Archive for March, 2011

Miliband can own the future in a way that Cameron can’t

22/03/2011, 04:40:10 PM

by Jonathan Todd

The longer Gordon Brown was prime minister, the harder it became, sadly, to picture him in post at the 2012 Olympics. His purchase on the future evaporated. Ed Miliband has to recover this to return to government. He has to convince that he has the answers to the challenges of 2015 and beyond. And personify these answers.

While his speech to the resolution foundation looked towards this, the past is always knocking incessant, trying to break through into the present. As Jim Murphy told the progress political school, in politics, the past is always the context, the future the contest. The spectre of Iraq hangs over Libya. The fiscal management of the last government colours arguments about the approach of this. In many areas – NHS, schools, welfare and, increasingly, foreign affairs – David Cameron presents himself as more heir to Blair than a return to the 1980s. Labour begs to differ. The public is uncertain.

What is not in doubt, however, is that the past has to be overcome to own the future. The 1997 victory couldn’t happen until Labour had outrun the shadow of its discontented winter. Tory detoxification hadn’t removed the stench of Thatcherism before 2010. That foul odour now emanates from Number Ten, in spite of Cameron needing Nick Clegg’s help to limp over the finishing line of the general election. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Libya is not Cameron’s first war. It is Tony Blair’s last.

22/03/2011, 11:30:43 AM

by Dan Hodges

In Saturday’s Independent, Robert Fisk, the venerable if jaundiced middle east sage, posted a missing persons bulletin:

“Why we have not heard from Lord Blair of Isfahan recently? Surely he should be up there, clapping his hands with glee at another humanitarian intervention. Perhaps he is just resting between parts. Or maybe, like the dragons in Spenser’s Faerie Queene, he is quietly vomiting forth Catholic tracts with all the enthusiasm of a Gaddafi in full flow”.

Unfortunately, about an hour after this latest condemnation of Western imperialism / inaction / barbarity / pusillanimity (delete as appropriate), up popped the man himself:

“The decision to impose a no-fly zone and authorise all necessary measures to protect threatened civilians comes not a moment too soon. It is a shift to a policy of intervention that I welcome. Such a policy will be difficult and unpredictable. But it is surely better than watching in real time as the Libyan people’s legitimate aspiration for a better form of government and way of life is snuffed out by tanks and planes”.

Fisk may know Libya like the back of Colonel Gaddafi’s hand, but he certainly doesn’t know Tony Blair. The clear implication of his jibe is that military intervention against Gaddafi is a rebuke to our former prime minister and his policy of enticing the Libyan dictator back into the international fold. A further shredding of his already tattered foreign policy legacy.

Robert, you couldn’t be more wrong. Libya isn’t an embarrassment for Tony Blair. It’s his validation. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Tuesday News Review

22/03/2011, 07:15:58 AM

MPs back military action in Libya

MPs have voted overwhelmingly to back military action in Libya, even as poll figures emerge showing the conflict is unpopular with the public. The government won the vote by 557 to 13, although many MPs voiced their concerns and anxieties about the decision. Meanwhile, a ComRes poll for ITV news showed 49% of people think military action in Libya is an unnecessary risk. Only one in three (35%) thought it was right for the UK to take military action against Colonel Gaddafi’s forces in Libya. The vote came as a reminder to David Cameron of the political gamble he is taking, after the prime minister spent hours in the Commons Chamber listening to backbench MPs’ concerns and trying to persuade parliament of the case for action. “Gaddafi has had every conceivable opportunity to stop massacring his own people,” he told the Commons. “The time for red lines, threats and last chances is over. Tough action is needed now to ensure that people in Libya can live their lives without fear. – Politics.co.uk

Questions over Libya targets

Divisions opened yesterday between British ministers and the head of the armed forces over whether Muammar Gaddafi should be personally targeted in the strikes on the Libyan military machine. Government sources maintained it could be legitimate to attempt to kill the Libyan leader if he was orchestrating brutal armed operations against his own civilians. Their assertion came hours after General Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, insisted that a direct strike against the Libyan leader was not permitted by last week’s United Nations Security Council resolution. Senior figures in Washington have also emphasised that the coalition is barred by the UN from attempting to hit Gaddafi; the issue is sensitive because of fears that talk of toppling the regime could alienate Arab supporters of the action. The controversy was sparked when Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, signalled that Gaddafi could be a “legitimate target”. William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, also left open the possibility in a BBC interview yesterday. But Gen Richards, speaking after a meeting of ministers and military chiefs on Libya, was adamant that Gaddafi could not be targeted. Asked if it could happen, he replied: “Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.” – the Independent

I support the Government’s decision on Libya but I think Liam Fox’s comments are irresponsible in many ways. His view that the aim of our military effort is to bring about regime change is outside what is a very broad UN resolution. It is wrong but also counterproductive at a time when we are trying to maintain a broad coalition including Arab opinion to talk in such a way. I agree with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said, “If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem”. Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government. Our government needs to have one clear policy on this. – Jim Murphy MP’s blog (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Why I changed my mind and abstained on the Libya vote

21/03/2011, 11:59:55 PM

by Tom Watson

David Cameron’s assured performance at the dispatch box during the Libya statement on Friday worried me. He was confident, authoritative and re-assuring. It was like watching Tony Blair introducing the debate before we went to war in Iraq.

I was concerned that there wasn’t sufficient support amongst our key allies and, crucially, arab states to make military intervention credible.

I asked the PM:

“Now that the UN has reasserted its authority with this resolution, it is important that Gaddafi be in no doubt that there is an overwhelming military force to carry it out. In that light, how many countries does the prime minister wish to provide military assets, and how many of them come from the arab league”?

The PM replied:

“The hon. gentleman makes a good point. Obviously, we want the widest alliance possible. I do not think it would be right for me to name at the dispatch box those countries that are considering participation, but there is a wide number. Clearly, at the heart of this are the Americans, the French and the British, but other European countries are coming forward, and there are also some in the arab league, including a number I have spoken to, who have talked about active participation – about playing a part in this. One of the purposes of the meeting tomorrow in Paris will be to bring together the widest possible coalition of those who want to support it, and I believe, particularly as this has such strong UN backing, that it will be a very wide coalition indeed”.

I left the chamber with a lot of unanswered questions:

1.What are the objectives of this mission?

2.What are the limits of the UN resolution?

3.What is our exit strategy?

4.How much is it going to cost?

5.Have we the appropriate military capacity?

6.How strong is the international coalition? (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

In other news…Labour launches transport review

21/03/2011, 01:00:56 PM

by John Woodcock

In other news, Labour is launching a transport policy review today.

Something tells me that global events may deprive the review, Britain Better Connected, of the attention it would otherwise merit.

But the questions it is asking nevertheless remain important:

·         for families facing a cost-of-living squeeze exacerbated by Conservative decisions to impose a VAT hike on fuel and allow an inflation-busting increase on train fares;

·         for the next generation of high-skilled workers essential to our economy, whose future is being put at risk by widespread local decisions to abolish help with travel to college, forced by the scale of the cuts imposed on local authorities;

·         for older people angry that their free bus pass is of little use when the service they rely on has been axed;

·         for motorists who want to drive more greenly and have more public transport options but who, no matter how much the government whacks up duty on fuel, are never going to swap their car keys for a bus timetable or push bike;

·         and for a country that must examine how its transport infrastructure should change over the next decade to deliver the basic objective of sustainable growth in a world where global competition gets ever more fierce and our environmental targets ever more pressing.

We got a hell of a lot right in the major transport decisions we made during our time in government. Improvements in train lines substantially reduced journey times and improved links between towns like mine and larger centres of economic growth (in fact I am benefiting from one such improvement, the west coast main line, as I write this on the way down to London, thanking my lucky stars that I got a seat). Investment to increase the uptake of low emission vehicles like electric cars was an important step in the process of ensuring motoring can meet its environmental obligations in future decades. And we understood that UK businesses and jobs would lose, with no overall gain for the environment, if Britain sent elsewhere the global aviation growth made inevitable by the economic rise of the east.

But in the Labour government’s early years, we should recognise that we did not do enough to combat the wholly inaccurate impression that we were evangelists, determined to force people to travel more greenly rather than making it easier for them to do so. That zeal of the first term has left a lasting impression on many who now suspect that every new transport strategy, from whatever side, is something bad that to be imposed on them, rather than a measure designed to help them.

As well as dispelling that notion for good, the programme we devise for the next decade must be prepared to equip our already straining rail network to accommodate the predicted passenger demand in future years. And, crucially, it must understand the limits of price as a mechanism to change people’s behaviour. Most people have little option but to pay increased charges, be they from higher rail fares or more expensive fuel, increasing the risk that each new hike primarily just makes people poorer rather than reducing carbon emissions.

That is why shadow secretary of state, Maria Eagle, is focussing our review on affordability, on the steps we need to take to make transport more sustainable without pricing those on low and middle incomes out of the travel they need to make the best of their lives. And it is why I will be considering the steps needed ultimately to put a low emission vehicle within reach of the majority of car owners, not just the early adopters with sufficient means to pay the premium.

None of this will compete for space in the news agenda with the momentous and distressing events in Libya and Japan – rightly so. But the transport decisions we take over the next decade will have at least as great an impact on people’s daily lives. Do get involved and have your say.

John Woodcock is Labour and Cooperative MP for Barrow and Furness and a shadow transport minister.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Despite Osborne’s patrician brave face, all we can expect on budget day is standard Tory fare

21/03/2011, 08:00:21 AM

by Sally Bercow

With the amount of cereal my kids get through, action was required. Out went Kellogg’s Frosties at £2.69, in came Essential Waitrose frosted flakes at £1.69. The kids objected at first – not on taste grounds, mind, but because they missed seeing Tony the Frosties tiger cavorting about on the box. Happily though, as own-brand fish fingers have passed unnoticed, no such bond appears to have been forged with Captain Birdseye. Indeed, our cupboards are now heaving with Essential Waitrose and I’ve cut my weekly Ocado shopping bill by around a quarter (and, yes, I know I’d save even more shopping at Tesco or Sainsburys but, the last time I looked, neither would deliver to Parliament – apparently because it’s a business address).

Now I’m not going to pretend that switching from Kellogg’s to own brand means I’m in the same boat as families whose very existence is a struggle to make ends meet. But squeeze on living standards (the biggest in 90 years) is hitting everyone – even those, like David Cameron and George Osborne, multi-millionaires by birth, with rather a lot of cushioning and very little idea of what life is like for those who struggle to eke out an existence. Inflation is rising twice as fast as pay and the Chancellor is only making matters worse – adding to the squeeze with his 2.5% VAT hike in January.

That’s why Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are right to say that this country is undergoing a “cost of living crisis” and to call on George Osborne to use his second budget to help hard-pressed families, starting at the petrol pump. If Osborne thinks that merely cancelling or postponing the annual 1p-a-litre tax rise on petrol will be a sufficient sop to beleaguered motorists, he’s gravely mistaken. Instead, he needs to go beyond this and reverse the VAT rise altogether, by using the extra £800 million brought in by the bank levy. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Monday News Review

21/03/2011, 07:28:41 AM

MPs to vote on Libya

Audience or inquisition? Echo chamber or debating chamber? Monday’s debate on the crisis in Libya is a chance for the Commons to show that politicians learned hard lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. We are “at war”, but this isn’t a moment of national peril that obliges MPs to button their lips and patriotically applaud the prime minister. Far from it. If we have learned one thing from the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that you cannot impose democracy by bombing. A second lesson is that getting into a conflict is a lot easier than getting out. I would be much happier if the media and political cacophony about Libya was less about boys’ toys – fighter aircraft and different missile systems – and more about Libya’s unusual history and the hideously difficult political choices ahead. If the air strikes have cowed Muammar Gaddafi’s forces enough to keep them from invading Benghazi and causing a further bloodbath there, then that is good news. David Cameron and the other leaders are to be applauded for that. As a senior Labour MP put it to me on Sunday, when I asked him about the danger of us being drawn into a long stalemate, “a stalemate’s better than a slaughter”. – Comment is free

Now that we know what we know about Iraq I vowed I’d never take a prime minister on trust again. Yet this is what I’m going to have to do tomorrow. My vote will be with Sarkozy and Cameron – and the united nations. I have huge reservations. I have little choice. I have to believe that they’ll be true to their words: there won’t be a ground war. There won’t be an occupation. There has to be a plan, right? Parliament will be consulted regularly. Cameron assured the House that the arab league states want this. I have to believe him. And given that allied forces are already shooting out tanks, airfields and strategic targets, a vote against military intervention on Monday only undermines our country’s political strength on the world stage. – Uncut

Budget 2011

George Orborne, the chancellor, has promised not to announce any new tax increases or spending cuts in this week’s Budget. The Chancellor said he had already “asked what is required” to turn the economy around. He would now seek to “move on” and focus on securing economic recovery. The promise will come as a relief to workers who already face increases in National Insurance next month and reductions in the higher-rate tax allowance, following the sharp rise in Vat at the beginning of the year. These rises will still go ahead but the Budget overall will not raise any extra money. Mr Osborne is hoping to promote this week’s statement as a “budget for growth” amid mounting concern over the fragility of Britain’s economic recovery. In an interview yesterday, the Chancellor said: “Having undertaken the rescue mission last year, I don’t have to come back and ask for more this year. “So I can say in the Budget this week I am not going to be asking for more tax increases or more spending cuts. We have asked what is required of the British people in last year’s Budget and that enables us in this year’s Budget to move on to putting in place the policies that will help Britain compete, help Britain create jobs and growth in the future.” – the Telegraph

There will still be something Gladstonian about the budget on Wednesday because Osborne is determined to stick to a path of fiscal rectitude that would have pleased the Grand Old Man of British politics. Sure, there will be a shift of emphasis, with Osborne saying that the “rescue” phase is over and it is now time for “recovery” and “reform” but the principles of the government’s approach will be the same. Despite the feeble state of the economy, the chancellor will reiterate his determination to eradicate the structural part of Britain’s budget deficit by the end of the current parliament. This remains the same gamble it was when Osborne first sketched out his plans the weeks following the formation of the coalition government last spring. Perhaps even more of a gamble, since back then the economy was showing signs of bouncing back from its deepest and longest post-war recession and now it is back in the doldrums. But anybody expecting Osborne to come up with a Plan B on Wednesday, the demand made of him by the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, will be disappointed. Come what may, the government will stick to its chosen budgetary course. – the Guardian

NHS reforms “Trojan horse”

David Cameron has been warned by one of his own MPs that he is in danger of creating a “Trojan horse” that could destroy the NHS from within. Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes in Devon, has issued a scathing reply to the Prime Minister’s boast, made in the Commons last week, that “we are not reorganising the bureaucracy of the NHS. We are abolishing the bureaucracy of the NHS”. Dr Wollaston, who worked as a GP for 18 years, forecast that a more likely set of events is that the NHS will pay out huge sums in redundancy to bureaucrats whose jobs have disappeared, only to re-employ them when when they find that they cannot get by without managers… Dr Wollaston said that doctors should not have the final decision on which patients receive treatment without an input from patients and “the wider clinical community”, and that GP consortia will need professional managers. – the Independent

Lib Dems to table amendments to health bill

Far reaching changes to the coalition health reforms are being drawn up by the Liberal Democrats, it emerged yesterday. The proposals to be circulated among senior Liberal Democrat health experts are designed to turn the motions passed at the party’s spring conference a week ago into detailed amendments to the health and social care bill before it reaches its report stage. Nick Clegg has signalled that he will support the changes in principle, and is among many cabinet ministers who recognise that the reforms need recasting if they are to survive. Those drawing up the amendments, including the former MP Evan Harris, are trying to ensure the proposals are in line with the coalition agreement. They are likely to focus on areas such as ensuring that GP commissioning boards have a duty to prevent cherry-picking by the private sector, and that the boards contain locally-elected councillors or are scrutinised by councils. They would also look at the structure, aims and membership of the proposed economic regulator, Monitor. – the Guardian

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Why I’m voting with Cameron in support of bombing Libya

20/03/2011, 11:02:47 AM

by Tom Watson

Now that we know what we know about Iraq I vowed I’d never take a prime minister on trust again. Yet this is what I’m going to have to do tomorrow. My vote will be with Sarkozy and Cameron – and the united nations.

I have huge reservations. I have little choice. I have to believe that they’ll be true to their words: there won’t be a ground war. There won’t be an occupation. There has to be a plan, right? Parliament will be consulted regularly.

Cameron assured the House that the arab league states want this. I have to believe him.

And given that allied forces are already shooting out tanks, airfields and strategic targets, a vote against military intervention on Monday only undermines our country’s political strength on the world stage.

I have an ominous déjà vu feeling though. I asked the PM to say which countries were providing military assets to the coalition. He couldn’t tell me, or perhaps chose not to. Either way, it doesn’t instill confidence that this mission is entirely thought through. But I also understand the need for speed. When innocents are getting bombed there is little time for debate.

The UN resolution wasn’t supported by our key allies the Germans. It’s a cause for concern.

I’m extremely concerned that other dictators will use the focus onLibya to brutalise peaceful protests in their country. 45 protestors were shot dead in Yemen on Friday, for example.

We don’t know what Libya will look like if we can’t rid the country of Gaddafi. We don’t know what it will look like if we do.

There are hazardous times ahead. The future is uncertain. Cameron gets my vote tomorrow, but please God let this be over swiftly.

Tom Watson is Labour MP for West Bromwich East.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Sunday News Review

20/03/2011, 09:15:25 AM

Action continues in Libya

George Osborne this morning refused to rule out putting ground troops in Libya. The Chancellor told the Andrew Marr show that the UK are “not considering ground forces at the moment” and were committed to enforcing the UN resolution. Britain’s armed forces and their international partners last night attacked “key military installations” in Libya in a co-ordinated strike, Liam Fox said in a statement. French, American and British forces went into action after a UN resolution backed a no-fly zone over the country to protect civilians. – Politics Home

Balls: Budget plans damp squib

The Government has boasted of a “big bang” Budget plan for growth. But what we have seen so far – tinkering with planning laws, reheating failed policies like enterprise zones and rowing back on workers’ rights – looks like a damp squib. We need to rebuild the strength and competitiveness of our banking and financial sector, but on the basis of business models that reward investment and sustainable growth, not short-term risk-taking. We need a modern industrial policy that supports incentives for technological, green and scientific innovation to flourish, starting with boosting R&D tax credits for small companies. And with too many employers ducking the need to invest in skills, we must ensure every company takes their responsibilities seriously and every employee gets the chance. I don’t claim Labour has all the answers right now – but it is worrying that Mr Osborne shows no sign of even understanding the questions. – Ed Balls, the Independent

Lansley hides NHS poll

Ministers have been accused of “burying good news” about the NHSbecause it will undermine their case for sweeping reforms, after it emerged that they are withholding unpublished polling data that shows record levels of satisfaction with healthcare. The Observer has learned that the polling organisation Ipsos MORI submitted the results last autumn to the Department of Health for inclusion in a government survey of public perceptions of the NHS. The data, commissioned by the department, shows that more members of the public than ever believe the NHS is doing a good job – a finding contrary to health secretary Andrew Lansley‘s insistence that it is falling short and needs urgent change. The department has had the findings for six months, but has yet to make them public – the most recent information on its website relates to 2007. The decision to “sit on” the positive information has fuelled a row over the way in which the government is rooting out negative statistics about the NHS to justify reforms. Under the plans – rejected by the Liberal Democrats at their spring conference last weekend and opposed by a small band of Tory MPs, as well as by the Labour party – GPs will be handed control of £80bn of the NHS budget, tiers of management will be swept away and the private sector will play a greater role. – the Observer

Cameron’s NHS plans are dangerous, says Tory MP

Is there something of the Trojan Horse about the Health and Social Care Bill? No top down reorganisation of the NHS promised on the outside but perhaps the greatest upheaval in the organisation’s history inside. At Prime Ministers Questions last week David Cameron said: ‘We are not reorganising the bureaucracy of the NHS, we are abolishing the bureaucracy of the NHS.’ That is part of the problem. It is one thing to rapidly dismantle the entire middle layer of NHS management but it is completely unrealistic to assume that this vast organisation can be managed by a commissioning board in London with nothing in between it and several hundred inexperienced commissioning consortia. In reality the reforms manage to be both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom up’ but we could end up with the worst of both worlds. Stripping out primary care trusts (PCTs) and strategic health authorities is as top down as it comes. But at a recent hearing of the Health Select Committee we heard of the confusion that still exists about their replacement. – Dr Sarah Woolaston, the Telegraph

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The week Uncut

19/03/2011, 10:15:37 AM

In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:

Michael Dugher says the right posture can really help a squeezed middle

Tom Watson looks forward, and says winners don’t look back

Sally Bercow says ministers are all over the place – no grip, no delivery

Atul Hatwal thinks Ed Balls has a commitment problem

Victoria Williams wants more women in the government

… and in this weeks Half a minute Harris, Tom took on Polly over AV

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon