In case you missed them, these were the best read pieces on Uncut in the last seven days:
Dan Hodges with his PMQs sketch and the confessions of a plotter
Atul Hatwal on the Tories and immigration
Nick Pearce on Ed Miliband and welfare reform
John Woodcock says: let the leader lead
Khan, Jowell and Murphy hope the government will do the right thing
… and we got to know Ivan Lewis a little better
Unison flexes its muscles
Britain’s biggest wave of industrial action since the 1926 general strike will be sparked by Government pension reforms, the largest public sector union’s leader has said. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, issued the warning as angry unions threatened to walk away from talks over plans to pay more for reduced entitlements. He told the Guardian newspaper: “It will be the biggest since the general strike. It won’t be the miners’ strike. We are going to win.” It comes after Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander told public sector workers it would be a “colossal mistake” to reject a deal that was the best they could hope for. Under the reforms, the general retirement age in the public sector will rise from 60 to 66, in line with the state pension. – Sky News
The leader of the largest public sector union promises to mount the most sustained campaign of industrial action the country has seen since the general strike of 1926, vowing not to back down until the government has dropped its controversial pension changes. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison – which has 1.4 million members employed by the state – described plans for waves of strike action, with public services shut down on a daily basis, rolling from one region to the next and from sector to sector. He said there was growing anger over a public sector pay freeze that could trigger more disputes further down the line and that the changes would unfairly penalise women, who form the majority of low-paid public sector workers. “It will be the biggest since the general strike. It won’t be the miners’ strike. We are going to win.” In an interview with the Guardian, Prentis – who also chairs the public sector group at the TUC – repeatedly insisted that he still hopes to negotiate a settlement with the government through talks that are currently under way. – the Guardian
They are still the nasty party
A Tory MP has sparked outrage after saying disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage. Right-winger Philip Davies said if employers had to pay the same wage they would always choose to hire an able-bodied job candidate over a disabled rival. The Shipley MP told the Commons yesterday: “People with a learning disability can’t be as productive in their work as somebody who hasn’t got a disability.” He added: “They (disabled people) accept an employer would take on a person without mental health problems if they were both having to be paid the same rate.” His comments came during the second reading debate of Tory Christopher Chope’s Employment Opportunities Bill, which opens up the possibility of workers “opting” to work for less than the £5.93 minimum wage. But Dame Anne Begg, chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “To suggest that disabled people should be treated as second class citizens is shocking and shows just what a warped world some Tories inhabit.” – Daily Mirror
Downing Street has moved to protect the Prime Minister from a torrent of criticism after a senior Conservative suggested that people with disabilities should be paid less than the minimum wage. Philip Davies, the MP for Shipley, claimed people with disabilities or mental health problems were at a disadvantage because they could not offer to work for less money. Relaxing the law would help some disabled people to compete more effectively for jobs in “the real world” in which they are “by definition” less productive than workers without disabilities, he claimed. The remarks stunned both Labour and Tory MPs and provoked a furious response from charities and equality campaigners, who condemned Mr Davies’s “insulting” suggestion as “absolutely outrageous”. During a Parliamentary debate, Mr Davies told MPs that the minimum wage of £5.93 per hour meant disabled people who wanted to work found the door being “closed in their face”. Richard Hawkes, Chief Executive of disability charity Scope, said Mr Davies had “got it seriously wrong”, adding: “We need to challenge employers’ prejudices – not pander to them.” The MP was also warned that he will be questioned over his remarks by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is conducting an inquiry into disability-related harassment. – Daily Telegraph
Waiting lists rocket
Longer waiting lists nail David Cameron’s lie that the NHS is safe in his Tory hands. Behind the bald Whitehall statistics are real people unnecessarily suffering for longer and, in some cases, probably dying. Over the past few weeks I’ve had to listen to the PM denying that waiting lists are rising. He can’t do that any more – although I wouldn’t put it past someone so slippery as him trying. The quack doctor in Downing Street deserves to pay a political price for his misdiagnosis and botched operations. I can’t pretend I’m surprised that he is dismantling the NHS as we know it. I wasn’t convinced five years ago when he declared: “The NHS is safe in my hands – of course it will be.” Tony Blair, he added, used one word three times to explain that education was his priority. Mr One Upmanship said he could better that: “I can do it in three letters – NHS.” Really, Prime Minister? You’ve an unhealthy way of proving that to those who rely on an NHS you’re harming. – Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror
Ed on the campaign trail again
Scots are feeling the pinch from “reckless” Conservative policies, according to Labour leader Ed Miliband. Mr Miliband joined candidate Iain McKenzie campaigning for the Westminster Inverclyde by-election seat yesterday. He said: “Iain McKenzie is a superb local candidate, a man who knows this community like the back of his hand because he has lived here all his life and fought for the area. People deserve well-paid, secure jobs, and Iain will work hard to make that happen for the communities he knows so well. But I know many families and pensioners here in Inverclyde are hurting, and hurting in the face of risky and unfair Tory cuts. We need a plan B on the economy to help people right across the country. There is now no coherent plan for growth. David Cameron’s plan to cut spending too far and too fast is a reckless gamble with people’s jobs and livelihoods, and it is making things worse, not better.” – the Scotsman
by Ian Lucas
Two pieces of excellent news for the UK automotive industry last week.
