t working.

And people feel betrayed.

Fairness

But we know there is a deeper reason why the Tories are failing.

The deeper public concern is one of fairness.

A view that David Cameron’s Britain does not reward the majority who work hard and save…

…but instead serves the ‘wrong people’ – the rich and the powerful.

That view was already around in 2010 – and directed at all political parties.

But the view that this Tory-led government is standing up for the wrong people has become deeply entrenched.

As the latest Ashcroft polls have shown – just 21 per cent of people think the Conservative party stands for fairness.

Because on energy bills, zero-hours contracts and excessive bank bonuses, the Tories aren’t representing the views of the majority, the hard-working people of Britain.

How often have you heard these words on the doorstep:

– I’m worse off;

– The Government is doing nothing about it;

– They stand up for the rich and powerful, but they don’t seem to care about people like me.

And by cutting the top rate of income tax for people earning over £150,000 and choosing to introduce the unfair and perverse bedroom tax, David Cameron and George Osborne have shown us just how out of touch they really are.

NO TIME FOR COMPLACENCY

On the cost of living and the condition of Britain, under Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour is winning the argument.

Today, twice as many people think that Labour wants to help ordinary people get on in life as the Tories.

More than half of voters think that Labour is the party which will best tackle the cost of living crisis and improve living standards for people like them

But this is no time for complacency.

Because David Cameron’s failure to win public trust also reflects a deeper mistrust of politics more widely.

When the question is “Can politicians make things better?”…

… the danger is, for too many people, the answer is ‘no’.

And Lord Ashcroft’s recent polling report on the state of Tory support in marginal Tory seats makes clear that the rise of the UK Independence Party is a direct reaction to the failure of the Tory party to deliver change, combined with a general anti-politics mood. Anti-politics, anti-business, anti-European too.

LABOUR – THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGE OF CHANGE

So we cannot assume that Tory failure will simply translate into Labour success.

Our task is to show to a sceptical electorate that Labour has learnt from its mistakes and that we have the values, the ideas and the credibility to deliver the change Britain needs.

And to do so, in my view, we have to stand back and reappraise what has been happening in our economy over the last forty years.

Over the course of my lifetime, the global economy has fundamentally changed – and changed for the better.

As communism collapsed and countries gradually liberalised their economies, rapid reductions in poverty and increases in living standards have taken place in China, across Asia, in South America and Eastern Europe with growth now increasingly taking off in Africa.

Meanwhile, rapid changes in information and communications technology have transformed the way we live our lives and brought the world closer together. It is staggering to think that there is more computing power in my Blackberry than in the Apollo rocket that landed on the moon in 1969.

And as this pace has accelerated, global trade has increased as never before with new market opportunities opening up not just for us but also for rapidly growing middle income countries from Brazil to Indonesia.

But these changes have created big challenges too.

Trade and technology have combined to place a premium on higher levels of skills and qualifications, and reduced routine jobs which can be more easily done by robots or workers in poorer countries.

Changes in the structure of labour markets – often caused by the strains of global competition and including the fall in trade union membership – have also had a knock on effect on wages.

And as a result, labour markets are polarising with jobs growth happening primarily at the bottom and top of the income distribution.

Good jobs in the middle of the distribution have been far harder to come by. And in recent years, except at the very top, wages have stagnated. While, as resources like food, fuel and water have become scarcer, rising prices have put pressure on the cost of living.

These powerful trends were under way well before the global financial crisis. And while that crisis, and the failure of bank regulation which drove it, was not inevitable, there is a remorseless logic which connects the structural revolution of globalisation with the financial crisis that followed.

Global imbalances built up as cash-rich countries benefiting from export-led growth, like China, supported rising trade deficits and consumer debt in many developed countries. The financial services sector aided and abetted this process by misallocating capital and underestimating risks.

And when the global financial crisis caused huge collapses in economic output, those with bigger banking sectors, like Britain, were hardest hit.

So our generation now faces a twin task.

Dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis.

And resolving the underlying tensions of globalisation and technological change which have not gone away.

For Britain, with the Eurozone in crisis, businesses very cautious and our banks still fragile, this was always going to be a long and hard adjustment.

