Archive for February, 2013

Time for a fully funded plan for jobs and growth

19/02/2013, 10:55:49 AM

Last week Phil McCauley won the Top Of The Policies for economic growth vote at the latest Pragmatic Radicalism event, chaired by Toby Perkins MP the shadow minister for small business.

Financial credibility is the most important facet required for Labour to be trusted at the 2015 general election. We cannot call for tax incentives without saying how they can be paid for otherwise we will not make our case.

With this in mind, I approached the Pragmatic Radicalism event on 12th of February with a view to presenting my suggestions for how this can be achieved without adding to the deficit. Toby Perkins MP was in the Chair and many excellent ideas were presented in the 90 second pitch format with 2 minutes of questions followed by the vote.

I suggest we change the covenant and fiduciary duties on pension trustees to invest 10% of our 2.5tn in pension assets in UK business. At present there is a requirement to invest for the best return irrespective of our national interests or ethics.

I am not merely suggesting the ownership of publicly traded stock, but direct equity investment in Labour’s proposed British investment bank. With over £200 bn to invest we could transform the UK economy within the next parliament. And what’s more, not add to the deficit in the process. This money can be invested for much better returns in housing and infrastructure and UK manufacturing and export. It’s immoral to think that our pension funds are invested in pay-day loan sharks and manufacturers of land mines.

Indeed, the entire pensions industry needs even more reform than the banking system. They are inextricably linked of course and the pension industry needs to align its duties with One Nation principles. It cannot be right that we are investing UK earnings in foreign competitors which destroy our job and growth at home. We have a national interest first.

One Nation investment will focus our finances upon the extraordinary entrepreneurial abilities within our country. It’s time for a fully funded plan for jobs and growth.

Cllr Phil McCauley serves on Gedling Council and is a member of LFIG (Labour Finance and Industry Group) Executive Board, serial and social entrepreneur

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

William Hague moves to lift sanctions on Zimbabwe and rehabilitate Robert Mugabe

18/02/2013, 04:29:44 PM

by Pete Bowyer

The EU Foreign Affairs Council has just announced its decision on Zimbabwean sanctions in a press communique from Brussels this afternoon. It is worse than campaigners could possibly have feared.

Not only have EU foreign ministers agreed to suspend the majority of all remaining sanctions on Mugabe and his regime following a “peaceful and credible constitutional referendum” next month, they have also agreed “to suspend immediately the travel ban imposed on 6 Members of the government of Zimbabwe. The EU has also agreed to delist 21 persons and one entity subject to restrictive measures.”

International NGOs such as Global Witness, Human Rights Watch and Justice Zimbabwe who have been campaigning for those in Zimbabwe who have been complicit in human rights abuses to be added to the sanctions list and for measures to be deferred until after free and fair elections in the summer have been snubbed.

In practice, the decision means EU sanctions have immediately been lifted on almost a quarter of Mugabe’s cronies currently effected by the measures on little more than vague promises, and no real change on the ground in terms of human rights abuses and respect for the rule of law. Ironically, it comes on the very same day as the EU Foreign Affairs Council reaffirmed its support for the “promotion and protection of human rights around the world” in a separate communiqué.

The decision, agreed unanimously by EU Foreign Secretaries, including British Foreign Secretary William Hague, represents a major victory for President Mugabe and a significant success for the Belgian government who had been pushing a softer EU line towards Zimbabwe.

It is a stunning volte face from Hague who had previously advocated a more principled and robust approach to Mugabe. Britain now appears to have derogated its influence over geo-politics in southern Africa to the diamond traders of Antwerp.

It should come as no surprise that the Foreign Secretary has yet to comment publicly on the ignominy. But the left should take no comfort from this decision either. Whilst once Mugabe was the focal point of campaigns against a despotic regime which murdered thousands of its own citizens and impoverished a nation, anger has diminished in recent years despite little noticeable improvements on the ground.

Today is a milestone. A milestone in the rehabilitation of Mugabe by the West who has been rewarded for the failure of a nation.

Pete Bowyer is a Labour activist and spokesman for JusticeZimbabwe

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The British left has forgotten Zimbabwe and as a result, today, Mugabe will profit

18/02/2013, 01:29:36 PM

by Pete Bowyer

Later today, William Hague will acquiesce in an EU decision to ease sanctions against Zimbabwe. It will be reflective of Britain’s waning influence in Europe, as much as a lack of concern for continuing human rights abuses in the country.

This decision should concern us greatly. Zimbabwe has become one of the forgotten stories of southern Africa now the horrors of the political violence around the last elections in 2008 have dimmed.

But the truth is little has changed on the ground. The country, once known as the bread basket of Africa, is now reliant of foreign food aid, and Mugabe’s grip on power remains as tight as ever.