First, Nissan announced a £192 million investment to bring the Quashquai to the UK – building on the excellent relationship the British government has built up with the company over the years.
Second, BMW/Mini announced a £500 million investment, bringing its new mini to the UK – and David Cameron was keen to do the photo-op of the mini in Downing Street. Much better, David, is to visit the stunning Cowley plant. Here I was privileged to drive number 1.5 million of the mini production line away from the factory.
What is significant is that these two inward investors have kept faith with the UK automotive industry, and that that investment will now contribute to bringing down our budget deficit.
I believe a big part of the reason for that new investment was Labour’s support when the post 2008 whirlwind hit the industry.
Labour’s 2009 car scrappage scheme was one of the most successful interventions in industry in recent history. Initially using £300 million of public money, it fuelled demand when the car industry was flat on its back. Companies like Nissan and BMW/Mini pressed hard for the introduction of the scheme and the Labour government responded.
It was a massive success – devised quickly and administered smoothly, it preserved jobs in British manufacturing as well as in the important car retail sector. One of my first jobs on becoming automotive minister in June 2009 was to badger Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson to extend the scheme – pretty frightening when facing the worst world financial crisis since the 1930s.
It was quite a day when, at the 2009 Labour party conference, Peter announced the extension of the scheme.
And this support, along with Labour’s automotive council and the excellent UK collaboration between employers and unions, is the reason why we are so well-placed to compete today.
Part of the reason we have a budget deficit today is because of Labour’s investment in policies like the car scrappage scheme when we were in power.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats did not oppose the car scrappage scheme in opposition. The present government is better placed to reduce the deficit on the back of that investment made in 2009. It is only a shame that it was David Cameron at the wheel of the mini, reaping the political benefit, outside No. 10 last week.
Ian Lucas is Labour MP for Wrexham and a shadow business minster.
by Dan Hodges
Dateline: 13.9.2015
Report No.: 675/43/E
Subject: UN Subcommittee 4A, “Causes, Effects, Lessons of Zombie Outbreak, Westminster, London, United Kingdom, 1 April, 2012”
Status: Secretary General Clinton’s Eyes Only
This report follows conversations with British Labour party survivors of the Zombie infestation that struck the Westminster area of London on the above date. In all instances the names have been redacted to provide anonymity:
Witness A: “…in retrospect, they’d been in amongst us for months. People like Iain Duncan Smith, Frank Field and Mike Harris were the first to be infected. But by the time anyone noticed it was too late. Obviously, Norman Baker had been warning everybody since January. But no one took him seriously…”
Witness B: “…who knows if we’ll ever find the specific cause. All we do know is that after the cuts we were totally unprepared. No army. No police. No health infrastructure. When David Cameron appeared on telly and said Andrew Lansley guaranteed a cure within in 24 hours, that’s when the panic really set it in. I’ll never forget the sight of Osborne being dragged off the treasury steps by that Zombie mob shouting “there is no plan B”. Just terrible…”
by Atul Hatwal
There it is again.
