Uncut « Labour Uncut

Tories reap the credit for Labour’s automotive success

17/06/2011, 03:30:09 PM

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.

Posted in Uncut | No Comments »

Better Ed than Zed

17/06/2011, 12:00:56 PM

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…”

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 4 Comments »

The next Tory U-turn: immigration

17/06/2011, 08:09:09 AM

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.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 1 Comment »

Supporting carers is not just right, it’s rational

16/06/2011, 07:28:46 AM

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:

76% of carers are worse off financially since taking on their caring responsibilities;
75% of carers have suffered with health issues as a result of caring;
49% of carers have a disability, condition or illness themselves;
48% have been a carer for more than 10 years;
78% are female.

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.

Posted in Uncut | 13 Comments »

A chance to do the right thing

15/06/2011, 03:30:04 PM

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.” (more…)

Posted in Uncut | 1 Comment »

Commons sketch: PMQs

15/06/2011, 02:00:47 PM

by Dan Hodges

Ed Miliband arrived at PMQs with his leadership in crisis, his party in despair and his political fortunes at such a low ebb even his brother had been forced to leap to his defence. Poor David Cameron. He didn’t have a prayer.

It started well enough. He’d read Ed Miliband’s grafter’s speech. Graft? He’d show Ed Miliband and those feckless malingers how to graft. “Welfare costs are out of control”, he told Margot James. And he was going to put things right. There was a bill going through Parliament that very night that was going to take those work shy idlers and get them back down the chimneys were they belonged. Oh yes.

Ed Miliband rose. There was a huge cheer, from both Labour and Tory benches. The Labour benches prevailed. “He’s our leader”, they were saying. “How dare you attack him. That’s our job”.

For one heart-stopping moment, Ed paused. Had he finally cracked? Was this the end? “Screw it. David, you’re on”.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 5 Comments »

Labour’s faerie weekend

15/06/2011, 01:16:55 PM

by Rob Marchant

It was a strange Midsummer Night’s Dream weekend. There seemed to be dark shadows of plots in every corner. The “Balls papers” of leaked memos reminded us that no-one plots quite like the Brownites; the ghost of David Miliband’s never-uttered leadership acceptance speech was rather unhelpfully leaked to the press, neatly exhuming the Miliband-fratricide stories. And the Labour body politic ended up starting the week a little jittery.

So jittery, in fact, that by Tuesday, and after Ed Miliband had made rather a good fist of pulling it all back together, our esteemed Uncut columnist, Dan Hodges, was still being accused of disloyalty for complimenting the party leader (work that one out if you will). I put it down to the faeries.

But through all this night gloom, we started to see some solid rays of realism gleaming through, in Ed’s Monday speech to the Coin Street neighbourhood centre in London. He even managed, with some success, to put down Sky’s John Craig for asking stupid questions.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 10 Comments »

The dawn of hope?

14/06/2011, 04:09:12 PM

?by Nick Pearce

Ed Miliband used his speech yesterday to bring the contributory principle back into the heart of Labour thinking on welfare reform, which got Frank Field and Labour bloggers very excited.

Although the Labour leader didn’t mention it, it was fitting that he referred to the principle of contribution this year, since 2011 is the centenary of the great 1911 national insurance act, which brought in unemployment and sickness insurance (those were the days when a progressive alliance really did achieve bold reforms).

It is less clear, however, that the contributory principle can really serve to underpin a modernisation of the welfare state for the twenty first century. It only now covers around 10% of working age benefits, and it is being scaled back further under the government’s plans to cut employment support allowance.

Where it still has real purchase is in respect of the basic state pension, for which the earnings link has been restored. But even here fairness and equality for women have demanded an extension of the notion of contribution to cover caring activities, as well as work (while the government plans a single-tier flat rate state pension for which a contributory record would not strictly be necessary).

Moreover, it is not possible simply to withdraw public services or benefits for people who are in need. Children must be housed and educated, whatever their parents have done. Article 3 of the human rights act also places a floor under the welfare state, preventing people from suffering humiliating and degrading treatment through destitution.

Nonetheless, reciprocity is vital to public support for the welfare state and the strength of community solidarity. So Labour is not on the wrong track. But it needs to think about the notion of contribution in broader terms: not just to embrace caring and community activities, but to mean reciprocity across a range of services and entitlements, whether funded by general taxation, National insurance or hybrid state-private insurance policies. Social housing is an obvious candidate for reform in these terms, as Miliband intimated (although need as well as contribution must figure in social housing policy, and the supply of housing must be expanded regardless). Post-Dilnot, social care could become another. Other services – such as childcare – can be seen as part of the social contract, even if earned entitlement does not mediate access to them; after all, the NHS is hugely popular precisely because it guarantees universal access based on need, not worth or desert.

By talking about responsibility from top-to-bottom of society, Miliband has also refused to allow this debate to be focused on the poorest alone. While right-wing think-tanks and others want social justice to be reduced to what happens to an “underclass”, Labour’s leader is keeping the whole of society in view (on which I have more to say in the forthcoming edition of IPPR’s house journal). Quite right.

Nick Pearce is director of IPPR.

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »

Too many coups spoil the plot

14/06/2011, 08:13:16 AM

by Dan Hodges

As no one in the Labour party appears willing to admit their part in the plot to bring down Tony Blair, I’ll cough. I was up to my neck in it.

I briefed and span. Placed stories. Sowed seeds of confusion and dissent.

Ed Balls says he wasn’t involved. Fair enough. He was the only person outside Downing Street who wasn’t.

Westminster in the months after the 2005 election was like a murder mystery party at the Borgias. Febrile doesn’t come close. No one spoke above a whisper. A discreet alcove couldn’t be had for love nor money. I attended a friend’s marriage and an MP I’d been conspiring with was so terrified of being photographed next to me that he sprinted to the other end of the wedding line.

The Telegraph got excited about some scrawled notes and polling. They’d have had an embolism over the spread sheet that was floating around laying out a provisional “transition timetable” with a series of colour coded “waypoints” that need to be passed in order for Gordon Brown to become prime minister before the 2010 election. Or the breakdown of every Labour MP, identifying their perceived level of support or opposition, graded on a sliding scale. 1 was ultra loyal to Gordon. Tony Blair was a 5.

The catalyst for the final move against Blair was an interview Blair gave to the Times around the end of August, effectively claiming that Blair intended to “go on and on”. I remember because I was in the Rivington Grill in Greenwich (highly recommended), when my mobile went off, and a co-conspirator asked me to start tipping off hacks.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 14 Comments »

Let’s capitalise on Tory twitching on the economy

13/06/2011, 01:00:05 PM

by Jonathan Todd

Public debt, said to be the consequence of Labour largesse, is the problem for the governing parties, and aggressive cutting the medicine. Labour contends that this remedy is too tough to close the deficit. As we recover from a global shock of 1929 proportions, slower cuts are required for strong enough growth to generate the tax revenues needed to achieve deficit closure. Lack of growth, as well as the deficit, is the problem targeted by Labour.

Are these well-established positions shifting?

Not as far as Labour is concerned. Some twitching can, however, be detected on the government side.

First, John Redwood wants an improved growth strategy. This is echoed by Liberal Democrat Mark Littlewood. This doesn’t mean the Tories and Liberal Democrats are about to concede, as Labour has protested, that they have no growth strategy. Since the formation of the government they have argued that the deficit needs to be addressed to retain the favour of bond markets and so control upward pressure on interest rates. They prefer this monetary stimulus to greater fiscal support. Yet the comments of Redwood and Littlewood are not insignificant. They acknowledge that the resources of the shrunken state could better target growth.

(more…)

Posted in Uncut | 3 Comments »