Like many economists, I argued strongly that George Osborne’s decision to accelerate premature tax rises and spending cuts would hit confidence, choke off our economic recovery and make it harder to get the balanced and investment-led recovery we need and to get the deficit down. So it has proved.

And with the global financial system still very vulnerable, the Eurozone moving from crisis to stagnation, and the Chinese economy slowing down, the world economy is certainly not yet out of the woods.

Here in Britain we have had the slowest recovery for 100 years but recently we have seen a long overdue return to growth

After three damaging years of flatlining, any growth is welcome.

But as we debate how to secure a stronger investment-led recovery, our task is also to look beyond the immediate challenge of economic and fiscal adjustment.

We have to ask a bigger question –– how do we create a stronger and fairer economic model for the future where the many benefit from rising prosperity and not just the few?

Some on the right argue for a return to free-market, trickle-down economics – cutting taxes at the top, stripping out regulation and making deep cuts to public services.

Others say if the problem is that rapid globalisation and technological change have undermined the pay and prospects of working people, then the simplest thing to do is to turn our back on those economic forces.

To put up trade barriers.

Or to leave the European Union.

I know, as an MP who had, until recently, the largest BNP membership of any constituency in the country, how some on the extremes of left and right see the solution to be isolationism, turning inwards, setting their face against the rest of the world and the global economy.

And it would be a mistake to believe that the frustration with the status quo in Brussels is confined to UKIP voters, any more than is scepticism about our open trading relationships with the rest of the world.

But I say that both these arguments are the road to economic ruin.

In my view, Britain has always succeeded – and can only succeed in the future – as an open and internationalist and outward-facing trading nation, with enterprise, risk and innovation valued and rewarded.

Backing entrepreneurs and wealth creation, generating the profits to finance investment and winning the confidence of investors from round the world.

But we cannot succeed the Tory way through a race to the bottom – with British companies simply trying to compete on cost as people see their job security eroded and living standards decline.

We can only succeed through a race to the top – investing in the skills of all as we make our economy more dynamic and competitive, and earn our way to higher living standards for everyone.

That is why Labour is today the party of radical economic change

I know some in the business community believe that Labour’s focus on living standards, fairness, transparency and competition is anti-business.

But we will only win support for an open and dynamic market economy if we show that it can work for all, and not just some.

Without an active industrial policy to manage these powerful forces of globalisation and technological change, inequalities will continue to widen and, for many, precarious low skilled work will increasingly become the norm.

At a time when politicians and business leaders often seem to compete with each other for bad headlines, none of us can afford to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the concerns of the majority of people across our country that our economy is not currently working for them and their families.

That is why it is so vital that Labour shows we can succeed where the Tories have failed, working with business to shape the economic policies that can change Britain and earn our way to rising living standards for all.

And that is the agenda that Ed Milliband, my Shadow Cabinet colleagues and I have been setting out in recent weeks – not anti-business, but anti-business as usual.

To support good jobs and higher skills for all, we will:

– Expand free childcare for working parents to 25 hours a week to help make work pay.

– Introduce a compulsory job for the long-term unemployed and every young person under the age of 25 out of work for more than a year – paid for by repeating the successful tax on bank bonuses and restricting pensions tax relief for the very highest earners – a job they would have to take up or lose benefits.

– Introduce a new ‘gold standard’ vocational qualification and, as Rachel Reeves set out this week, require compulsory basic skills tests for anyone claiming Jobseekers Allowance.

– Increase support for high-end apprenticeships, including in companies seeking to bring in more skilled migrants.

– And combine tougher immigration controls and fair labour market rules which can get the benefits of migration while commanding public trust.

To ensure markets work in the public interest and for the long-term, we will:

– Legislate for more competition and tougher regulation in energy and banking to make sure these markets serve the public interest.

– Support new rules on takeovers and executive pay, following the Kay and Cox Reviews, so that corporations focus on long-term value rather than short-term returns.

– And Chuka Umunna, Lord Adonis and I will also explore reforms to ensure workers benefit from increased productivity through greater profit-sharing and employee share ownership, not the Tory plan to trade away rights for shares, but looking at the case for a new national, tax-advantaged profit-sharing scheme.

To deliver an investment-led recovery, we will:

– Set up a British Investment Bank to support small business, as we cut and then freeze their business rates.

– Back a new 2030 low carbon target to stimulate long-term investment in renewable, nuclear and clean gas and coal.

– Invest in science and R&D, with strengthened collaboration between universities and businesses, to support innovation and nurture new ideas and new companies.

– And commit to building 200,000 new homes a year by 2020, with reforms to our planning system and a new long-term Infrastructure Commission as proposed bygf Sir John Armitt.

And to ensure this long-term prosperity is shared around Britain, we will devolve economic power to innovative cities and regions and investment in our high technology and manufacturing supply chains.

These are the clear and detailed and deliverable policies we need to change Britain and persuade a sceptical public.

Radical – but not utopian.

Visionary – but evidence-based.

Egalitarian – but honest and realistic.

You could even call it a Fabian approach to managing economic change.

LABOUR – THE FISCAL CHALLENGE OF CHANGE

But there is a further challenge we face in winning public trust to deliver change.

After three years of economic stagnation and with the sustainability of the recovery still uncertain, we stand to inherit a very difficult fiscal situation in 2015.

As Ed Miliband said last week, deficit reduction alone does not make for a successful economic policy.

But both of us know it is a necessary and important part of it.

With the deficit we inherit currently set to be nearly £80 billion and the national debt still rising, it will be up to the next Labour government to finish the job.

This means that delivering change – on living standards, on skills and innovation and on jobs for young people, while safeguarding our NHS and vital public services – will be more difficult than at any time in living memory.

Certainly more difficult than at any time since the post-war Labour government of 1945.

So let me be clear.

We are determined to deliver the change we need to make our economy work over the long-term and to build a fairer society that rewards hard work and protects the vulnerable.

But we must make sure the sums add up.

We cannot and will not duck the hard choices ahead.

Without fiscal discipline and a credible commitment to eliminate the deficit, we cannot achieve the stability we need.

But without action to deliver investment-led growth and fairer choices about how to get the national debt down while protecting vital public services, then fiscal discipline cannot be delivered by a Labour government – or, in my view, by any government.

It is these three objectives – fiscal discipline, growth and fairness – which will guide our approach.

Let me take them in turn.

Fiscal Discipline

First, fiscal discipline.

Last year, I set out how we will deal with the very difficult fiscal situation we will inherit in 2015.

We won’t be able to reverse all the spending cuts and tax rises that the Tories have pushed through.

We will have to govern with less money, which means the next Labour government will have to make cuts too.

No responsible Opposition can make detailed commitments and difficult judgments about what will happen in two or three years time without knowing the state of the economy and public finances that we will inherit.

But we know we will face difficult choices.

The government’s day-to-day spending totals for 2015/16 will be our starting point.

There will be no more borrowing for day-to-day spending.

Any changes to the current spending plans for that year will be fully-funded and set out in advance in our manifesto.

And we will insist that all the proceeds from the sale of our stakes in Lloyds and RBS are used to repay the national debt.

Alongside these commitments, Chris Leslie, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has already begun our zero-based review of public spending.

By examining every pound spent by government from the bottom up, we will root out waste and inefficiency.

And we will look at new ways of delivering public services suited to tougher times – while ensuring that they continue to make a huge contribution to the strength of our economy and the fairness and stability of our society.

Even those departments or areas of government spending which we chose to ring-fence will still be subject to this review because it is vital that we get maximum value for money for every pound spent.

So we have already gone further than any Opposition has at this stage in setting out a clear and disciplined approach.

But I want to go further still.

So I am today announcing a binding fiscal commitment.

The next Labour government will balance the books and deliver a surplus on the current budget and falling national debt in the next Parliament.

So my message to my party and the country is this:

Where this government has failed, we will finish the job.

We will abolish the discredited idea of rolling five year targets and legislate for our tough fiscal rules within 12 months of the general election.

Tough fiscal rules which will be independently audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

We will get the current budget into surplus as soon as possible in the next Parliament.

How fast we can go will depend on the state of the economy and the public finances we inherit.

And because we will need an iron commitment to fiscal discipline, I have also asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to independently audit the costing of every individual spending and tax measure in Labour’s manifesto.

I urge the Chancellor to work with us to make this happen ahead of the next general election.

This would be the first time this kind of independent audit has ever happened – and I believe it is essential to restore public trust in politics and improve the nature of the political debate.