That faint squeal of tyres and slight waft of burning rubber – the hallmarks of a minister struggling to keep their policy on the road.
And now we wait for the noise to get louder, the smell more pungent, until the minister gives-in to the sliding chaos of another U-turn.
The latest threat to political pedestrians maybe a little while before it careens across the news pages, but it’s only a matter of time.
The Tory migration cap might get re-branded, re-engineered into a broad range of metrics and turned into an elasticated party hat, but the target of net migration in “the tens of thousands”, will ultimately go the same way as the NHS reforms, forest privatisation and weekly bin collections.
So far, Theresa May has been one of the quiet successes in the government, escaping relatively lightly in the gaffe stakes. She’s remained safe largely by moving slowly and not trying to reform every single piece of departmental policy within 10 minutes of arriving.
But with the migration cap, May has one of those too-good-to-be-true policies. A Jimmy Choo initiative that looked so alluring in the manifesto shop window that the Tories had to have it. But now, in government, somehow the shoe doesn’t fit, no matter what May does.
This week saw the first signs of the U-turn to come.
On Tuesday, the home secretary announced that the net numbers of foreign students in the UK would be reduced by 52,000 per year. On the face of it a major cut and a big step towards achieving the government’s target.
Except that in March, the reduction was going to be 100,000 per year.
Pension decision due
Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, tells millions of trade union members that only by agreeing to the Coalition’s new terms will they be able to keep “the best pensions available”. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, he warns that opposition to the change – that will require many in the public sector to work longer and pay more into their retirement funds – will mean a worse deal in future. “The history of reform is littered with examples of people simply denying the facts,” he writes. “Eventually reality bites. And when it does, change is urgent and uncompromising.” The Government’s offer, he says, is “by far the best that is likely to be on the table for years to come”. It will still leave them with retirement deals that are more generous and more certain than most in the private sector, he says. – Daily Telegraph
The government is to spare the lowest paid public servants from the worst of the increases in their pension contributions in a rush to avoid a mass opt-out. But the decision to protect people earning up to £18,000 from the average increase of 3.2% of their salary, made after warnings that the pension reforms could price some people out of saving for their future altogether, will mean the higher paid will pay up to 5% more. Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, will set out details of the plans to increase 6 million public sector workers’ pension payments, and will attack union leaders who have announced a joint strike on 30 June. Alexander will announce that workers earning less than £15,000 will be spared any increase and those earning less than £18,000 will have their contributions capped at 1.5%. The increases will be phased in over three years from next April to lessen the blow. Teachers, medics and local government managers could face a doubling in their contributions from next April. – the Guardian
The Falklands is an issue again
The Argentinian president has criticised David Cameron for insisting the Falkland Islands should remain a British territory. Cristina Kirchner described the prime minister as “arrogant” and said his comments were an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity”. Cameron had been prompted by Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell during prime minister’s questions to remind Barack Obama that the British government would not accept any kind of negotiations over the south Atlantic islands, which Argentina and Britain fought a 10-week war over in 1982. Cameron told the Commons: “I would say this: as long as the Falkland Islands want to be sovereign British territory, they should remain sovereign British territory – full stop, end of story.” In her criticism of his comments, Kirchner said that Britain “continues to be a crude colonial power in decline”. She has insisted that the two countries should negotiate over the islands, which have been a British territory since 1833. The 1982 conflict cost the lives of 649 Argentinian and 255 British troops. – the Guardian
Clegg in electoral scrap
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg Thursday shrugged off the drubbing his party has received since joining the Conservatives in government, and said the British tradition of two-party politics was over. The Lib Dems have been battered by accusations they have compromised their principles to join the Conservatives in power after last year’s general election, and Clegg in particular has seen his star plummet in opinion polls. The deputy prime minister has been excoriated for going back on his election pledge to abolish university tuition fees, one of several compromises he says were necessary to achieve the coalition’s aim of eliminating Britain’s budget deficit. The coalition has made eliminating the deficit, which had topped 10 percent of national output, by the end of the current of the current parliament in 2015 a key pledge, and Clegg said his party would be rewarded in future. – Reuters
Many angry ex-Liberal Democrat voters in the North will not return to supporting the party, Mr Clegg admitted. The deputy prime minister acknowledged that some voters were so disillusioned – over the decision to enter coalition with the Conservatives – that his party had lost them for good. That collapse in support has been most severe in Northern areas such as Liverpool, where lingering anti-Tory sentiment is most common. But Mr Clegg insisted his party would still be a fighting force at the 2015 election, vowing: “I think we are going to have to get used to coalition.” He said: “Of course some people who used to vote for us absolutely hate the fact that we are in coalition with the Conservatives. As, by the way, if we had gone into coalition with Labour, a whole lot of people who had voted for us would absolutely hate that we had gone into coalition with Labour. “Of course. these people have peeled away – and many of them might not come back.” However, Mr Clegg said he was “relishing” the chance to present his party as one that had helped rescue Britain from economic disaster. – Liverpool Daily Post
Brothers partying together, whatever next…
The nation’s most visible sibling rivalry drifted into public view when Ed and David Miliband were seen together at a party. The brothers joined guests at a pub in Pimlico, central London, to celebrate a friend’s birthday. They have rarely been seen together since Ed unexpectedly pipped his older brother to the Labour party’s top job last year. Their joint appearance seemed designed to scotch rumours that David might try to oust his sibling, who has put in a poor political performance in recent weeks. A party source insisted the pair remained ‘brothers first and politicians second’. Speculation of a continuing rift between the brothers was fuelled at the weekend by claims in an unauthorised biography that the pair were barely on speaking terms. The rift allegations came amid reports of unrest among Labour MPs about Ed Miliband’s performance, which he has dismissed as ‘Westminster tittle tattle’. – Daily Mail
This week shadow culture secretary Ivan Lewis takes the Uncut hot seat
What was the last film you saw in the cinema?
The King’s Speech.
What was the last piece of music you bought?
Taylor Swift – Speak now – Came highly recommended by my 14 year old son.
What is the best thing about being British?
The NHS which is unique and should never be taken for granted.
Which current non-Labour MP to you most admire and why?
Norman Lamb – Because before the last general election unlike Andrew Lansley he was genuinely willing to seek a consensus on the future of social care.
Do you believe that the message of socialism alleviating inequality will be heard in our lifetime?
It is heard by many in the world but the challenge is for us to use language and adopt policies which persuade the majority that it is not only morally right but in all of our interests.
What is your most irrational fear?
Eating an olive!
What is your favourite meal to cook yourself?
Ivan Lewis. Epicurean.
Parsnip soup and bagels with red Leicester cheese and sweet and sour pickled cucumbers. Sad but true.
Which labour politician, living or dead, do you most admire?
Alan Johnson (very much alive!) – A remarkable life’s journey – and no I am not after any of the royalties from his book…
Is it wrong to hate tories?
Yes, because hate is a word to be used sparingly if at all. But also we need to win back many people who voted Tory at the last election if we are to form a Government in the future.
by Peter Watt
This week is “carers week“, when the fantastic contribution and role played by the millions of carers in the UK is celebrated. It is all very big, or even good, society. The numbers of those with a caring role is on the increase. But there is one particular group of carers whose numbers are increasing fast, and that is older carers who care for very old relatives. The reasons for the increase are clear. According to the ONS, the fastest population increase has been in the number of those aged 85 and over, the “oldest old”. In 1984, there were around 660,000 people in the UK aged 85 and over. Since then the numbers have more than doubled reaching 1.4 million in 2009. By 2034 the number of people aged 85 and over is projected to be 2.5 times larger than in 2009, reaching 3.5 million and accounting for 5 per cent of the total population. This is, of course, a fantastic success story with people living longer and living healthier for longer. But it also means that there are many older people who are themselves caring for very old and frail relatives.
The statistics are not even half the story. Behind them are hundreds of thousands of human stories of love and care that are a source of pride and inspiration. But they should also be a source of shame that as a society we are still allowing people to struggle so appallingly. Take Mrs M who is 80 and cares for her husband, Mr M, who is 87.
They have been married for forty years and until Mr M was diagnosed with dementia 6 years ago they had plans to travel in their retirement. He was once a pre-eminent science lecturer and it has been difficult for Mrs M to adjust to the changes in Mr M’s behaviour. On top of all of this, Mrs M has arthritis and has been suffering from exhaustion due to her caring role. She loves her husband but is struggling to support him – she will not give in willingly though.
She is not alone in this. It has been reported that 75% of carers have suffered with health issues as a result of their caring role. Unfortunately, reductions in the budgets in Mrs M’s London borough mean that her husband has had his needs reassessed by the local authority. Because it is not seen as a “critical” need to go to a day centre, Mr M will no longer have his one day a week outing. This break gave Mrs M three hours of time to take care of paper work, do the shop, and possibly attend GP appointments for her arthritis.
The problem is that Mrs M’s own health is deteriorating because of her arthritis and the decreasing amount of support she gets from her local council. Losing just three hours a week in respite means that pretty soon Mrs M won’t be able to take care of her own needs. This could, and in fact often does, lead to a crisis where two people end up very ill and without support.
If Mrs M couldn’t care for her husband, then the state would have to step in. And that costs. In fact, the replacement value of a carer is £18 an hour. With an estimated 6,440,713 carers in the UK, people like Mrs M, pound for pound, save the UK economy £119 billion per year by caring for a partner or family member. Even if Mrs M only cared for her husband five hours a day, instead of her usual 12 (including being woken up each night), she would have saved the economy £32,850.00 a year. That is for five hours a day. The fact is, most carers report that they care for someone for over 50 hours a week, saving the economy, on average, £52,560.00 a year per carer.
According to carers week:
So carers are a massive and undervalued resource. They save us all money and provide the ultimate welfare state to their loved ones. Successive governments’ track record in supporting this group is pretty poor – none of us has much to be proud of. But as we look at making savings in the public purse, we should take care that we don’t make the situation even more difficult. The long term cost to the taxpayer would be much more than the savings. The human cost would be incalculable.
Remember that in the future Mr and Mrs M could be you.
Peter Watt is the chief executive of counsel and care, a national charity supporting older people, their family and carers. He is also former general secretary of the Labour party.
Balls warns Osborne of “permanent dent”
George Osborne will create a “permanent dent” in the British economy by pressing ahead with a damaging fiscal deficit reduction plan that will do little to promote economic growth, Ed Balls will warn on Thursday. Britain’s slow economic recovery risks leaving Britain £58bn worse off by 2015 at a cost of £3,300 to every family, the shadow chancellor will say as he points out that Britain is struggling behind the US, France and Germany. This will happen if the economy continues to grow at its current rate of 0.5 percentage points below trend in every year for the rest of this parliament. In a speech at the London School of Economics, Balls will say that Osborne’s plan to eliminate the structural deficit over the course of this parliament poses a major risk to Britain’s economic recovery by failing to encourage growth. – the Guardian
Milburn: health reforms are car crash
The Government’s health reforms are the biggest car crash in NHS history. From the outset they were devoid of advocacy and advocates. The screech of skidding tyres has been audible for months. This week, with the publication of the NHS Future Forum report and the Government’s response, the stench of a sharp U-turn has become overpowering. It leaves both health policy and British politics in a very different place. The temptation to elevate short-term politics above long-term policy proved too much for both David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Cameron has returned to his original strategy of playing safe on the NHS in order to decontaminate the Tory brand. A combination of his own neglect and his Health Secretary’s foolish bout of policy-wonking had put that at risk. It had managed to conflate in the public mind precisely the four words Cameron was desperate to avoid – cuts, privatisation, health and Tory. Clegg has had a different motive: to differentiate his Liberal Democrats from their Conservative Coalition partners by saving the NHS from “Tory privatisers”. Many in both camps inside the Coalition consider the U-turn a triumph. But it has the makings of a policy disaster for the health service and, maybe in time, a political disaster for the Government. – the Telegraph
Northern Rock to be sold?