Take the case of opposition MDC politician, Roy Bennett. In 2009, he was designated Deputy Minister for Agriculture by Morgan Tsvangirai, but Robert Mugabe refused to swear him in. Bennett was later arrested on trumped up charges of treason.

When a magistrate ordered Bennett to be released on remand, the magistrate himself was arrested because “he passed a judgment that is not popular with the state.” This is the state of justice in Zimbabwe today.

The EU attempts to justify its decision on the grounds that Zimbabwe is due to hold a constitutional referendum on 16 March, and this is a sign of progress. A carrot and stick approach is all very well, but the EU should be erring on the side of the stick, not the carrot.

Rather than caving in to Mugabe, we should be standing up to him. For Zimbabwe to have a bright future, it needs serious and strictly implemented reforms. EU policy should be determined on the basis of concrete actions, not Mugabe’s empty promises.

So, a precautionary approach should have been taken, based on three conditions being met.

Firstly, the decision to review EU sanctions should have been taken only after free and fair elections without violence had been held. True, the constitutional referendum is an important benchmark, but it’s the forthcoming elections that will really determine the future for the people of Zimbabwe.

These are due in the summer, and the EU will end up with egg on its face if it decides to ease sanctions now only having to re-introduce them a couple of months later if the elections descend into chaos like they have done so often in the past.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Ed needs to be clearer about what one nation Labour is not

18/02/2013, 07:57:43 AM

by Jonathan Todd

“‘You know something? It’s really quite satisfying when you help people to fulfil their dreams like that.’ ‘Christ, you fucking fascist,’ Tim said.”

This exchange between Malcolm Glover, a 1980s building society manager, and his son, Tim, features in Philip Hensher’s sweeping The Northern Clemency and comes after Malcolm helps a couple buy their council house. The formalities of this sale conclude thus:

“‘Goodbye, Mr Glover,’ the husband said, shaking his hand, ‘and thank you.’ He let go and, turning, took his wife’s beloved hand, and together they walked down the stairs. Malcolm watched them go with pleasure.”

The positive content of new Labour sought to appeal to voters like the grateful couple: attentive to their aspirations and eager to serve them. Notwithstanding this positive content, new Labour was immediately vivid because it clear about what it was not: the old Labour, the no-compromise-with-the-electorate vehemence of Tim.

New Labour connected with aspirant voters by relentlessly showing itself to be different from a Labour party that would deem it “fascist” to sell a council house to its tenants. It was new Labour because it was not old Labour.

Of course, this old Labour was always a caricature. The Labour party of Clement Attlee, Barbara Castle and Neil Kinnock was never as indulgent and disconnected as Tim Glover. The right to buy, for one thing, was a Labour policy before it was a Tory policy.

The sense, however, that Tony Blair’s election as party leader marked a year zero was reinforced early in his leadership by painting the past as an old Labour wasteland. Blair was the change that the country needed because he had the strength to move his party beyond the likes of Tim Glover.

The longer Blair was leader the less well this crude and simplistic contrast served him. What had cast him in broad strokes as a new leader came to motivate suspicion about him in the party later in his premiership.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Revealed: How the Tories watered down their original Leveson proposals under pressure from the press barons

15/02/2013, 09:54:43 AM

by Atul Hatwal

It’s taken an age. The Tories’ proposals for establishing a press regulator through a royal charter have been mooted for months but were only published earlier this week. After David Cameron’s commitment to swift action in the Commons debate, following the publication of the Leveson report last November, they had been expected at the start of January. But weeks passed and nothing emerged. Why the delay? What took so long?

Uncut can exclusively reveal that the Conservatives were in fact ready to publish proposals several weeks ago. A team operating under cabinet office minister Oliver Letwin prepared a draft setting out how the royal charter would operate, in December. This draft was personally authorised by Letwin and cleared at the highest levels in Number 10. It represented the Conservatives’ view of what was needed to establish an effective regulator without statute.

But even this proved to be too much for the press barons and under private pressure from the industry, the Tories have further watered down their proposals. The result has left the cross-party negotiations on Leveson in chaos.

Two changes have been made to the Tories original proposal, weakening regulation beyond the levels even David Cameron and Oliver Letwin felt necessary.

In the December draft of the proposals, seen by Uncut, Letwin’s team enshrined the independence of the recognition body that underpins the press regulator, to protect it from interference by government.

The body could only have its terms of reference altered if backed by a  two-thirds “super-majority” in the House of Commons and it could only be dissolved by an act of parliament. A whole section of the draft document was devoted to this topic:

The Recognition Panel

(1) (An amendment of the Recognition Panel’s Charter has no effect until each House of Parliament has by resolution by the required majority directed that the amendment is to have effect.

(2) The Recognition Panel may not be dissolved otherwise than by way of Act of Parliament.

