Tag Archives: Ed Balls

my thoughts on the two Eds full speeches

Here is what Ed Balls Shadow Chancellor said about Tory Spending Plans in Central London on youtube:


To read the full transcript of Ed Balls see link below:



Here is what Ed Miliband said on youtube:


To read the full transcript see link below:


My Thoughts on both speeches by Ed Balls and Ed Miliband:

It’s alleged that George Osborne has promised “No giveaways, no gimmicks” who is he kidding with those words. In a nutshell he will allow up to five million existing pensioners to cash in their fixed annual payments for cash if this is not a gimmick then what is it?

Ed Balls is right to say the Tories were committed to an “ideological plan” for the biggest cuts since WW2.

I’m glad that Ed Balls has challenge George Osborne to a head to head TV debate ahead of a general election. In my opinion I think it will show that Conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy as their policies are not working if anything it’s hurting the poorest in society and if you cut too fast you end up crashing the recovery of our economy.

It’s alleged that Nick Clegg career could end with defeat in his Sheffield Hallam seat, of course, or in resignation after a terrible election performance.

Many FibDems MPs are fighting for their political lives in constituencies, they are thinking hard about life after Clegg.

IMG_2160Talk about being over-confident the Fibdems are here to stay and they claim they will defy poor poll predictions in the general elections which is an understatement and smacks of complacency. They are more interested in doing a sweetheart deals to remain in a coalition with any parties which may lead to another hung parliament on 7 May.

Voters are unlikely to be shocked by the comments of the leader of the ukip would scrap laws against discrimination on the grounds of race or colour.

Hey folks this no surprise by the Thatchererite former stockbroker claims that racism is no longer an issue of modern Britain is assured violent Islamichpioa has risen dramatically in recent years while the Community Security Trust revealed that 2014 saw more than twice as many anti-Semitic attacks as previous year.

hshshUnemployment among Chinese, black, and ethnic minority young people has risen by 51 percent under this coalition took power suggesting that discrimination. Farage claims does not exist is still widespread.

Many people are convinced that ucarp chief is living in cloud cuckoo land he needs a reality check and start to join the queue to smell the coffee. Many will acknowledge to do away with anti-discrimination safeguards is consistent with the ucrap pledge to anti-workers agenda more  generally and his desire to see bosses free to hire and dismiss at will without the burden of workplace rights.

It’s a goal that he shares with the Tories whose introduction of fees for employment tribunal hearing has made it far easier for employers to get away with harassment bullying and unfair dismissal.

Must admit some of the journey has been cold, wet, and sunny along the way with fellow comrades. This year’s election saw eyebrows  raised when a coach load of Labour activists from across the UK turns up unannounced in  towns to meet up with fellow party members campaigning on behalf of Labour machinery especially on the doorstep listening to voters concerns in mix communities they have stories to tell you of what they think of this god forsaken coalition government the queues of people heading to food-banks, the affect of the dreaded BedroomTax, an Increase in crimes because of lack of employment in their wards etc.

5pledgesThere is a strong sense of marginalized communities feel betrayed and undervalued by this coalition when they turn up to the Job Centers only to be informed by job center staff that they face sanctions for one reason or another. Since the coalition was formed they have consistently made claims that people on benefits are getting back to work in actual fact they conveniently forget to mention the real reason why the figures are down is because of the so-called job programmes that the unemployed attend which is mandatory and when the programme is finished some of them are on zero hour contracts and the unsuccessful people who returns to the job center are considered as new claimants does this ring any alarm bells to us. Heck yes it does to the many and not the few. Granted on the doorstep you do get the very occasional it’s the immigrants who are taking our jobs, housing, NHS, and they driving family cars they are taking the piss. Or the famous one is they are in it to line their pockets; they look after their own kind etc. Well the coalition minister is correct when they say “We’re In Our Necks Together”.

There is not a day that goes by on the doorstep we all listen to residents speak about the affects of cuts in our public services like adult, elderly, physical, mental health, and learning disabilities centres which some have been closed and land owned by local authorities sold to private companies to build expensive housing and other grand projects. Then it gets even worst when residents mention about the cuts in the number of police on the beat and some felt afraid to walk home alone after they have attended events  and they have to be on  guard against any form of robbery.

Checkout this what Nigel Farage has to say:


Here is another example of what ukip leader said of our beloved NHS it almost killed him and people should pay for private health care if they can.

mittsHe was fobbed off by NHS doctors and he was later diagnosed with cancer after a scan at a private hospital. Great it one can afford Private Health Care Insurance but damned if you can’t. Personally I would not trust ukip to run our NHS let alone having a pint with this vile person and for the record I don’t drink alcohol.

Many vote can concur with a report by the Commons Health Committee Social Care should be free to everyone at the end of life which includes for a better calls for a better recording of what people want in the last days.

The MPs’ report said there was “unacceptable variation” in the care received by the people in England.

It’s little wonder that many voters can’t trust a post-election deal with ukip and conservatives if there is an EU referendum in 2015 before Christmas.

IMG_2162The conservatives think serious national interests can be solved by applying primary school background behaviour. They are childish and unfit to govern. Talking about sandwiches when people are dying of starvation is either being stupid, silly or bluntly clueless about your duties. How can they avoid real issues facing the country and for weeks concentrate on eating habits?

George Osborne would need to end national bargaining and close three Whitehall ministries to meet his spending plans, a gaggle of vocal right-wingers claimed on 10 March.

This comes as no surprise a stark warning of the Tory-friendly Taxpayers Alliance urged politicians to pledge a whopping £50 billion in extra spending cuts.

IMG_2158A report published calls for abolishing the “triple-lock” that protects the value of pensions, freezing benefits for two years and slashing nearly £5 billion from central grants to Scotland, as well as snatching back winter fuel payments and bus passes from all but the poorest pensioners.

Labour has claimed that Mr Osborne would need to slash spending by £70bn to hit his target of running a surplus by the end of the next Parliament but Tories insist they can reach this target with cuts of “just” £30bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said Mr Osborne’s forecasts would result in spending falling to just 35.2 per cent of GDP — its lowest level since the 1930s.

IMG_2128It is further alleged by the Tax Alliance that another further reduction to 31.7 per cent —a figure that would require the axing of the HS2 rail link and the Department for International Development and raising the retirement age to 67.

“The politicians seeking our votes owe it to all taxpayers to come clean about what spending the country can and cannot afford,” chief executive Jonathan Isaby smarmed. It is great to read from TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady thanked the “shadowy” alliance for publishing their “vicious cuts hits the list.”

She said: “If the Chancellor were to achieve the cuts he seeks these are exactly the kind of attacks on pensioners, the vulnerable and vital investment he would need to make.

“In particular, they show he will come after public-sector workers with job cuts, pay freezes and attacks on union organisation.”

“If the Tories are elected in May, it is clear that a turbo-boosted Thatcherism will be implemented to roll back the state to an extent never achieved in a major democratic economy.”

The prospect of scrapping public-sector national pay bargaining to save £5.8bn set alarm bells ringing among trade unionists.

Unison assistant general secretary Karen Jennings blasted: “Just days after International Women’s Day, the suggestion from the Taxpayers Alliance that national pay bargaining should be scrapped is a slap in the face to women everywhere.

“Around 70 per cent of public service workers are women and such a move would reverse the great strides unions have made towards gender equality.

“National pay bargaining ensures equal pay for women, improves their position in the workforce, and gives workers greater flexibility to move around the country.”

Following hot on the heels of David Cameron’s demand that Ed Miliband rule out a coalition with the Scottish nationalists, a Tory leak in the Sunday Times indicates that the undeclared general election campaign is now well under way.