George Osborne announced his intention to sell Northern Rock to a single bidder tonight, calling it “a sign of confidence in the industry”. But former Chancellor and architect of the bank’s public takeover Alistair Darling said he was “surprised” at the timing of the sale. “I’m slightly surprised at the Government putting northern rock on the market now. They’ve got to justify whatever price they can get for it. I was always clear that at the end of the day the taxpayer would get its money back. We need to make sure that happens.”- Politics Home
The nasty party strike again
No one believes you can raise a child decently on £3 a day, and yet the House of Commons today passed a law that will impose that hardship on youngsters across much of the south of England. This prospect flows from a crude £26,000 cap being applied to all of a family’s annual benefits, which will bite hard wherever households are large and rents are high. Designed to win George Osborne Tory conference cheers and tabloid plaudits, it achieved both these things before anyone had bothered to think it through. The rhetorical logic is ensuring that benefits should never exceed typical pay, and this line has been parroted in the Sun. But there is no real logic, since the whole argument rests on wilful misunderstanding. For one thing, the policy deliberately confuses average individual pay with family income. Only a truly nasty party would want to visit the sins of the fathers and mothers it deems to have too many children on the children themselves. Yet, by ignoring the number of mouths that a family has to feed, the cap does precisely that. – the Guardian
Tony’s Tories
For David Cameron there is a much more significant alliance than the one with Nick Clegg, a coming together that has defined his leadership from the beginning and will do so until the end. The alliance is not formal and never will be, but it is at the heart of his project as leader in a way the Liberal Democrats are not. I am referring to the informal alliance between Cameron and Tony Blair, one that extends to some of those who worked closely on policy with the former Labour prime minister. The partnership started when Cameron as the new Conservative leader supported Blair’s school reforms in 2006. Cameron went on to make the mischievous yet sincere observation that the Labour leader evidently wanted to go further and would do so if it were not for his wretched party and chancellor. The heir to Blair assured him that he would carry on with the reforms when he won a general election. He has done so. The rapport goes well beyond two leaders. The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, a close ally of Cameron’s, describes himself without irony as a Blairite. Famously he and others at the top of the Conservative Party regard Blair’s memoirs as the equivalent of the Bible. Blair reciprocates – the Independent
by Tessa Jowell, Sadiq Khan and Jim Murphy
When the government does the right thing it is important that we support it, basing our judgement at all times on actions and not words. We are dismayed at the government’s decision, announced yesterday, to abolish the chief coroner’s office (CCO), a decision with damaging consequences for ordinary people up and down the country. We hope the government’s new-found capacity to listen will soon again be on show.
Legislation in 2009 received cross-party support in establishing a CCO, seeking to deal with some of the difficult issues that arise from complex fatalities through a system based on independent expertise. Tragically, it’s often military inquests which require such a service and this is therefore an issue close to the heart of many bereaved military families. But it’s not just families of military personnel who suddenly suffer tragedy that brings them into contact with the coronial system. Abolition of the CCO is opposed by various charities and organisations including CRY (cardiac risk in the young), which supports bereaved families who have lost loved ones suddenly through undetected cardiac problems. Sue Ainsworth, whose son Jonathan tragically died suddenly at the age of 21 last year, has joined CRY in calling for the creation of the CCO, following failings in the inquest held into Jonathan’s death. Sue said:
“Currently, the coroner is not answerable to anybody so if there’s any delays, and any inequalities in the system, you have not got any comeback at all”.
The job of a chief coroner is to ensure that families and friends of all victims are sufficiently involved in the coroner’s investigation; improve training; add quality controls and independent safeguards on inquests; and add consistency of oversight, leadership, independence and expertise to the coroners who are dealing with military inquests.
Establishing such a system is a central obligation under the military covenant, the bond between the nation, the state and the services which says that no member of the service community, including dependents, should suffer disadvantage arising from service and that special provision should at times be made to reflect their sacrifices. That is why, in government, we legislated for a coroner’s office. Scrapping it undermines the covenant which the government claim to want to uphold. Indeed, the Royal British Legion has called this act “a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families and threatens the military covenant.” Read the rest of this entry »