(3) The reference to an amendment of the Recognition Panel’s Charter is a reference to —

(a) the addition of a provision to the Charter,

(b) the variation of a provision in the Charter, or

(c) the omission of the whole or part of a provision from the Charter.

(4) A resolution under this section is to be regarded as being by the required majority if at least two-thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion for the resolution do so in support of it.

(5) A motion for a resolution under this section may be made by any member of the House in question.

(6) “The Recognition Panel’s Charter” means the Royal Charter dated [ ] 2013 under which the Recognition Panel was incorporated.

Sources within the newspaper industry have suggested that publishers were panicked about safeguarding the remit of the recognition body in this way because it effectively removed their ability to pressure  future governments to amend the terms of reference.

The feedback to the Tories from the press camp was robust and unequivocal: preserving the independence of the recognition panel with these protections was unacceptable.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Today Ed Miliband started to re-frame the economic debate

14/02/2013, 05:22:58 PM

by Dan McCurry

Thank god Ed Miliband has finally got a handle on our economic offer. Today he laid out a new narrative built around a “living standards” message with some good policy detail in the 10p tax pledge. He previewed the new approach at PMQs on Wednesday where he said that come the 2015 election, people will be asking “Am I better off now than I was 5 years ago?”

It’s about time, we really need this new, sharper approach.

On Tuesday night, I was speaking at an event by Pragmatic Radicalism where a number of people presented ideas for Labour economic policy and the audience voted for their favourite. My pitch was this:

“Even though we are right and they are wrong, we acknowledge that the Conservative party have a far more coherent economic policy than Labour. I believe that an economic policy of massive intervention, with massive stimulus, through massive infrastructure spending, should be presented with massive confidence by a leadership who will then stand their ground and defend their policy.”

Whenever I get up to speak at these kinds of events, I naturally imagine that my thoughts will be received with the kind of rapturous joy they deserve. Ahead of this event, my fantasy included the image of Amanda Ramsay in full Grecian toga, sprinkling rose petals in my path, as I stepped down from the podium to a roar of applause.

In fact my pitch provoked the question, “how will we afford it?” I had to patiently explain to these ignoramus’ that the £400 billion of quantitative easing was wasted on government bonds when it could have been spent of building schools and hospitals. We should be campaigning that future QE be spent on tangible investments in the real economy rather than delivered as helicopter cash to the banks and pension funds.

This policy response is difficult because people don’t understand where money comes from. Conversely, the Tory policy response is simple. Reduce the debt.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

A good day for Ed Miliband but the elephant is still in the room

14/02/2013, 01:44:26 PM

by Atul Hatwal

The roll-out of the 10p tax rate pledge was a reminder of how things should be done. Expectations were expertly managed in the run-up to the speech, the announcement was genuinely striking, and the government was caught on the hop. There was no abstract talk of responsible capitalism, no uncosted black holes opening up and the distinction with Gordon Brown’s tarnished brand was clear.

This was good economics and even better politics.

Yes, it might be better if the coverage 10p tax rate band was broader but it needs to be affordable and importantly this is a powerful signal of where the party stands.

The headlines tomorrow will be pleasing and the pressure is now on George Osborne to produce an equivalent rabbit out of his hat for next month’s budget. It’s the type of bold move by Labour that could force the chancellor into a rushed response that then unravels: “Pasty tax” redux.

But, and there is big but, as good as the delivery and content of today’s policy launch was, it doesn’t address the fundamental fear the British public have about Labour.

Earlier this week the Guardian’s ICM poll gave Labour a 12 point lead over the Tories, the biggest since May 2003. Yet, below the topline, was evidence of Labour’s lack of progress on the central issue of economic competence.

Asked to identify the main reason for our current economic problems, 29% opted for Labour’s “debts … racked up to finance unsustainable spending.” This is same as last May. In comparison 23% blamed government cuts and 21% bankers for failing to lend to business.

Labour’s problem with voter perceptions on the economy is often described in terms of the deficit, but this isn’t quite right. As far as the public are concerned, the deficit is the symptom, Labour’s spending is the problem.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

After Mid Staffs, Labour must be brave and take on the cult of the NHS

14/02/2013, 07:00:40 AM

by Peter Watt

Imagine for a minute if there was a terrible accident that claimed a hundred lives; it would dominate the news for weeks.  Or the outbreak of food poisoning caused by some poor hygiene in a major food distributor that made some people ill and perhaps a few poor vulnerable souls to die; it would be a huge story.  The horsemeat scandal has been front page news for days and it’s not (yet) a public health concern.  And yet 1200 people are allowed to die unnecessarily in a NHS hospital and no one seems to notice!  The Francis report into failings at the Mid Staffs hospital was news for a day – and on some outlets it didn’t even top the news schedule for the whole day.  Up to ten other hospitals are now being looked at as their mortality rates are worryingly high.  What is going on?