The paper reported that Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is planning to use his Budget, due on March 18, for an income tax giveaway and cuts in alcohol duties, while bringing in a “Google tax” crackdown on multinationals that avoid corporation tax in Britain.

Unpopular Tory governments have always sought to provide pre-election bribes, and such an approach from Osborne was always on the cards, given the cuts in public services and benefits and the fall in real wages that have taken place since the Con-Dem coalition was cobbled together by banking and finance interests in 2010.

However, while many workers will benefit from the plan to raise the income tax threshold in April “towards £11,000,” instead of the projected £10,600, the spin being put on this is unjustified.

First, the objective, according to an unnamed “senior government source,” of “lifting the poorest in society out of tax” ignores the fact that the poorest those on minimum benefits, basic-rate state pensions and zero-hours contracts in particular already pay no income tax since their incomes are well below the current £10,000 threshold.

Second, it ignores VAT, council tax and other payments, which mean that the poorest 10 per cent in Britain pay 43 per cent of their income in tax — an enormous burden which can mean making crucial choices between eating, heating and buying clothes.

In contrast, the wealthiest 10 per cent pay only 35 per cent of their declared income in tax and we know that there are many ways in which they can reduce what they declare.

Third, for public-sector workers, the gain from the higher threshold will do nothing to make up for the increased pension contributions imposed by the government “reforms.”

Fourth, it does nothing to address the broader issue of low pay and in fact can be used by employers to justify not paying the living wage.

The other “leaked” Budget proposal was already announced by Osborne in his Autumn Statement forcing multinationals to disclose revenue and profits on a country-by-country basis and then applying a punitive 25 per cent “diverted profits tax” where they are judged to have artificially shifted money abroad to avoid corporation tax.

The measure is designed to look progressive without actually being so.

There is a myriad of ways in which corporations can avoid tax liabilities between jurisdictions, such as transfer pricing between subsidiaries and charging for the use of brands.

Without legislation to prevent this, and to close down tax havens under British jurisdiction, the measure is likely to have little effect, especially as staffing at HM Revenue & Customs has been slashed under the coalition government.

HLP-Vote-Labour-2015-300x200Furthermore, the “Google tax” does nothing to address the already low-level of corporation tax, which has been cut four times by this government, culminating in the 20 per cent figure due to come into force in April  one of the lowest rates in Europe. Enterprise Minister Matthew Hancock was quoted yesterday as wanting to reduce it further, to something approaching the 12.5 per cent figure in Ireland.

There you have it this why I would not trust another coalition let alone a ucarp, or conservative government to run our country. I’m so glad that the Conservatives said judge us in five years time by our record in actual fact I have to say I’m not happy with their record in government and its time for a movement for change let alone another coalition. I strongly recommend the young and undecided voters to vote Labour for A better plan. A better future.




Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

IMG_2041By my calculation after the general elections should there is a marjory or another coalition pack with conservative the jaws of doom will be implemented as the coalition would love to see a health insurance based in place. It’s no wonder why they are being supported by hedge funds in return for a piece of the pie in return to have parts NHS and Social services being partly privatise and more zero hour contracts will increase under conservative or conservative coalition.

Don’t be surprised the next time you turn up to the NHS or use social services they will ask to see your health insurance. With this in mind the nation will not recognize our public services as we once knew it. Naturally people are concerned about our public services which were the vanguard of our community.

Intriguingly this what the Conservatives say:

Chancellor George Osborne says he will put an extra £2bn into frontline health services across the UK, which he described as a “down payment” on a plan drawn up by NHS bosses calling for an extra £8bn a year above inflation by 2020. In England, everyone would be able to see a GP seven days a week by 2020. Recruit 5,000 more doctors.

Libdems say:

An extra £1bn for the NHS every year, to be funded by – amongst other things – making higher earners pay more tax on their shares. Half of this will go towards mental health. People who need therapy for conditions such as depression will be guaranteed treatment within 18 weeks. For young patients experiencing psychosis for the first time treatment will be provided within two weeks of being referred by a GP. This is all going to happen from April, with more mental health targets to follow if the Lib Dems return to government. Wants a cross-party review of the future of NHS funding.

UKIP say:

An extra £3bn per year in NHS funding paid for by quitting the EU and through “middle management” cuts. Keep NHS free at the point of delivery. Stop any further use of PFI, and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where it is affordable to do so. Ensure all visitors and migrants who have been here for fewer than five years have NHS-approved medical insurance as a condition of entry to UK, with £200m of the £2bn saved to be spent on ending hospital parking charges in England. Bring back state-enrolled nurses and return powers to matrons. Monitor and Care Quality Commission to be replaced with elected county health boards. Stop spending £90m a year on gastric band and breast enhancement operations.

The Greens say:

Funding to be diverted away from centralised facilities towards community healthcare, illness prevention and health promotion. Stop privatisation. Abolish prescription charges. Dedicated NHS Tax to go direct to the health service. Ban proactive recruitment of non-British NHS staff from overseas. A complete ban on the promotion of tobacco and alcohol products, including sponsorship.

Recently I wrote to my Member of Parliament regards to TTIP and the reply I received:

Backbench Business Debated on 15 January, Labour believes it is right that this important issue is debated in Parliament and they agree that those proposals deserve proper scrutiny at both a UK and EU level. Labour supports trade agreements which can bring significant benefits through boosting trade and growth, securing and creating jobs, and bringing down costs and extending choice for consumers.

The transatlantic Trade and investment Partnership (TTIP) trade agreement between the US, the world’s largest economy, and the largest single market, the EU, has the potential to bring significant to bring significant benefits.

IMG_1997 The US is the UK’s biggest export market and likewise the UK economy attracts a significant level of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from the Atlantic. That’s why Labour supports the principles behind those negotiations and recognizes that more and better trade is good for the UK.

However there are some concerns that Labour has in four areas:

Remember the wise words of the founder of NHS Nye Bevan

Public services:

We share the concerns about the impact that TTIP could have on public services encouraging commercialisation, particularly in NHS. Labour believes that NHS and all public services need to be more, not less, integrated. That is why we believe that the NHS should be exempted from the agreement. Other countries have sought to exempt areas from the agreement but this Government has not done this. Labour will continue to press for exemption.

Investor State Dispute Resolution (USDS):

There is a major concern that ISDS provisions could hinder our plans to reverse the privatisation of the NHS as it could result in those companies seeking compensation for loss of potential earnings. We believe that it is a right of governments to able to legislate in the public interest and this should be protected effectively in any disputes resolution mechanism. Labour will be arguing the government to call for far greater transparency around exclusion for legislation in the public interest, like the NHS.

IMG_2045 Standards:

The benefits of any treaty must filter down to employees and consumers. Treaties can cement and even increase labour, consumer, environmental, and safety standards. Concerns have been raised that TTIP could reduce standards, Labour will only support an agreement that avoids a race to the bottom and promotes decent jobs and growth and would safeguard standards.

Non-inclusion of the US State:

A significant stumbling block has been raised that the US states are not covered by the agreement and therefore procurement will not open up but not to the same extent in the US. This is important because significant procurement spend in the US is at the State level.

Great I got a response from my member of parliament there is still some concerns I still have which is:

If the Conservatives or a coalition pack with UKIP in the event do win a majority or a hung parliament  how fast will they implement TTIP which will have the knock on effect on our treasured public services both in local government and our NHS?

Who will hold the budget for NHS or Social Services and how will it be shared equally ensure we have a decent NHS and IMG_2050social Care which will be fit for purpose?

Many believe that one of the biggest prizes of the agreement for transnationals looking to expand will be the NHS. When it was first established, the NHS was set up on the basis of social solidarity everyone contributed to the cost of providing the NHS through taxes, and in return healthcare was provided by the state and available for those who needed it, when they needed it. But the Health and Social Care Act (2012) and the regulations for implementing it (especially Section 75) have changed the fundamental nature of the NHS. By fragmenting the NHS, opening it up to competition law and turning the NHS into a market in which private companies can nhscompete to get NHS funding for patient services, the HSC Act has turned the NHS from a social into a commercial activity.

Public services are normally protected from FTAs, However, because the NHS is now, in part, provided by commercial companies,
it will only be protected from TTIP if it is explicitly excluded from the treaty (which currently it is not).

gl17If agreed, TTIP will change the whole emphasis of NHS health care: the priority will become the rights of transnational organisations rather than the care of patients. TTIP will give transnationals the right to bid for government spending, including on health. It will put severe restrictions on the ability of the UK government to control costs (e.g. of medicines) and to regulate any transnational companies that provide health services.

I personally would not trust Conservatives, Libdems, UKIP or the Green Party with our beloved NHS and public services for the many as most has shown their hands on what they want to do to our treasured services as it won’t be at the point of need.

HarryLeslieSmithAsk yourself this question why is it important to save our NHS and remember the powerful speech by Harry Leslie Smith who said:

“As I stand here today, my heart is with all of those people from my generation who didn’t make it past childhood, didn’t get an education, grow as individuals, marry, raise a family and enjoy the fruits of retirement because they died needlessly and too early in another era of austerity,” he said.

“But my heart is also with the people of the present, who, because of welfare cuts and austerity measures, are struggling once more to make ends meet, and whose futures I fear for.”

“I am not a politician, a member of the elite or a financial guru, but my life is your history and we should keep it that way.

“So say it loud and say it clear in this hall and across this country, Mr Cameron keep your mitts off my NHS.”

Our free NHS is for all. Not for the few shout for it, fight for it, vote for it.




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. glglThe 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.

fartFor 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.

fart1As 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.

IMG_1992Our 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.

Floating voters returns to Labour the centre ground party

A message from Ed Miliband check it out:

It has been purported that Labour has allegedly lost its way; I would like to put the record straight. Labour has to deal with the realities of where the wider public are,mmmm1 If all Labour did was follow a very narrow path it would never stand a chance of winning elections. Labour has to be about everyone in society not just one section. If we ever forget that, then there is no point to having an opposition to the Tories because we would never have any MPs.

Fairness, Equality and Social Justice are not just for working class people, they have to be for all in society. I do not want people to forever who to struggle to make ends meet, I want them to have the same life chances the very rich take for granted.

The centre ground is where Labour needs to be so it reflects fairness for all. Labour has not lost its way, Labour has to deal with the realities of where the wider public are. If all Labour did was follow a very narrow path, as some parties tend to do, it would never stand a chance of winning elections. Labour has to be about everyone in society not just one section within.

May thanks to Mohammed Ashraf who did a surprise youtube regarding why it’s important to vote Labour Checkout:

If Labour loses touch and only speaks of working class people, then being in opposition will become the norm. Labour will do plenty to challenge attitudes but that is all pointless if not get elected.

My point is, I hear too much about fairness, equality and social justice but only aimed at one section of the public. mmmmm2That is not right and it should be challenged. Labour can achieve plenty for all people if it stays in the centre, which is not naive that is political reality when it comes to how people vote.

Labour is not pandering to right wing views, but it has to deal with changing attitudes of the public. Messages and how it says them have to keep afresh so they can challenge what the right do that is wrong. Just because the language sounds different does not mean Labour is lurching towards the right.

Labour has to speak to the largest number of people and inspire then to vote across all sections not just one.

I disagree on various levels with many comments but that does not make the party fractured. It’s because the Labour Party is a broad church of views. Now lovelysensebecause of that it can have open disagreements among members and supporters.

That however is not the case with the Tories, if they speak again Tory policy it normally spells the end of their careers.

There have been claims and counter claims that whilst Labour was in Government, they were responsible for the recession. Well I’ve news for you coalition spin all you want but Labour is not for turning as we all know that The Labour government was not to blame for the financial ­meltdown, the former Bank of England chief said.

Mervyn King, now Lord King, said “no government” could have prevented the recession which followed the global economic crash in 2008. He said: “The real problem was a shared view jdjmsajdjacross the entire political spectrum and the financial markets that things were going pretty well.

I don’t think it is easy to go back and say any one country on its own could have found their way through it.”

Lord King was the Governor of the Bank of England from July 2003 and July 2013 and his comments will come as a bitter blow to David Cameron.

The Tory PM has frequently accused Labour of “crashing the economy” while in power in a bid to scare voters into backing the Tories instead.

But Lord King, a crossbench peer with no political allegiance, insisted: “We as one country could not have stopped the financial crisis.”

Problems in the banking sector had not been spotted by any major Government or federal bank around the world, he said. “There were imbalances we knew things were unsustainable but it was not entirely obvious where it would come unstuck… The right thing is to make it better for the future.”

And he warned Mr Cameron and other world leaders have not done enough to prevent another banking meltdown and
ncnejfjbelieves policy makers have “not yet got to the heart of what went wrong”.

And he called for “a complete change in psychology” from the banking sector to prevent another crash.”

He said: “Looking back, the leverage of banks was absurdly high, and should have been lower. I don’t think there is any point blaming them for it. It came as an enormous surprise to everyone that banks were not creditworthy.”

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Lord King admitted dealing with the financial crash had been both “exciting” and “fascinating”.

The good news is that Left and right united to brand David Cameron and George Osborne liars after they falsely claimed to have halved the budget deficit.

The top Tories launched a poster campaign that attracted ridicule on social media for proclaiming the party had put Britain “on the road to recovery.”

Privileged Prime Minister Mr Cameron told an audience in Halifax that May’s poll would be “the most important election in a generation.” Meanwhile the Chancellor addressed a meeting in Tory target seat Twickenham, where his Lib Dem Cabinet chum Vince Cable is MP.

The new poster boasts of “1.75 million more people in work” and “760,000 more businesses,” despite millions still languishing in part-time and insecure work and bogus self-employment.

But critics were most angered by the claim that Con-Dem austerity has seen “the deficit halved,” which right-wing journalist Fraser Nelson blasted as “misleading.”

The fall in the annual budget deficit from the 2010/11 financial year, which had already begun when the Con-Dem government took office, to the current financial year, has been just 27 per cent.

If the drop were to be calculated using the 2009-10 financial year as the starting point instead, the fall would still be only 36 per cent.

Tory press officers said the ratio of deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) had halved claiming the word “deficit” could be used to refer to this ratio.

In a blog for the Spectator, Mr Nelson wrote: “(I) don’t dispute that the ratio is widely accepted and more useful to economists, but a deficit/GDP ratio is different to ‘the deficit,’ which is measured in pounds.

“If you want to talk about the ratio, you need to say so otherwise the sentence is a porkie.”

Andrew Fisher, Left Economics Advisory Panel convenor and author of The Failed Experiment, blasted Mr Osborne for piling misery on workers.

“There’s a cliche that goes: ‘There are good chancellors and those that don’t get out in time’.”

“George Osborne has created a new category chancellors who start off badly and go downhill from there. Far from eliminating the deficit, Osborne’s austerity programme has succeeded only in driving down living standards and racking up ever higher debt”.

“The Tory poster is inadvertently appropriate a road to a recovery with no homes, no end point in sight and no role for people, either.”

Launching the poster in the Yorkshire Labour marginal, Mr Cameron said: “I say we need to stay on the road to a stronger economy not just because the alternatives are so disastrous and, frankly, they are disastrous.”

“This poster will fool no-one in Halifax. The last four years have seen job losses, cuts and service reduction across the town”.

“Halifax has quite simply been neglected by this government. What people want is the local A&E saved, new jobs created and investment in public services. Only a Labour government can deliver that for Halifax and other neglected northern towns and cities.”

Today will see Labour launch Labour’s “once in a generation fight” for Britain’s future today, vowing to beat Tory spending on expensive billboards by campaigning “house by house, street by street, town by town.”

Ridiculing the Tories’ botched campaign poster, which falsely claimed the Con-Dem government had halved the deficit, the Labour leader will say the election can be won through an ambitious campaign of individual conversations with the party.

Mr Miliband will scornfully characterise Tory plans post-2015: “Keep driving along the Road to Nowhere, but press down on the accelerator.

“Imagine what another five years would mean for you and your family.”

Setting out Labour’s alternative, he will tell a Manchester rally: “We will offer hope, not falsehood. We know the depths of our values matter more than the depth of our opponents’ pockets.

“We will win this election, not by buying up thousands of poster sites, but by having millions of conversations.”

Research by the Labour Party revealed that 44 Tory candidates in the 130 most crucial seats in May’s poll had either worked for financial services companies or accepted donations from them.

Focusing on living standards and the NHS, Mr Miliband will pledge to “put working people first.

“It’s the first time since the 1930s that working people will be worse off at the end of a parliament than they were at the beginning,” he will say.

And he will reiterate a series of pledges including a guaranteed GP appointment within 48 hours and an £8 minimum wage.

But kowtowing to right-wing rhetoric, the opposition leader will also promise to make immigrants wait longer before claiming benefits along with budget constraints that will lead to more austerity.

The news comes as it emerged that one in three Tory candidates in key marginal seats were linked to Britain’s greedy banks

Let’s take a look at the Fox ban by now many would recognise it was a Labour that brought in the ban and as many would understand that the Conservatives and UKIP want to repeal the ban.

This makes me ashamed to be part of the human race, just five of these amazing animals are left in the wild. The rest have been killed by pathetic people who get their kick from killing them for fun. While others died for the stupid belief that rhino horn can make them good in bed. If you do not know how already no potion will ever do anything to change that.

Hunting is a disease on the word a total cancer and that needs cutting out, Nobody regardless of who they are has any rights to hunt any animal. We cannot let idiotic blood junkies and thick people destroy nature further. Too many animals have been made extinct due to stupid people.

Hunting should be illegal and should always be met by prison time. But let’s also have prison time for the idiots that cause the demand in rhino horn. Not just the poachers but the trash who demand it.

Wildlife is too important; it’s time to start treating this crime more seriously. The hunting spin and that of IMG_1787the Countryside Alliance, sections of the press, David Cameron and Nigel Farage never match their claims.

Support for hunting is tiny and has been for decades, and the hunting lobby know it. They are desperate for you to believe they have more support than they do. The only way these cruel people can succeed in repealing the hunting ban is with the election of another Tory Government or in UKIP MPs getting elected.

For the sake of our wildlife the Tories must be defeated so the vile activity of blood sport is consigned to history where it belongs.

IMG_1802Nigel Farage gets on the fishing committee to gain votes never once votes for anything to do with fishing then never show up for the fishing committee meetings just another full of s**t corrupted politician no different from the rest a vote for ukip is a guaranteed win for David Cameron.

I’m not sorry to say the likes of UKIP cannot be now taken seriously any more they flip flop on a daily basses. What stood out was that Farage is happy for people to rip animals to bits for sport.IMG_1785 Right here, right now it’s about fox ‘hunting’.

UKIP MEP’S voted no for banning ivory, why wouldn’t they vote in favour of wars?

If people do not vote Labour on May 7th then the NHS is finished. The Tories will get in because with people voting Green, SNP, UKIP, LibDems it will take away MPs from Labour and will lose them the majority they need.

Small party’s are not going to be winning lots of MPs if any. But they will reduce the votes in that seat and prevent Labour winning. People need to work out what is really important, getting rid of Cameron or just buying into the lie that Labour is the same as the Tories which is just rubbish!

Labour can win the election but if you want a change of Government than vote for them.

Vote UKIP, Tories, LibDems, Greens or SNP for five more years of David Cameron as prime minister anyone who cannot see that clearly has no idea about politics or anything in life really and their point is void. I continue to urge voters to continue to vote Labour






Who will be having a White Christmas this year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The five tests were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conclusions were broadly similar; the Treasury argued that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

My speech today is about the deficit.

Its place in our priorities.

How a Labour government would deal with it.

And how we would do so consistent with our values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not compassionate Conservatives at all.

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

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

That is not our programme.

That will never be our programme.

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

But the British people do want to know our approach.

And today I want to set it out.

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

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

That’s wrong.

It matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This draws the right distinction between current and capital spending.

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

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

Our rule is right for two reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This has become crystal clear since 2010.

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

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

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

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

That is bad for families.

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

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

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

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

And we see the failure in social security too.

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

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

Not because they are generous.

But because of their failing economic strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

Raising the minimum wage will do the same.

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

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

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

And there is a lesson for Labour here.

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

That option will not be available to us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selling off unwanted government assets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local government leaders rightly want control over these budgets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These changes are necessary to balance the books.

The Tory 35 per cent strategy is not.

Their strategy would mean overall cuts of an unprecedented scale.

The equivalent of more than the whole budget for schools.

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

Or nearly half of the budget for our NHS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reality has been completely the opposite.

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

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

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

We will make different choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is right and fair for the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an essential test of credibility.

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

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

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

Not commitments that depend on extra borrowing.

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

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

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

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

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

This is not responsible and not right.

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

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

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

Their priority is unfunded tax cuts.

My priority is to save our National Health Service.

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

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

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

The wealthiest bearing the biggest burden, not everyday people.

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

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

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

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

And none of our manifesto commitments will require additional borrowing.

These are my clear commitments to the British people.

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

It is a fight about who we want to be.

And how we want to live together.

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

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

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

That is the choice the country faces.


It is great to be here in Great Yarmouth.

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

She calls herself a “Mum on a mission”.

And Lara, I am proud to support you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They worked hard and made their contribution to this country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

People want there to be control of immigration. 

And I agree. 

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

And we will introduce those checks.

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

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

It is also about fair rules when people get here. 

Fair rules means people integrating into communities and learning English. 

It’s what my parents did.

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

You should contribute before you claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We must end the epidemic of exploitation.

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

And we have a plan to do it. 

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

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

We will ban recruitment agencies from hiring only from abroad.

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

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

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

Only Labour has a plan to deal with all this.

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

We will control immigration with fair rules.

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

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

This is what I promise to do.

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

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

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

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

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

Like leaving the European Union.

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

Great Yarmouth has always relied on trade. 

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

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

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

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

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

Putting the NHS first, not privatising it.

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

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

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

I believe that we can make it happen. 

And I look forward to doing it together. 





Response to the Coalition Budget

photo (3)Some say that politicians are out of touch with the real world and love the Westminster Village although there may be some truth in it I say with a clear heart that I know for a fact that some members of parliament I know personally they do mix with their constituents and understand the issues that affect them.

Here is what comes to mind:

photo (2)I listened to the Budget yesterday. We are already seeing the pre-election spending spree to kid folk all is well. More telling is the BoE and FT economist on TV last night saying how weird this ‘recovery ‘ was.

How they did not understand how growth was happening without business investing and without growth in exports. A sugar hit giving the illusion there is life and energy destined to slump again. Another Tory government will kill us off completely.

During his Budget speech, George Osborne told Parliament that “things are getting better”.

photo (1)The Tories may cheer, but the facts show that hard-working people in our country are worse off under David Cameron. The Budget did nothing to deal with this cost-of-living crisis.

We know that wages are down £1,600 a year since David Cameron became Prime Minister, while he gave those earning more than £150,000 a huge tax cut.​​

So are you and your family better off because of this government?

photo (5)‘If the UK economy is doing so well, why do I still feel so hard up?’ is the question George Osborne needs to answer in today’s budget.

It’s one that the politics of 14 months before the general election won’t let him answer: he’s not delivered what he promised. Public borrowing will this year be almost twice the level he predicted in 2010, and the debt to GDP ratio is still rising and expected to peak at almost twice the pre-crisis level.

Meanwhile real household incomes are still six per cent below the pre-crisis level, and poorer households have been hit by an annual inflation rate calculated to be one per cent higher than for others.

And he probably won’t want to spell out that the cost of his inability to keep his 2010 promises is that we’re now only half way through the austerity package. What’s still to come would mean cuts of 17 per cent.

photo (4)Predictions are that he will announce some welcome, business-friendly measures to tackle long term problems of low productivity and boost exports.

However, we will also hear a smokescreen to cover up for his inability to answer the central question of the cost of living crisis which Ed Miliband has put so effectively at the political centre stage.

Unemployed? Poor? Only one alias? Why not try booze & bingo? For only a lifetime of penury, we’ll get you drunk and let you gamble.

photo (7)Thanks Chancellor Osbourne. When I go out I will save 5p a night as beer is going down by 1p a pint. Why not knock a pound off and help genuine people who deserve a night out. Why not reduce VAT to 10% and again help ordinary people as well as the economy. Why not regulate nurseries, before and after school clubs why government pays for child’s places to help working families. No these are too easy. You only care about those who have money. You cut the poor and reduce taxes on the rich. It’s Robin George robbing from the poor to help the rich.

f1414ce9-9e66-c794-85fa-053c526f3506Budget does not help working person on very low paid it’s geared up for fatcats Tory friends now they have to donate it to ‪#‎nastyparty coffers.

As to yesterday’s budget sickening. Buying votes with beer and bingo, no bread to take to the circus, and benefits to permit the wealthy to quaff champagne on on the benefits paid out for childcare. Welfare State or Nanny State? This is a budget for a Tory State for the Nannied Classes

George Osborne couldn’t bribe me to vote Tory with a giveaway budget let alone this damp squib-all Tories care about is killing foxes for fun.

photo (6)I’m with Ed Miliband on this one when he said:

The Chancellor spoke for nearly an hour.

But he did not mention one central fact:

The working people of Britain are worse off under the Tories.

Living standards down: month after month, year after year.

2011 – living standards down.

2012 – living standards down.

2013 – living standards down.

And since the election working people’s living standards £1,600 a year – down.

photoYou’re worse off under the Tories.

Their 2010 manifesto promised:

“An economy where…[people’s] standard of living…rises steadily and sustainably”

But they have delivered exactly the opposite.

Standards of living not rising steadily and sustainably, but falling sharply and steeply.

And today the Chancellor simply reminded people of the gap between the Chancellor’s rhetoric and the reality of peoples’ lives.

Living standards falling for 44 out of 45 months under this Prime Minister.

Unmatched since records began.

No amount of smoke and mirrors today can hide it.

We already know the answer to the question millions of people will be asking in 2015:

“Are they better off now than they were five years ago?”

The answer is no.

Worse off.

Much worse off.

Worse off under the Tories.

And the Chancellor trumpeted the tax allowance today.

But what he didn’t tell you is that it is the same old Tory trick.

He didn’t tell you the rest of the story.

He didn’t mention the 24 tax rises introduced since he became chancellor.

He forgot to mention that he put up VAT.

He taxed away Child Benefit.

He raised insurance tax.

And gave us the ‘Granny Tax’.

It’s a classic Tory con.

Give with one hand and take far more away with another.

Same old Tories.

Now the Chancellor painted a picture of the country today that millions of people simply will not recognise.

Because this is Cameron’s Britain 2014.

350,000 people going to food banks.

400,000 disabled people paying the Bedroom Tax.

1 million more people paying 40p tax.

4.6 million families facing cuts to tax credits.

But there is one group who are better off.

Much better off.

We all know who they are.

The Chancellor’s chums.

The Prime Minister’s friends.

The Prime Minister rolls his eyes, he doesn’t want to talk about the millionaire’s tax cut.

No mention of it in the Budget speech.

The beneficiaries of this year’s millionaire’s tax cut.

Because if you are a City banker earning £5m and you are feeling the squeeze, don’t worry because they feel your pain.

Because this year that city banker was given a tax cut.

Not just any tax cut.

£664 a day.

£20,000 a month.

A tax cut worth more than £200,000 a year.

So the Prime Minister chooses to afford a tax cut of £200,000 for a banker.

But he can’t afford a pay rise of £250 for a nurse.

And these are the people that had the nerve to tell us we’re all in this together.

It’s Tory values.

It’s Tory choices.

It’s the same old Tories.

And of course, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, with them every step of the way.

Day after day he claims he doesn’t support Tory policy.

But day after day he votes for Tory policy.

Now to listen to the Chancellor today, for a recovery that arrived three years later than he promised, he expects the country to be grateful.

Back in 2010, he told us that by the end of 2014, the economy would have grown by nearly 12 per cent.

Today the figures say it has been barely half that. And he wants the country to be grateful.

Back in 2010 he said the Government would clear the deficit in this parliament by 2014/15. Today he wants the country to be grateful because he says he can do it by 2018/19.

Three years ago the Chancellor told us in his 2011 Budget speech he would deliver an economy “carried aloft by the march of the makers”:

But what has actually happened since then to the rebalancing that he promised?

Manufacturing output has fallen by 1.3 per cent.

Construction output has fallen by 4.2 per cent.

Infrastructure investment down 11 per cent.

Every time he comes to this house he promises a rebalancing.

And every time he fails.

He talked about housing today, but what has he actually delivered?

They’ve overseen the lowest house building since the 1920s.

And rents have risen twice as fast as wages.

At the heart of the argument we will have over the next fourteen months is this question: whose recovery is it?

Under them it’s a recovery for the few not the many.

Bankers pay in London rising five times faster than the pay of the average worker.

This recovery’s not working for working people whose living standards are falling.

It’s not working for millions of women who see the gap between men and women’s pay rising.

It’s not working for low-paid people promised by the Chancellor a £7 minimum wage, but given just 19p more an hour.

Under this Government it’s an economy of the privileged, by the privileged, for the privileged.

And instead of today admitting the truth about what is happening in most people’s lives, they want to tell them the opposite.

They tell people their wages are rising when they’re falling.

Just like they tell people their energy bills are falling when they’re rising.

And they tell people they’re better off but everyone knows the truth.

You can change the shape of the pound.

But it doesn’t matter if the pound is square, round or oval.

If you’re £1,600 pounds worse off, you’re still £1,600 pounds worse off.

You’re worse off under the Tories.

And the reason they can’t deliver is because of what they believe.

His global race is a race to the bottom.

People forced to do 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet.

Not knowing how many hours they will get from one week to the next.

And no idea what the future holds for their kids.

Low wages.

Low skills.

Insecure work.

That’s how they think Britain succeeds.

That is why they’re not the solution to the cost of living crisis.

They are the problem.

We needed a Budget today that would make the long-term changes our economy needs in housing, banking and energy.

But they can’t do it.

They won’t stand up to the vested interests.

They won’t tackle developers sitting on land, even though they can’t solve the housing crisis without it.

They won’t force the banks to improve competition, even though small businesses say they need it.

They won’t stand up to the energy companies and freeze energy bills, even though the public support it.

Same old Tories.

We know what their long term plan is: more tax cuts for the richest, while everyone else gets squeezed.

What does the Chancellor say about the people dragged into paying 40p tax?

He says they should be happy.

It’s good news for them.

So this is the new Osborne tax theory:

If you’re in the middle paying 40p you should be pleased to pay more.

But if you’re at the top paying 50p, you should be helped to pay less.

Same old Tories.

It’s no wonder that even their own side think they’re totally out-of-touch.

And even now, even after all the embarrassment of the millionaire’s tax cut, they won’t rule out going further.

Maybe today we can get the straight answer we haven’t had so far?

Will he rule out a further tax cut for millionaires to 40p?

Just nod your head if you’re ruling it out!

There they go again.

They won’t rule it out.

Doesn’t it say everything about them?

They really do believe the way you make the rich work hard is to make them richer, and the way you make everyone else work harder is by making them poorer.

And just like they paint a picture of the country that working people will not recognise, so too themselves.

Now the Prime Minister is an expert in rebranding.

Remember the huskies, the bike, the tree?

That was before they said cut the green crap.

What is the latest rebrand from the Bullingdon club?

It is beyond parody.

Because what does this lot now call themselves?

They call themselves ‘The workers’ party’.

And who is writing the manifesto for this new workers’ party?

We already know the answer and I quote:

“There are six people writing the manifesto, five went to Eton…”

By my count more Etonians writing the manifesto than there are women in the Cabinet.

No girls allowed.

And this week we’ve heard it right from the top.

Here’s what his former best friend, his closest ally, the Education Secretary had to say about the Prime Minister’s inner circle.

He said it was, and I quote:



Unlike anywhere else in the world.”

You know you’re in trouble when even the Education Secretary calls you a bunch of out of touch elitists.

And where is the Education Secretary? I think he has been banished … He’s hiding! I think he has been consigned to the naughty step by the Prime Minister.

I think it’s time we listened to Baroness Warsi and took the whole Eton mess out of Downing Street.

And what a mess it is.

There are more sides in the Tory briefing war than there are on the new pound coin.

We don’t need a party for the privileged few.

We need a party for the many.

That is why a Labour government will:

Freeze energy bills.

Guarantee jobs for unemployed young people.

Cut business rates.

Reform the banks.

Get 200,000 homes built a year.

And abolish the Bedroom Tax.

This is the Budget that confirms people are worse off under the Tories.

A worse off budget, from an out-of-touch Chancellor.

Britain can do better than them.

Britain needs a Labour government.






Has George Osborne hoodwink the nation with his autumn statement

George Osborne just boasted in Parliament that the economy is fixed and his policies are working. After three years of flatlining, he really shouldn’t have.

Because for most people, this is no recovery at all. As prices continue rising faster than wages, millions of working people and families are finding it harder just to get by.

On average, working people are £1,600 a year worse off under this government. And still the Tories won’t agree to our call to freeze gas and electricity prices.

In other words: the Chancellor is boasting about a recovery that is not being felt by most people in Britain..

I say that many people has a message for this government Britain needs an economy that works for everyone, but the Tories are only looking out for a privileged few. Britain deserves better than that. Labour has a plan: get more homes built, get young people into jobs, expand free childcare to make work pay, and freeze gas and electricity bills. A Labour government would make our economy work for people like you.

Checkout this Youtube and remember to tell the coaition to stop playing their scratch record:

It’s been purported 5 December that George Osbourne autumn statement is a ruthless act class war which is too sure up Conservative Supporters and rubbish the lower and middle incomes living standards. It’s no surprise it alleges marginal increase in output new record levels of employment and dubious forecasts of future economic success to declare that his polices are working.

It’s no wonder that working people face growing hardship with 15% wiped off the value of their wages which suggest that George Osbourne has not add up his sums right.

It’s further alleged that they economic programme was never about the so called collective hardship to resolve a difficult economic situation.

Slashing living standards of the lower and middle incomes whether in work unemployed or retired is not an unfortunate side effect. This is central to their programme by increasing the pension age for public service employees and state pensions.

website-banner4National Pensioners Convention research indicates that life expectancy may be falling especially as lower living standards and cuts in local services will take their toll.

Hey folks who would concur that that 2+2=4 10+20=30 well I’m sure most would agree however to leading economists has written in a leading national newspaper that George Osbourne sums does not add up. What am I reading right will be the answer from the Conservatives surely there must be a mistake somewhere. Er no you are reading it right depending which rags you read matey. Sound the alarm and let him know ASAP.

Yet Britain’s leading experts on tax and spending have said that living standards would be lower at the end of the current parliament than at the start, as they backed claims by the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, that family budgets were being squeezed hard under the coalition.

Delivering its judgment on George Osborne’s autumn statement, the Institute for Fiscal Studies took issue with the way Labour had calculated its estimate of a £1,600 loss to the average family in the three years since the coalition came to power in 2010 but said it was “pretty consistent” with survey data showing a big drop in household incomes between 2009-10 and 2011-12.

Paul Johnson, the IFS’s director, said there was a lack of reliable figures for the current year, but added: “We do know from household surveys that income fell sharply in 2010 and 2011. It is almost certainly significantly lower now than it was in 2010.

“And while it should start to grow, it will surely still be below its 2010 level by the time we get to the election in 2015.”

Osborne sought to counter Labour’s claims this week by using a different way of calculating incomes to show total household incomes rose by 3.9% between their pre-recession peak of early 2008 and the second quarter of 2013.

Johnson said the yardstick for household incomes used by the chancellor was not normally used to measure living standards, and an IFS study found that it had failed to detect a squeeze on real spending power in any of the four big recessions Britain has experienced since the early 1970s.

“As a series it [Osborne’s measure] behaves quite differently both since 2008 and over long periods of time to other series measuring living standards,” Johnson said.

“It includes some income which does not accrue to the household sector at all. And its actual construction is opaque. It tells us something about household incomes but it should certainly not be used in isolation to measure how they are changing.”

The IFS said Osborne’s adoption of that National Accounts measure of household disposable income meant “non-profit institutions serving households”, such as universities, were included alongside areas like pension savings, which have declined, freeing up more disposable income.

The Balls measure, it added, did not include changes to tax and benefits and used the retail prices index – no longer considered a reliable gauge of inflation by the Office for National Statistics – to come up with the statement that real wages had fallen by £1,600.

“That said a £1,600 fall is a fall of about 6%. That is pretty consistent with what we know from survey data happened to household incomes between 2009-10 and 2011-12,” said Johnson.

The IFS director said it was not surprising that household incomes were lower than before the recession and had fallen since 2010.

“We have just lived through the deepest recession in generations and measured output is still below its pre-crisis level. And earnings have been hit particularly hard. In part that is the flipside of the strong employment numbers and is directly related to the apparent fall in productivity.”

The IFS was critical of the chancellor’s spending promises, including the freeze on fuel duty, introduction of marriage allowances, national insurance cut and freeze in business rates, costing £2.5bn, without concrete plans to fund them.

Of the plan to expand university student numbers by selling the student loan book, Johnson said: “This may work in the near-term fiscal numbers, but economically it makes little sense. Selling the loan book will be broadly fiscally neutral in the long run, bringing in more money now at the expense of less money later on. Lifting the cap on numbers will cost money every year.”

More broadly, he said, this tactic was a theme of the autumn statement. “Continuing to announce tax cuts and to make new spending commitments, unfunded beyond 2015-16, can only increase the difficulty of reaching the fiscal balance he is targeting.”

The IFS said the chancellor’s plan to balance the budget by 2018-19 involved an acceleration in the pace of spending cuts from 2.3% a year in the five years from March 2011 to March 2016 to 3.7% a year in the three years after that.

The thinktank agreed with the independent Office for Budget Responsibility that this would involve shrinking the state to a level not seen since at least 1948. The IFS said this would hold true even if debt interest payments and infrastructure spending were added to the running costs of Whitehall departments.

To avoid a stepping up of the pace of spending cuts in the next parliament would require welfare cuts or tax increases worth £12bn, the IFS said.

TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, said: “Today’s IFS analysis confirms that spending cuts will go on and on as George Osborne makes austerity permanent.

“This has nothing to do with economics, but is all about a rightwing political project.

“The chancellor is using the fallout from the global recession to permanently cut services and shrink the state back to where it was in 1948.

“This is not what voters want. They may have accepted the need for harsh medicine in the wake of the crash, but they want a cure that delivers rising living standards, decent services and a fair economy.”

Chris Leslie, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: “It’s an embarrassing blow to the chancellor that his favoured measure of living standards turns out to include the incomes of charities and universities. The IFS is also right to question whether George Osborne’s sums for future years really do stack up.”

What Geogre Osbourne has neglect to mention is that millions of people finding it harder each month to make ends meet, the Chancellor had nothing to say in yesterday’s Autumn Statement.

Since David Cameron and George Osborne came to office working people are now on average over £1,600 a year worse off. Yet they gave people earning over £150,000 a huge tax cut this year.

Prices are still rising faster than wages. Official forecasts show the cost-of-living crisis will continue with working people worse off in 2015 than in 2010.

Labour will freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017. And we will make long-term changes to the energy market to stop customers being ripped off.

Under this Government bills will rise this winter and energy companies are being let off the hook. With this Chancellor, the only freeze this winter is for pensioners who can’t afford their hearing bills.

What we need is Labour’s long-term plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis and earn our way to higher living standards for all. Let’s build more homes and boost apprenticeships to get a strong recovery.

Let’s make work pay by expanding free childcare for working parents and strengthening the minimum wage. And let’s get our young back to work with a compulsory jobs guarantee for under-25s and the long-term unemployed. That’s the way to get a recovery for the many and not just a few.

After the Chancellor’s statement, it’s clear working people are worse off under the Tories.

To the long list of Tory crimes must now be added grand larceny – of Labour’s policies.

Hugh Turn (say it out loud), who also trades under the name of David Cameron, shamelessly reversed his stand on fuel charges and payday loans.

He sneered at Ed Miliband’s gas and electricity price freeze, and then brought in a pale imitation that still leaves bills rising.

He rejected limits on sky-high interest rates charged by payday loan merchants, but now he favours curbs.

No wonder Ed Miliband kept his policies under wraps for so long in the face of Tory taunts that he hasn’t got any.

As soon as he goes public with a bright idea, Coalition crooks burgle it. Ed led on Syria, and phone hacking, and Cameron followed.

Labour backs the Living Wage, and Boris Johnson, friend of the super-rich, followed in London.

When the Tories start filching the Opposition’s policies, you know they’re rattled. Their Grand Autocratic Theft is a good thing, because it shows Ed Miliband is getting it right. And not-so-good because it raids his store of policies in the run-up to polling day.

Cameron’s latest theft of Labour’s clothes is barefaced cheek. Unfortunately, the clothes don’t fit, and he looks stupid in them.

Hugh Turn is revealed as the circus clown, with his pockets full of pilfered policies.

Labour has hit on a rich vein of voter support by hoisting the cost of living to the top of the political agenda. It shows they care.

The Tories claim to be ahead on the issue of the economy, but that doesn’t cut quite so much ice with people these days.

For many, “the economy” is a remote concept, something that politicians do far away in Westminster when they’ve done fiddling their expenses.

But the cost of living is in every home. It affects every family and every pensioner.

Bill Clinton’s winning slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” needs updating. It should read “It’s the cost of living, wise guy.”

Another test of Tory nerves is the level of vituperation. Unable to counter Ed’s attack on incompetent Coalition handling of the cost of living crisis, Cameron resorts to personal abuse.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, his face gets redder, his arrogance gets louder, his contempt more obvious and his insults nastier. We see the Bullingdon Boy bully behind the baby face.

It’s not a pretty sight. I don’t think it wins him any votes from uncommitted viewers of this weekly theatre of the absurd. The way he behaves tells us more about him than a thousand U-turns.

So, I’m sure that many people don’t mind him paying Labour the back-handed compliment of stealing Ed’s policies. If they can be implemented before Labour gets back into power, that’s a plus.

Why is George Osborne relying on the Bank of England and Britain’s resurgent housing market to deliver strong growth in the runup to the 2015 general election after he spurned the chance to use a surprise pick-up in the economy this year to ease the government’s austerity programme.

In an upbeat autumn statement that left his Labour shadow, Ed Balls, struggling, the chancellor produced plans to shrink the size of day-to-day state spending to its lowest level for at least 70 years and sought to neuter Ed Miliband’s cost-of-living campaign by using the proceeds of the squeeze to trim domestic fuel bills by £50 a year, freeze fuel duty for motorists and limit increases in rail fares.

On Friday morning Osborne, in a round of interviews with broadcasters, rejected Labour’s claims that workers would be £1,600 a year worse off by the end of this parliament. “People remember that the economy collapsed under the last Labour government,” he said.

Asked about the prospect of interest rates rising, he also insisted it was the government’s actions controlling public spending that were keeping interest rates low.

He spoke as Ipsos Mori released polling figures suggesting that 40% of people accept Ed Balls’s claim that Osborne is in denial about the cost-of-living crisis. By contrast, only 24% said they agreed with Osborne that his plan for economic recovery was working and 27% said they agreed with neither propostion.

On Thursday, Osborne said the state of the public finances left no room for tax cuts, although the City believes a fresh surge in the housing market expected next year will leave scope for pre-election giveaways. Interest rates are expected to remain at 0.5% until after the general election.

“This statement shows the plan is working. It’s a serious plan for a grown-up country,” the chancellor said as he warned voters that Labour would put any economic recovery at risk.

“We have held our nerve while those who predicted there would be no growth until we turned the spending taps back on have been proved comprehensively wrong. Thanks to the sacrifice and endeavour of the British people, I can today report the hard evidence that shows our economic plan is working.”

He announced forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) showing that the economy would grow by 1.4% this year and 2.4% next year – up from the 0.6% and 1.8% predicted in the March budget. “But the job is not done,” Osborne added. “By doing the right thing, we’re heading in the right direction.”

The OBR said that the acceleration in growth during 2013 had been the result of consumers running down savings to fund higher spending, and said productitivity would need to improve in order to “sustain the recovery and raise living standards”. But it said hopes for an increase in business investment this year had not been met and the UK’s trade performance had been worse than expected.

Osborne said that the consumer-driven pick-up in the economy was still not strong enough and left the budget deficit too high for the government to ease up on austerity. He said he would support companies by limiting the increase in business rates to 2% and spent £500m abolishing national insurance contributions for workers under the age of 21.

But he said measures to tackle what Labour has called Britain’s cost of living crisis had to be paid for by a cap on all welfare spending, apart from pensions and unemployment benefits, and a fresh squeeze on Whitehall departments. The independent OBR said that by 2019 the share of national income spent on the day-to-day running of the state would be the lowest since at least 1948 when modern records began.

Osborne said he wanted a “responsible recovery” and while warning of “more difficult decisions” to come he accepted the effects of Britain’s deepest postwar slump were still being felt on family budgets.

Stronger growth meant that the government needed to borrow £73bn less over the next five years than originally envisaged in the spring and that the national debt would peak in 2016-17, a year earlier than previously predicted, the chancellor said.

But Robert Chote, the OBR’s director said the upgrade was the result of a cyclical pick up in consumer spending and the housing market rather than a structural improvement. “Borrowing is lower but the hole that the government will eventually have to fill in doesn’t appear to be any smaller than it was in March,” Chote said.

The OBR is expecting house price inflation of above 5% in 2014 and 7% in 2015, with the Exchequer seeing a near doubling of property stamp duty from £9bn to £17bn between 2103-14 and 2018-19.

Osborne told MPs: “This country is working through its long term plan. Bringing down the deficit and dealing with the debt.

“Spending less on welfare and making the big decisions on infrastructure. Living within our means and cutting tax on business. Making work pay and letting people keep more of what they earn.”

But Balls said Osborne was borrowing £198bn more than he planned in 2010. “More borrowing to pay for three years of economic failure. More borrowing in just three years under this chancellor than under the last government in 13 years.

“He used to say he would balance the books in 2015. Now he expects us to congratulate him for saying he’ll do it by 2019.”

Balls brushed aside suggestions that his shouty performance in the Commons had damaged him saying “there were 350 Tory MPs shouting at the top of their voice because they don’t want to hear the truth about the cost of living crisis in our country”.

He said Osborne “was in denial about the way in which living standards were still falling”.

He insisted that the chancellor’s plans for faster spending cuts, a welfare cap and a proposal to ask MPs to vote next autumn for faster than expected fiscal consolidation in the three years after the election would not cause him problems. But he faces a difficult judgment whether to accept the Tory timetable for fiscal reduction, or back a slower pace.

He also said he may call for tax rises as well as spending cuts to scale back the deficit.

The business secretary, Vince Cable, also emphasised that, like Balls, the Lib Dems would not be forced to accept the plan for Conservative deficit reduction, which envisages for more than 80% to come from spending cuts, even if they might accept the timetable.

Cable said: “The Liberal Democrats are an independent party … Liberal Democrats have a different approach to tax and spend, in particular with an emphasis on fairness in the way the tax system operates, and our achievements in lifting low earners out of tax.

“Ultimately the electorate has got to decide what the outcome of the next election is but we will go into it as a distinct party with a distinct agenda.”

Cable also sounded a warning note, saying the housing market was “very buoyant”. He said: “There’s clearly still a danger of house prices getting out of control.”

Now here is a chance to read the report in full to make up your own mind up see:


Leading investors in HSBC reacted angrily on Thursday to a decision by George Osborne to increase his levy on banks, warning that it would restrain the dividend-paying capacity of Europe’s biggest lender.

A number of the bank’s institutional investors are furious at the Chancellor’s move to hike both the rate and the overall sum raised by the levy, which was introduced in 2011.

A major HSBC shareholder, who refused to be named, said the Treasury was “pushing the bank to a point at which it will again have to consider the issue of redomiciling” its headquarters away from the UK.

Under plans announced as part of his Autumn Statement, Mr Osborne said the targeted yield from the levy on banks’ balance sheets would increase from £2.5bn this year to £2.7bn next year and £2.9bn from 2015.

The latest increase – the fifth since the levy’s introduction – was designed to offset the benefit to banks of ongoing reductions to the rate of corporation tax, Treasury insiders said.

However, the move is likely to force HSBC’s contribution to the levy to more than $1bn (£612m) for the first time next year, and take its overall bill since Mr Osborne unveiled it three years ago to more than £1.5bn, far more than any other bank.

HSBC, which did not require direct taxpayer support during the banking crisis, said earlier this year that it anticipated paying between $800m (£490m) and $900m (£551m) in 2013.

The investor questioned the logic of Mr Osborne’s move, saying that because it was a levy on pre-tax profits, it inhibited HSBC’s dividend-paying capacity.

“It makes no sense. HSBC’s board could quite understandably take the view that the cost of being a UK-based bank has now reached a tipping point,” they added.

HSBC periodically reviews the location of its headquarters but has not done so formally since before the Independent Commission on Banking made recommendations about ring-fencing structures aimed at safeguarding taxpayers from future bank rescues.

The Chancellor’s levy has consistently failed to generate the targeted £2.5bn yield as banks have accelerated the deleveraging of their balance sheets.

Treasury officials said on Thursday that the structure of the bank levy would also be altered from January 1 2015, with changes limiting the protected deposit exclusion to insured amounts, and treating all derivative contracts as short-term.

The effect of this would be likely to mean higher charges for Wall Street banks with UK operations, according to one source.

Why is it that Central government has decided not to allow more houses to be built one can only assume that the coalition are burying themselves in the sand and that  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.”

Intriguingly Charities have accused the Prime Minister of giving “inaccurate” statements and raising “false hopes” by suggesting that disabled people who need an extra room are exempt from the so-called “bedroom tax”.

Eighteen chief executives of leading disabled charities have written to David Cameron criticising comments he made during Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday.

Mr Cameron was asked about calls to exempt disabled people from the spare room subsidy and responded: “Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”

The charities, which include Carers UK, the RNIB and and Sense, say he has made similar remarks twice this year.

The letter states: “None of these situations reflect the reality of the Government’s policy. We are now even more concerned that the effects the policy is having on disabled people and their families are not understood in Government.”

It continues: “When senior Government figures state that these families are exempt when they are not, our organisations have to respond to the false hope this generates. We receive the relieved calls and messages from families who are struggling to pay their rent shortfall, and it falls to us to tell those families that they are, in fact, subject to these cuts and are not exempt.”

Although there are some exemptions for disabled children, many disabled people do not qualify.

They may be eligible for money from a discretionary fund but charities say the fund is not available to all and as a consequence the policy is having a “devastating” impact on many people who need an extra room for carers or equipment.

In the letter to the Prime Minister they list the types of people affected, which include “families of disabled children who need overnight care workers to stay to give them a break” and “people whose extra room is needed for home adaptations or equipment, including dialysis machines, oxygen tanks, hoists and wheelchairs”.

A consortium of 50 charities had written to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) calling for disabled people to be exempt from the spare room subsidy.

The DWP responded: “We are determined to support those who might need extra help through these necessary reforms. That is why we set aside £190m this year to do precisely this, with £25m specifically for disabled people living in specially adapted properties.

“The courts have ruled we are meeting our equality duties to disabled people who are affected by the policy.

“The removal of the spare room subsidy means we still pay the majority of most claimants’ rent, but the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay the £500m cost of claimants’ extra bedrooms.”

Here is another example of Iain Duncan Smith cock up again we have learnt the full extent of how to waste money. Mr Duncan Smith told a committee of MPs in July and the Commons in September that the 2017 plan remained in place.

But he has now said some people receiving Employment Support Allowance may not be transferred in time.

The government estimates about 700,000 people in this group could be moved to Universal Credit after 2017.

In an interview Mr Duncan Smith said the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) “may take a little longer” as it was dealing with a vulnerable group and the official in charge of the project, Howard Shiplee, may want to take more time.

Mr Duncan Smith insists despite the possible late transfer of claimants the new benefit system will “essentially” be complete by 2017.

Ministers will argue that these claimants are among those least able to work so least likely to lose out by not being part of Universal Credit.

So the next time the coalition continue to play their scratch record on blaming Labour let us all remind the coalition of their failed record that is happening on their watch