Growth

Second, alongside fiscal discipline, the reforms I set out earlier to get people back young people back to work and earn our way to long-term economic growth and prosperity are also vital to deficit reduction.

We can only reduce the fiscal deficit if our recovery is balanced, long-term and doesn’t sow the seeds of problems ahead.

The challenge is to deliver stronger, investment-led growth which helps reduce the deficit in a sustainable way.

And with business investment still weak, housing demand once again outstripping housing supply and the IMF forecasting that UK growth will slow down again next year, it’s clear that this is not yet a recovery that is built to last.

On housing, we support Help to Buy.

But we have called on the government to allow the Bank of England to urgently review how the scheme is working and to target its impact.

As we have said before, it cannot make sense for taxpayers to guarantee mortgages on homes worth as much £600,000.

And we have consistently warned, as have the CBI and the IMF, that action to support housing demand must be matched by action to increase housing supply.

But none of these things have happened.

So I say George Osborne must listen to the CBI and the IMF and act in the Budget to bring forward housing investment.

We need Help to Build, not just Help to Buy.

This would help people aspiring to own their own home, create thousands of jobs and apprenticeships and ensure we have a recovery that is built to last.

And it is why housing investment will be a central priority for the next Labour government.

Of course, there is a careful fiscal judgement to be made.

I have said that there will be no more borrowing for day to day spending in 2015-16.

But consistent with our tough fiscal rules, we will assess the case for extra capital spending to boost growth and jobs and make our economy stronger for the long-term.

Because the longer it takes to deliver the long-term policies that will transform our economy and earn our way to higher living standards, the harder it will be and the longer it will take to get the deficit down.

Fairness

Third, Labour will combine iron discipline on spending control and action on growth with a fairer approach to deficit reduction.

That means facing up to the tough choices that are necessary if we are to take a fairer approach to deficit reduction.

As I said at this Conference two years ago, fair pay restraint in the public sector in this parliament would have been necessary whoever was in government.

And at a time when the public services that pensioners rely on are under such pressure, the next Labour government will not continue paying the winter fuel allowance to the richest five per cent of pensioners.

We won’t be able to reverse the Government’s cuts to child benefit for the highest earners.

We will keep the benefits cap, but make sure it properly reflects local housing costs.

We will cap structural social security spending.

And yes, over the long-term, as our population ages, there will need to be increases in the retirement age too.

And we will make changes to create a fairer tax system.

So we will crack down on tax avoidance, scrap the shares for rights scheme and reverse the tax cut for hedge funds.

We want a lower 10p starting rate of tax, which would help make work pay and cut taxes for 24 million people on middle and lower incomes.

And today I want to go further, to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear a fairer share of the burden.

The latest figures show that those earning over £150,000 paid almost £10 billion more in tax in the three years when the 50p top rate of tax was in place than when the government conducted its assessment of the tax back in 2012.

And when the deficit is still high, when tough times are now set to last well into the next parliament, when for ordinary families their real incomes are falling and taxes have risen …

… it cannot be right for David Cameron and George Osborne to have chosen to give the richest people in the country a huge tax cut.

That’s why, for the next parliament, the next Labour government will reverse this government’s top rate tax cut so we can finish the job of getting the deficit down and do it fairly.

For the next Parliament, we will restore the 50p top rate of tax for those earning over £150,000.

Reversing this unfair tax cut for the richest one per cent of people in the country.

And cutting the deficit in a fairer way.

CONCLUSION – CHANGED LABOUR CHANGING BRITAIN

So, can Labour change Britain?

My answer is a resounding Yes.

By setting tough and credible fiscal rules.

By supporting the long-term growth that will earn our way to higher living standards and help reduce the deficit.

By rooting out waste in public spending.

By making fairer choices on tax and benefit reform.

By pursuing radical reforms to tackle the cost of living crisis and build an economy that works for working people.

Yes, under Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour can change Britain.

And less than four years after our general election defeat, we are also showing that Labour has changed

Working with business to make our economy more dynamic –but challenging business to support difficult reforms which promote competition and long-term value.

Recognising the role that trade unions play in our economy – but challenging them to change as we reform our party for a new century.

Supporting the most vulnerable and abolishing the bedroom tax – but proposing tough reforms to put work first.

Pro-European – but not ducking the big reforms we need.

Open to the outside world – but refusing to accept a race to the bottom where low-skilled, low-paid work becomes the norm.

Celebrating wealth creation and entrepreneurs – but clear that the richest must bear their fair share of the burden.

Yes, Labour has changed.

So let us now win the trust of the British people.

And together let us deliver the change Britain needs.

Thank you.

Ends

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local Government Jaws of doom Vs Almariddegn time in 2014 onwards

Please listen to this urgent message from Sir Albert Bore:

 

Well folks as Christmas and New Year approaches very soon many people will not be wiser if they will have a job for another day as living standards go down hill coupled by families turning to pay day lenders rather than turning up to foodbanks for help.

Already many councils across UK faced the prospect of the Jaws of Doom from 2010 to 2013 now as we fast approach 2014 this will be known as almariddegn time for Local Government.

Forgive me for thinking it’s now 2014 onwards as there is a reason for mentioning 2014 onwards this on two folds (as it must be my grey cells). Many will recall I said in my earlier post that Local Government will face the Jaws Of Doom from 2010-2013 as we all had an idea that Central Government will cut the funding to councils across the UK. I’m sure to many Councillors who have to set the budget with Central Government will no doubt from behind the scenes will inform you that they face with another task of witnessing part two Local Government armageddon time from 2014-2016 as Local Government will have no choice but to act in the spirit of the law to implement the dreaded cuts. This I kid you not whilst I have been informed by many Councillors from a cross party. Instead many Councillors are beginning to say that they will not recognize what local government as we now know it. Let’s take a look at the second largest city in the UK Birmingham City Council as one example how they had to adhere to the dreaded coalition cuts which has not been an easy task to implement as the previous Birmingham coalition did not implement Living Wage, single status, equal pay but decided to spend on so called grand projects in places like Sutton Coldfield and spend on doing up rich areas instead of given the fair share of money to other wards.

Sir Albert Bore promised immediate action in response to ideas put forward in the first ever Standing up for Birmingham public forum.

Speaking after the event at the Library of Birmingham, Sir Albert said: “I am extremely grateful to those who gave up their time to engage with the financial challenges the city faces in the years ahead. I’ve been told that today’s meeting was very positive and people have already shared many ideas about how communities can come together to make an even bigger contribution to the city.”

Responding directly to the priorities of those who took part, Sir Albert added: “Standing up for Birmingham is about communities and organisations coming together to tackle the challenges facing the city in a time of unprecedented cuts in public services. The City Council has a part to play but we will not succeed if we act alone. However I can commit the council to taking the following immediate steps:

• Review regulations and red tape that cause difficulties for community and voluntary organisations trying to make a difference in their community
• Develop new ways of building collaboration between public services and voluntary and community groups across the city – building on the work already done in the Fair Brum social inclusion process and by many other organisations
• Re-launch our staff volunteering scheme and encourage City Council staff to participate in time banking
• Support efforts to build awareness of the time banking schemes already operating in the city and encourage new ones.”

Now the biggest drop is living standards which according to some press are like the return of Victorian age in a large scale like low and middle earners suffering an unprecedented squeeze on their incomes as austerity measures come home to roost with part time worker which includes women are disproportionately affected.

It’s alleged around five million people are officially classified as low paid and wait for it an increasing number of public sector worker are struggling to make ends meet according to the New Economics Foundation Think-tank.

I’m sure after reading all what I have had to say now we have learnt that MPs are due for a 11% pay rise which works out to be roughly in the figure of £7,600 which is four times the current rate of inflation whilst living standards go down and whilst some of the lower and middle incomes has to depend on Foodbanks and others would not be caught dead in joining the queue but rather seek assistance from Pay Day Leaders who charge over the odds in interest rates so who is having a laugh all the way to the bank by sticking their tongue and two fingers at you.

The UK is not building enough homes, and in particular not enough affordable housing, despite a wide range of government initiatives.

Large numbers of households cannot afford access to decent quality housing without state support; and, although increasing amounts are being spent on housing benefits, less public funding is being invested in new and improved housing.

The UK needs to build about 245,000 homes a year between now and 2031 to keep pace with requirements; of which 80,000 should be affordable properties. However, less than half that figure is being built at the moment, as support for construction falls despite government efforts to encourage building.

Moreover, the scale of public investment in housing, which was just £2bn in 2010-11, is dwarfed by the costs of housing benefits at £20bn.

Housing investment in the UK has been low by international standards for decades. Measuring gross fixed capital formation in housing as a percentage of gross domestic product shows the UK has had lower levels of housing investment than most other advanced economies.

Research we conducted at the Centre for Comparative Housing Research at De Montfort University suggests we can look abroad for ways in which the government can tackle this crisis. Looking abroad challenges the way we provide housing, offers new ideas and fresh approaches to policies, and tells us about the impact of government housing initiatives in other countries.

In the early 1990s France adopted various incentives to developers to build more affordable homes. Under its main model, a developer puts together a package for building and managing a specific project – say a block of flats – within guidelines set by the government. Investors get tax breaks for buying this package from the developer, who also gets tax concessions by factoring these into the package.

As a result, more than 30,000 affordable housing units were built every year between 1994 and 2004 – more than a third of the private sector construction total. Today it accounts for more than half; with 60,000 homes being built under this scheme in 2010.

In the US, developers get tax credits if they build a project where a set percentage of households are on low incomes. Rents on these properties also have to be cheaper than market levels. The tax benefits last for at least 15 years, as long as the percentage of low income households remains the same. The developer then sells the tax credits on to investors, and in many cases there are private equity investors set up to trade in these.

Launched in the late 1980s, this scheme now accounts for 90% of affordable housing provision in the country, and it has helped build or renovate more than 2.5m properties.

Could conditional tax reliefs be used effectively in the UK? The major barrier is inertia. A desire to keep doing things in the same way as before will not result in large increases in housing investment. But we could invest more, and we could learn from other countries.

The government must allow councils in England and Wales to borrow more money to spend on building so they can tackle housing shortages, a report says.

The Local Government Association (LGA) said nine councils, with 40,000 people on accommodation waiting lists, were unable to take on any loans at all.

It said lifting a cap on borrowing would allow up to 60,000 new homes to be built in the next five years.

But the government said there was “no magic money tree”.

It added there was still a need to cut public borrowing to improve the performance of the economy.

In 2012 the Treasury capped the amount councils could borrow against ring-fenced housing budgets, set at different levels for each area.

However, the LGA urged Chancellor George Osborne to use Thursday’s Autumn Statement to lift the provision.

He should instead allow councils “to invest in housing under normal responsible borrowing guidelines”, it said, adding that “the investment would be very low-risk and paid many times over by future rents on new homes”.

Mike Jones, chairman of the LGA’s environment and housing board, said: “There are millions of people on social housing waiting lists and councils want to get on with the job of building the new homes that people in their areas desperately need.

“Local authorities have excellent credit ratings and we want to use our assets to help kick-start the housing recovery, but our hands are being tied.”

The LGA said the following authorities had been given no borrowing “headroom”:

• Darlington Borough Council
• Dudley Borough Council
• Exeter City Council
• Gosport Borough Council
• Harrow Council
• Royal Borough Greenwich Council
• South Cambridgeshire District Council
• Waverley Borough Council
• Woking Borough Council

Mr Jones said: “The chancellor has an unrivalled opportunity to use this Autumn Statement to create jobs, provide tens of thousands of homes and help the economy without having to find a single extra penny.

“New homes are badly needed and councils want to get on with building them. The common sense answer is for the Treasury to remove its house building block and let us get on with it.”

Housing minister Kris Hopkins said: “As a lobbying organisation, the LGA need to realise that there is no magic money tree, and this government needs to cut public borrowing to keep interest rates down and ensure long-term economic growth.

“But under this government, the housing market has turned the corner, with house building now at its highest level since 2007, backed by up £19.5bn of public and private investment in affordable housing over the current spending review. The government will outline its broader approach in the Autumn Statement.”

The sad truth is as Christmas and New Year arrives as human beings we all want the best in the festive season some managed to stay in budget whilst others will say to hell with it. This is now to reflect what positive action you will take to get rid of this coalition by contacting your local Labour Party branch or regional office for the day of action as there is plenty to do so get ready to dust off your campaign jackets.