It really is bizarre; no matter how many times we read about those unable to help themselves being left in wet or soiled beds or left to starve in one of our hospitals it seems to make no difference.  There is an attitude about the NHS that makes it all but un-challengeable.  Politicians in particular are scared of the NHS.  The Tories decided to ring-fence the NHS budget when they were busy slashing virtually every other departmental budget so scared were they of being seen as anti-NHS.  Labour wraps itself in the NHS flag at every opportunity.  Labour politicians who’ve tried to tinker with it are castigated – Alan Milburn and John Reid still have the scars.  We say things like “the NHS is the envy of the world.”  And seem to actually believe it!  The truth is that virtually no other country has copied it as a model.

What is true is that many countries rightly envy the fact that we have universal free health care, they don’t though envy the way that we have chosen to deliver it.  Yes there are some incredible people working for the NHS that provide a great quality of care.  And yes, many of these people work hard and, often under great pressure care for patients with skill and compassion.  But every time anyone criticises the NHS as a model of health care delivery, people tell stories of amazing care and lives saved.  We remember the care that we had when we or a loved one needed it.  We remember that we, and our children were born in NHS hospitals and look with fear at the health care system in the States.  Those criticising are branded as anti-NHS and people back off.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Labour history uncut: How Uncle Arthur’s trip to Russia saved the Labour party

12/02/2013, 05:49:47 PM

by Pete Goddard and Atul Hatwal

Ramsay Macdonald was not happy.

Labour’s decision in January 1917 to remain in Lloyd George’s new coalition was unacceptable. For Macdonald, this was no government of national unity. Asquith’s retreat into opposition with the majority of the Liberals, meant Labour was now in alliance with a Tory government, with Lloyd George nothing more than a figleaf leader.

Macdonald would have never allowed something like that to happen to the Labour party on his watch. Oh no.

For their part, the Tories weren’t mad keen on Ramsay Macdonald and his various anti-war groups either. The fall of the Russian Tsar in March 1917 had stoked Tory fears of the lower orders getting uppity, while a major bout of industrial unrest in May convinced many that a revolution was coming.

In their view, Macdonald was the archetypal leader of the malcontented masses. Celtic, working class, and not even a member of a golf club, for goodness sake. Admittedly, this last point wasn’t entirely his fault, since his local club had expelled him on account of of his opposition to the war. Then again, to lose a golf ball might be considered unlucky, but to lose a whole club looks like carelessness.

Lossiemouth Golf Club – no socialists, no pacifists, no dogs

Further anti-Macdonald feeling was stirred by Lord Milner, a Tory member of Lloyd George’s inner cabinet who had valuable experience of war, having helped start one in South Africa while he was high commissioner.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Paterson’s in the wrong department to wing it

12/02/2013, 11:33:32 AM

by Kevin Meagher

If there’s one thing that united Northern Ireland’s republicans and unionists alike, it was relief in seeing the back of Owen Paterson as secretary of state. His Tory grandee shtick didn’t play with either side, but it was more than his air of lofty patrician indifference, he was disliked because of his poor grasp of detail.

In that respect, he left the frying pan to jump headlong in to the fire. Reshuffled to Defra last September, Paterson is currently floundering, trying to respond to the corruption of our food-chain security which has seen horsemeat turn up, well, everywhere it shouldn’t; while Muslim prisoners have been eating non-Halal pasties. Further scandals are promised.

Paterson is suffereing because of two problems specific to Defra. The first is that the everyday substance of policy there is detailed, pernickety and hard to grasp. It favours clever, assiduous ministers like Michael Meacher or genuine enthusiasts like Elliot Morley with a personal interest in the department’s stock-in-trade. (He was a twitcher before, alas, serving a spell of bird). Assiduous and enthusiastic are not words to describe Paterson’s performance over the past couple of weeks.

The second is that the department is like a portmanteau case, opening out to include powerful vested interests. There’s quangos like the Environment Agency. The privatised water companies and their independent regulator, Ofwat. And the farming lobby. And the landowners. And the animal rights people. There are plenty of well-organised groups to fall out with and Paterson needs to do just that, firing a rocket at powerful food producers and retailers.

I remember asking a former boss of mine who had worked in the gas industry why the old department of energy was folded into the department of trade and industry. His answer? The department was simply a focal point for powerful corporates in the oil and gas industries who button-holed ministers with their own particular gripes. Better to have an energy minister in a department with a wider mandate to dilute their influence on policy.

So, too, it is with Defra. Amalgamating the old Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) with the Department of Environment after the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak simply aggregated-up the knotty issues and vocal lobbies.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon