NASTY PARTY STRIKES AGAIN

Here we go again.  The Tories have managed to spend the last five years rewriting history concerning the economy, successfully as it turned out.  People believed them.  Now they are trying to convince the British public that the majority of this country’s ills can be laid at the door of the Trades Unions.

The Cameron Government is attempting to interfere with the right to strike by demanding that 40% of eligible Union members vote before strike action is legal.  You might be forgiven for thinking that this rule was across the board, that 40% of people would need to participate in elections for, say Police and Crime Commissioners in order to legitimise them.  But no.  The new laws will only refer to strike ballots.  

Business Secretary Sajid Javid (elected by 38.3% of those eligible to vote in his constituency) said that the Tories would not “hide away from the changes we want to make”.  The key word there is “want”.  Not “need”, but want.  Despite there being no necessity for this legislation, the Tories want to introduce it, showing once again that they are driven by ideology and a desire to take away working people’s rights.

In 2012, elections were held for Police and Crime Commissioners, a pet Tory project which few saw a need for.  Total turnout was 15.1% of the electorate.  Not 50%, not even 25%, but 15.1%.  As he has made no move towards annulling these elections, one can only assume that David Cameron (first elected to Parliament with just under 30% of the eligible vote) feels that they are legitimate.  What is good for the Trades Unions should surely be good for Javid, Cameron and Police and Crime Commissioners.

Restricting the right of people to withdraw their labour is an attack on freedom.  We saw the Conservative attitude towards working people in the last Parliament when they increased the amount of time someone had to be employed before being considered unfairly dismissed from one to two years.  An opt-out from the Working Time Directive has put pressure on the lowest paid workers to accept any hours that are offered.  Zero hours contracts force them even further into the corner.  Agencies give the work to those who have signed the opt-out with little regard for anything else.

The Trade Union Bill is a pernicious attack on people’s rights.  Cameron and co will dress it up as assisting the economy, smoothing relations.  If he was serious about that, he’d make negotiation easier and make industrial relations smoother, but instead we have yet another attack on working people.  It’s time to draw the line.

Devolving and evolving hand in hand

The utter depression of the 2015 election results will stay with those of us on the left for a long time.  The thick grey cloud of Conservative Britain depressed us all in 1987 as well as in 1992.  It looks like enveloping us all again.  A lot of soul searching will follow, with fingers being pointed and much vitriol being poured.  At the time of writing, Labour has yet to decide when it wants to elect its new leader, let alone who it wants to elect.  Post-mortems are being carried out on the campaign, on leadership and on the manifesto.  They will not come up with an agreed position.  The Labour Party rarely does.  It was once said about Yorkshire County Cricket Club that you couldn’t ask them who the Queen was without them holding a special conference, hiring Leeds Civic Hall and everyone falling out.  The Labour Party is not dissimilar.

Ed Miliband deserves some credit for keeping the show together after the 2010 defeat.  The bitter arguments were, on the whole, avoided and the finger pointing kept to a minimum.  That is not to say that we, as a party, didn’t indulge.  We did.  A seemingly interminable leadership contest led us to look inwards and allowed the Conservatives to set the narrative, one which stuck remorselessly throughout the five years of the Parliament.  Labour profligacy, rather than banking irresponsibility, caused the crash; Labour ‘maxed out’ the nation’s credit card.  Public spending had to be reined in.  This narrative continued right the way up to the close of the polls.  Michael Gove was still parroting it at gone ten o’clock.  By refusing to engage properly with the past we put our immediate future at risk.  Now it’s time to wrestle with the present in order to prevent us perishing in the future.

Britain is a more politically divided nation than ever.  London and the north of England voted Labour.  Scotland voted SNP.  The south and midlands of England voted Conservative.  Wales is still predominantly Labour, but, as Scotland shows, should not be taken for granted.  There will be a great deal of talk about how Britain is ‘broken’ or ‘fragmented’.  Few people will see the new political make up as an opportunity, but if we look hard enough, there is one there.

There is a great assumption that political parties need to be as one.  One policy, one ‘hymn sheet’, one voice across the UK.  However, if the UK is no longer a homogeneous unit, why should its political parties be?  Labour should devolve.  At the 2015 election it’s clear that we were too left wing for England but not left wing enough for Scotland.  Let that change.  Let the different wings of the party in different parts of the UK have true autonomy.  Let Carwyn Jones and Welsh Labour differ on tax and spend in Wales if they want to.  Let the Scottish party take on the SNP in the best way possible for them.  Don’t saddle campaigners with the kind of message they know will be unpopular in their area.  As long as our basic values remain the same, we should have the courage to adapt them to specific areas.  After all, the Tories have barely had representation in Scotland for two decade but that has not stopped them from imposing the bedroom tax, public spending cuts and other austerity measures there.  The reverse can also be true.  If the south of England wants a low tax, low spend Government, let them have it.  Labour, however, can now lead the charge to keep it away from the rest of us.

Opposition From Labour Is Long Overdue

The news that Usk Library in Monmouthshire has been earmarked for closure may not have set the political world alight, but the reaction to the news shows how political attitudes in this country have shifted.  It was once easy to guess where anyone would stand on an issue such as this: Conservatives would be sympathetic, but look at savings to tax payers; Liberals and their like would look at alternative ways of borrowing books; Labour would be up in arms about the idea of a municipal asset being taken away.

Sadly, this no longer seems to be the case.  It appears that the official Labour stance on the closure is to wring hands and point out that there are other priorities.  Really?  I don’t want to produce a league table of priorities and nor do I disagree that vulnerable people and health services need their budgets protecting.  What I object to is the view that libraries are an optional extra, the froth on the coffee of an affluent society.  Libraries have helped raise the literacy skills of families for generations, providing an almost endless source of reading material for families who perhaps cannot afford to purchase and keep huge numbers of books at home.  From the Fabian Society to the Workers Education Association, there has always been a strong belief in the Labour Party that education gives people an opportunity to better themselves and improve their situation.  To see libraries as anything other than a crucial part of the education process is just plain wrong.

 

Those who think that education is only something that happens inside schools are doing people a great disservice.  Reading sparks the imagination – how many of us have become interested in a subject and immediately wanted to find out more?  If only there was somewhere we could go to have easy access to published materials.  There’s also a strong link between reading and spelling.  If you see a word written correctly time and time again, the likelihood is that you will be able to spell it correctly, too.  Do we want to see this kind of self-betterment become an exclusive preserve of those who can afford it?  As for those who argue that the internet has supplanted the need for libraries, I have simply one word: Wikipedia.  Anyone can edit it.  I have an editing log in.  Would you trust me to write an unbiased account of Margaret Thatcher?

For Labour to argue that Usk Library is expendable is a dereliction of opposition.  Monmouthshire County Council, under the Conservatives, has one of the lowest Council Tax collection rates in the country.  The equivalent of one household in every street gets away without paying.  If the Council were willing to do their job properly, we could pay for Usk Library many times over.  The Conservatives and their Lib Dem partners (yes, we have them here too) have chosen to keep an estimated £5 million pounds in reserve.  They have chosen to freeze Council Tax.  They have written off thousands upon thousands of pounds in arrears.  A Council who chose to spend money sending staff on an away day to imagine what ‘ordinary’ council tax payers think (I would have knocked on doors and asked them) feels it is justified in taking away a crucial community resource.

Labour in Monmouthshire seems to be meekly accepting this closure and plenty of other cuts the Tories are proposing.  This is not a Labour opposition.  It is Labour acquiescence. It’s a municipal disgrace.

Unfairness Has A Home With The Tories

I recently wrote about the increasingly nasty tone of the present Government.  Events of recent weeks have shown no change in that tone – in fact it’s just about the only thing on which they’ve not performed a U-turn.

Leaving aside (for the moment) the disgraceful performance from Ian Duncan Smith in the Commons on Monday, the policies being pushed through at present represent little more than the indebted bully taking dinner money from the most vulnerable children in the playground in order to appease their friends.  Take, for instance, the ‘Spare Room Subsidy’, which everyone else refers to, quite rightly as a ‘Bedroom Tax’.  Essentially, anyone who claims housing benefit for Social Housing will have to pay extra if they have a spare room.  This, the arguments go, is to reduce under-occupancy.

According to the Government, there are a huge amount of social houses that have spare rooms and if the occupants of them claim Housing Benefit, they will have to pay more.  If they can’t afford it, they have to move to somewhere with fewer rooms.  It may have escaped the Tories notice that the Social Housing stock has decreased over the last generation, ever since the ‘Right to Buy’ was introduced by, erm, the Tories.

Of course, if you live in Social Housing and need to claim Housing Benefit, the chances of you having extra cash to pay this tax are fairly slim.  So you have to move.  Where to?  Well, not within the state sector, that’s for sure.  So you will have to go private.  And, of course, such restrictions are not being applied to private landlords.  If you claim housing benefit in the private sector, you can have as many spare rooms as you wish, which means a cut for money staying in the public sector, but plenty of money flowing from the public purse to private landlords.

You may think that this sounds crazy.  You would be right.  But it’s all part of this Government’s ploy to help those it likes at the expense of those it doesn’t.  It just so happens that those it likes are rich and those it doesn’t like are poor.  What else could possibly explain the Tories forthcoming tax cut for those earning millions at the same time as they introduce a real terms cut in maternity benefit?

The best way to tackle the huge housing benefit bill would be to introduce private sector rent controls.  The average rent has increased by over £100 a year in the last twelve months, and is now heading towards four figures.  Whether Housing Benefit contributes to this inflation, as the Government claims, is a moot point.  However, forcing people out of social housing and into the private rented sector is not going to cut the benefit bill.  All it will do is swell the pockets of private landlords at the public expense.

The idea of rent controls would have many on the Tory right in paroxysm of rage about interference in the market.  But the market is being interfered with anyway, just that it is the wealthy that benefit.  The playing field is not level; everything is weighted towards those who have. 

A last word for Mr Duncan Smith.  Calling people childish names, as you did in the Commons on Monday, says several things.  Firstly, it suggests that you have lost the argument.  Secondly, it shows a complete lack of gravitas.  Whether the behavior of others was bad is not the point.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  You are a Minister and should be setting an example.  Shame on you.

Facebook: LiamStubbsLabour
Twitter: @LiamStubbs
Email: LiamStubbsLabour@hotmail.co.uk

Basic Standards Would Be Right For Everyone

As a vegetarian, you might think I’m a bit insulated from the current storm over horsemeat.  I will admit that part of me wonders what all the fuss is about – you’re eating an animal, and in different parts of the world, different animals provide staple dishes.  It surely does not matter which animal you are eating, you are eating an animal.  After all, buy a ‘meat pastie’ or ‘meat pie’ in a bakers shop and you could literally be given anything.

But I am concerned.  I’m very concerned, not just about food, but all elements of the supply chain.  The scandal for me is not about horse v cow or horse v pig, but the incorrect labelling and the loss of control over what we are putting into our mouths.  Various investigations are being carried out which may lead to criminal prosecutions, but if anyone who thinks that will be the end of the story, they are sadly deluded.  The meat industry has passed responsibility for quality control further and further down the line, but they are not alone in that.  What we have seen in the last twenty or so years is a gradual erosion of industry, a haemorrhaging of influence and a rise in ignorance.

All industries have been effected by out-sourcing, not just the food sector.  Pottery which once carried the Stoke-on-Trent seal of approval is now manufactured in Indonesia.  Teesside and Sheffield now produce far less steel than their rivals in Malaysia and India, while the textile factories of Lancashire have been replaced by a label proclaiming ‘Made in China’.  It’s also a long time since a British Prime Minister has had to worry about what the miners might think.

How do we know what we are getting?  How can we guarantee the quality of our purchases?  More importantly, how can we be sure we are not contributing to sweat shop labour, child exploitation and modern day slavery?  The easy answer is that we can’t.  And it is the fault of all of us.

We all want bargains.  We want good quality produce but are not prepared to pay for it.  We want a Dyson vacuum cleaner at half the price it was 10 years ago.  And thanks to the decision to send production overseas, we can have just that.  Forget that the people producing a lot of products are working in conditions we would not accept, just look at the price.  Think about what else we can now afford.  Think about ourselves, not others.

We want more in our bank accounts and companies want more as well.  Bigger profits, higher salaries for executives and larger dividend payments to shareholders.  Let’s conveniently forget that this will ultimately rebound on us all – in the shape of more unemployment, higher benefit costs and, in the case of household names like Findus and Tesco, a suspicion that it doesn’t do what it says on the tin, or packet or bag.

It would be easy to shrug our shoulders, point the fingers at a few criminal gangs and settle down to Shergar & chips.  But if this is important to us, we should be pressing for change.  If companies could not exploit cheap labour overseas, they would be less likely to compete on cost, plumping instead for a pursuit of greater quality.  If workers in the developing world enjoyed the same employment rights we do here, they would be rewarded for their work, not exploited for their labour.  This may make companies think twice about outsourcing, perhaps leading to more jobs for the home market – reducing the benefit bill and making sure that more money was circulating round the economy, benefitting us all.

Globalisation has brought us many advantages.  But with it has come the shame of exploitation for our personal gain.  The campaign to encourage Fair Trade has reaped huge dividends for some in the developing world.  Now it’s time to go further and ensure that those who work in factories as well as farms avoid gross unfairness and enjoy basic rights.  In the long run, we will all benefit.

Half Way On The Road To Nowhere

Is there anyone left who seriously believes the Coalition Government? 

On Monday, David Cameron and Nick Clegg gave us their mid-term report, a staged PR stunt, designed to convince the world that they were on target to achieve everything they desired.  Taken at face value, this variously involved “cutting the deficit”, “getting the economy back on track” and “getting Britain working.”  By Tuesday night, it was clear that, with at least one ex-minister voting against the attempt to cut benefits from the country’s poorest, even its former members have ceased to take the Government seriously.

No matter how much Cameron and Clegg protest, the truth is very different from the image they like to portray.  The real terms cut in benefits harms ordinary families most.  Only 3% of all benefits go to the unemployed.  The majority of the cuts have fallen on ‘in work’ benefits, such as maternity and paternity pay, adoption pay and the child element of the Working Families Tax Credit.  According to the BBC (1), single parents are the group most affected by the cut.  This coming from the same Government who gave the richest 1% a huge tax cut in the ‘Omnishambles’ budget.

But it is not just the act of taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy that offends our sense of decency.  It’s the underhand way this Government has chosen to go about it.  Ian Duncan Smith was recently caught out by Channel 4’s ‘FactCheck’ (2) when an article he wrote for the Telegraph stretched the truth beyond credible boundaries.  Mr Duncan Smith was attempting to portray Tax Credits as frippery, an example of excess and a honey pot for foreign fraudsters.  Unfortunately for him, Channel 4 sought to verify his claims with his own department and discovered that his statements were at best exaggerated and at worst, downright lies.  More unfortunately for everyone is the fact that the mud has probably already stuck in the minds of the ordinary voters.  Those greedy working class families should not be pandered to in this way.  They should take home their poverty wages and be thankful, unlike the wealth creators whom we should be making even richer.

There is more than a faint whiff of Dickensian morality about the Coalition, reviving notions of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor, blaming working people for their own plight rather than tackling the real problems.  For instance, the Government has been very keen to cut the Housing Benefit bill.  I would be fully behind this if they approached it in an intelligent way.  Surely, with the economy heading for an almost unheard of triple-dip recession, it would make sense to prevent landlords exploiting the public purse by ratchetting up rents as much as they can?  But no – rent controls would interfere with the free market (the same one that is rigged to make sure that some businesses enjoy charitable status despite not being charities at all).  Blaming the poor for not being able to afford housing is much easier.  And if anyone should stick their noses in to complain, just follow the example of Ian Duncan Smith and make things up.

The Tax Credit system is also an area that needs to be looked at.  That so many people who go out to work are having their wages subsidised by the state is just plain wrong.  While I am in favour of the Government assisting small businesses create jobs, the fact that giants such as Tesco and McDonalds can pay their employees so little that the rest of us have to chip in to give them a decent wage is abhorrent.  Look at some of the profits announced by major companies in the last few recession-hit years and it becomes obvious that we are putting money straight into the pockets of the rich.

Maybe I’m being unfair.  Maybe the Coalition are achieving their goals and what I’ve described above is exactly what they want.  Perhaps they want to get the economy back on the sort of track that saw unemployment hit 3 million in the 1980’s.  Maybe Britain working for lower and lower wages is their ultimate aim.  So far, the Big Society is visible only in the increased use of food banks and charity hand outs.  For all the fanfare, after two and a half years, they have very little else to shout about.

(1)    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20950691

(2)http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-ids-tax-credit-claims-discredited/12160

Twitter - @LiamStubbs
Email - liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk

Campaign Update

It’s now just over a week until polling day.  In ten days time, we will see whether I have succeeded in my efforts to convince enough voters in Wyesham to choose me as their County Councillor.  The campaign has thrown up a lot of interesting issues and concerns, as well as presenting a lot of opportunities.

There is no doubt that people are angry.  They are angry with a Conservative government in London who are attacking the living standards of the poor and middle-earners in our communities; they are angry with Liberal Democrat yes men who are allowing them to get away with it.  They feel betrayed by a Government who said they had the country’s best interests at heart, but whose performance has shown that they are only prepared to help the richest in our society. 

People are also angry with the Conservatives at County level, too.  Voters are aware that Monmouthshire has the second lowest level of Council Tax collection in the whole of Wales.  They are sick of paying their bills, only to find that services are being cut because others don’t pay theirs.  And what is the Tory response to this?  Cut the number of staff working in the collection department.   People are angry at an administration that has taken Monmouthshire to second bottom position in the league for providing services; bottom of the league for paying bills to small businesses; sliding down the league for school attainment.

In the face of this, my message has been unremittingly positive.  People seem to be appreciating the simpler ideas that can make a difference.  I have recently become an Age Cymru Ambassador for Older People, committed to standing up for the charity’s three main principles; firstly, to protect frontline services, exactly what Labour have pledged to; secondly, ensuring that older people are safe in winter – chiming with my efforts to keep the police station in Monmouth from closing; thirdly, trying to make more public conveniences available for older people.  To this end, I’ve written to every cafe, restaurant and pub in Monmouth Town centre asking them to join me in opening up their facilities for older people to use.  I am yet to receive a response from any of them.  Those who eventually do respond will have their co-operation trumpeted loudly.  Ideas about calming traffic, opening up more opportunities for young people, allowing businesses and job seekers to advertise on the County Council’s web site, car-sharing schemes for commuters, all ideas that cost little or no money but that can make a big difference to people’s lives.

*                             *                             *                             *                             *                             *

As with any campaign, there have been humorous moments to remember.  I am indebted to Mrs P who answered my introduction with the words: “ooh, aren’t you handsome!”  There was the less witty man who tried to squeeze my hand so tightly that I would be injured and gain a sympathy vote (?).  Then there were the mother and son couple who remarked “He’s got it, ain’t he Mum?  He certainly has!” Whatever ‘it’ is!  I was also on the receiving end of a lovely compliment today, when a man told me that I was: “..the most impressive individual we’ve had round here at this election.”  The man had been canvassed by Monmouth’s M.P. a few days earlier!

The most amusing moment came with a great Tory ‘fail’.  Both myself and my opponent are saying that we would support local jobs.  I had my leaflets printed in Monmouth.  Hers were printed in Cardiff.  I think that says all we need to know!

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk

Twitter - @LiamStubbs

Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour

Published and Promoted by Gwyneth Marsden on behalf of Liam Stubbs, both at 37 Elstob Way, Monmouth, NP25 5ET

I'm standing - and standing up for Monmouthshire

Regular readers may note something new at the bottom of this page.  It's known as an 'imprint' and it's a legal requirement for all election candidates to carry.  Everything I write and distribute between now and May 3rd is technically published and promoted by my electoral agent, Gwyneth Marsden.  If I don't carry the imprint, one or both of us could end up in prison!  The only complaint from Gwyneth, who is also agent to two other candidates, is that it looks as though we all live in the same house!

I'm standing for election to Monmouthshire County Council, as the Labour candidate in the Wyesham Ward.  So why am I standing?  Well, for the last 8 years, Monmouthshire has had a Conservative authority and it shows.  Problems are mounting up and priorities are all wrong.  Last year the Tories managed to bank £1.5 million in surplus yet cut services to the most vulnerable in our society.  Something has to change.

Unemployment is rising, particularly among women, yet the Tories attitude is to close their eyes and pretend it is not happening.  We need to support small and medium businesses, the type of business that will engineer economic growth.  How?  Well, we can make a start by letting them use the council website to advertise job vacancies, saving them a lot of money.  Better still, lets have a section where people looking for jobs can upload their cv's, creating an instant skills match.  We currently have to wade through pages and pages of self-congratulatory PR before we get to anything useful on the site. 

I want to see a local 'kitemark' for businesses, rewarding those who help the local community, have good employee relations and reach their recycling rates.  These businesses should be rewarded by being allowed to use council sites for free advertising, be invited to showcase at public functions and helped to reach their target audiences.  At the moment, unscrupulous companies fly post and nothing is done about it.  Why are our good companies being put at a disadvantage?

Monmouthshire has one of the worst records for paying it's bills.  This acts as a death sentence to some small scale suppliers.  Labour will guarantee all bills are paid within 30 working days.

The Conservatives are letting pensioners down hugely.  My last blog spoke of the appalling way they have been forced to pay for the tax cut to millionaires.  Simple things can make lives a lot better.  Labour in the Welsh Assembly is working with Age Cymru to enable businesses to open their toilet facilities for senior citizens use.  There has been no movement on this in Monmouth.  I aim to persuade EVERY pub and cafe in town to display a sign welcoming older people to use their facilities.  Simple things to make people's lives easier.

Monmouthshire's secondary schools have been allowed to slip down the Welsh league tables, despite having some of the most talented teachers and students in the country.  The news drew a stunningly flippant and complacent response from the Councillor responsible for schools.  This reprehensible situation needs to change.  The £1.5 million surplus that the council banked last year should be put to use repairing our battered school buildings and employ more Learning Mentors and Teaching Assistants, taking the pressure off teachers and giving our children more one-to-one support.

As a rural county, Monmouthshire has transport issues.  The night-time economy suffers greatly from the lack of public transport between the towns.  I want to look at new ways of funding buses, to encourage people to travel between the likes of Chepstow, Monmouth and Abergavenny, bringing extra custom to pubs, restaurants and theatres.  A night bus service will cut the temptation to drink and drive and end the ridiculous situation of no evening public transport.

Under the Conservatives, Monmouthshire has sunk to second bottom of the league for Council Tax collection.  Honest families who work hard and pay their bills are being forced to watch others get away with it because of the Tories shocking level of incompetence.  Under Labour, this will change.  No longer will people have to see their services suffer because of this poor leadership.  The 'Can't Collect, Won't Pay' days will be over.

Monmouth is a county with massive potential, currently being let down by its leadership.  After eight years, all the Conservatives can boast is that Council Tax will not rise this year.  It's time for a change.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk

Twitter - @LiamStubbs

Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour



Published and Promoted by Gwyneth Marsden on behalf of Liam Stubbs, both at 37 Elstob Way, Monmouth, NP25 5ET

New thinking is unfair on the old

Last week’s budget contained few surprises as most of the measures had been loudly trailed in advance.  George Osborne did manage to offend the nation’s pensioners by freezing and cutting their personal tax allowances, a dangerous thing to do given the numbers in which they cast their votes.  As Steve Richards of The Independent tweeted: “I have always struggled to see why George Osborne is seen as a strategic genius. I struggle a little more after today's budget.”

Once the enormity of his error hit home, the Conservative community set out on a damage limitation exercise designed to help the Chancellor down from his self-constructed gallows.  At first, the spin tried to make out that it didn’t matter too much, that pensioners were being compensated in other ways.  Pensions were due to rise in April, so most pensioners would not be worse off.  When that argument failed to stand up to scrutiny, a far more sinister approach was adopted.

Apparently, we want all sectors of the community to feel the pain during these austere times.  Pensioners, we were told, have got off lightly so far.  If you’re not convinced about that, just take a look at what they have had in their lives.  They got the best of the NHS, of social services, of community housing before social dumping and the right to buy turned estates into ghettoes.  They were around during full employment, their savings were protected by high interest rates, they bought houses on the cheap and sold them for a fortune, retiring early on their final salary pensions and living the life of Riley.  All of which, of course, is complete claptrap.

Today’s older pensioners returned from the beaches of Normandy or left their ordinance factories determined to create something better.  Before they could benefit from the NHS, they had to build it in the first place.  They worked the long hours needed to establish social services, to create the industries the country needed to recover, paid the taxes to support universal education.  They paid National Insurance all through their lives, had a level of expendable income that most people would baulk at now.  Those who retired more recently blazed the trail through the sixties and seventies, taking risks and challenging orthodoxy, winning the freedoms we take for granted today.

Even worse, it is these very people that are supporting others now.  Many families are so hard pressed, they are relying on the older generation to help them out.  Families who are lucky enough to have two incomes often rely on Grandparents as their major source of childcare – often unpaid – to allow them to make ends meet.

Now that it is no longer possible to turn people against each other on the grounds of race or gender, those who frequent the gutter of British politics encourage us to feel bitterness towards an older generation for being fortunate enough to have lived most of their lives in different economic circumstances.  Pensioners, the line goes, should be made to pay.

In other news, Barclays Bank Chief Executive Bob Diamond is estimated to have received a tax cut in the region of £1.24 million thanks to last week’s budget.  “And I think to myself, what a wonderful world”.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk

Twitter - @LiamStubbs

Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour

National pay a necessity for local heroes

If I glance over my shoulder I can see a small hill out of the window.  That hill is quite significant, as the stream that runs alongside it is the border between England and Wales.  It is true to say that the two places are very different, in identity, culture and outlook, though from here, there doesn’t appear to be too much difference.

Many people cross this particular border every day, particularly to work.  A lot of public sector workers are happy to live in an area where they don’t work – indeed if you are a nurse, teacher or involved in several other professions, it can often be a bonus to not live alongside the people you interact with every day.  NHS professionals can save themselves all sorts of embarrassing situations by ensuring they don’t bump into their patients at their local shop.  All this, though, may well be about to change.

Over the last few days, a suggestion has been floated that public sector workers should be paid according to local economic factors rather than to national pay scales.  This is yet another attempt by an increasingly snide and nasty Government to denigrate public services.  The idea that two people doing exactly the same job, with the same stresses and same professional requirements should be paid differently just because they live in different areas is a sinister attempt to change a complete community culture.  I happen to think that society values the work that our public sector workers put in, a view which I think I share with the majority of people.  Clearly the Government in general, and George Osborne in particular, has a lower opinion of us.

The justifications for this move have been quite staggering in their hypocrisy.  One excuse was that it would allow wages to be lowered in poorer areas, thus giving the private sector the ability to compete for the best people.  Now I might not have been listening properly, but I’m pretty sure that Cameron and co have spent the last two years telling us that we have to pay bankers the top rate or we would lose the best people to other countries.  Apparently it’s different when it comes to the best youth workers, police officers and care workers.  If we want to attract those people to work in different areas, we apparently have to pay them less.  Apparently some in the private sector complain that they cannot attract the best people.  I would have thought raising the salaries they pay might help that particular quandary.  If they cannot afford that, they need to cut their cloth accordingly.  If they cannot afford to pay for the jobs they need doing, then a long hard look at their business model may be in order.

It has also been pointed out that Labour supported a regional cap on Housing Benefit.  This, some Conservatives have argued, shows that support for regional caps would be easy to obtain.  This, however, highlights the Tories feelings about public servants - they seem to think that working in the public sector is akin to claiming benefits.  Perhaps they will reflect on that the next time they are rushed to A&E.

Regionalising pay will not produce winners, only losers.  There will be a ‘brain drain’ from poorer areas.  After all, why should someone at the top of their profession bother working in areas like Hartlepool or Bury when they can earn far more in Hertfordshire or Buckinghamshire.  And what of those I referred to earlier that live in one place and work in another?  What of public servants who live in Cheshire and work in Stoke?  At a stroke, they will see their disposable income sliced away.  They will no longer be able to afford to live an area different to the one they work in.  The only option would be to move to the ‘cheaper’ area, ghettoising the public sector almost overnight.

We are constantly told that we need a ‘level’ playing field in business, something I’m all in favour of.  Tipping the scales in this manner creates anything but.  It is an unwarranted attack on many people who give their all for other people.  George Osborne should hang his head in shame.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter - @LiamStubbs
Facebook: Liam Stubbs Labour

Council under fire for officers' "fictional residents" writing - Wales News - News from @walesonline

Council under fire for officers' "fictional residents" writing - Wales News - News from @walesonline

Allotting power to people is no bad thing

Politics is rarely described as the stuff of myth and legend.   In the Labour Party, however, sentimental stories abound.  Our heritage is built on tales of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee, Barbara Castle and Nye Bevan, folks of such grit, character and determination that even the most hardened, old style Trades unionist can become moist of eye.

There are other myths which rear their heads, though, far more dangerous ones, malicious jibes which can have a very dangerous effect on even the most mild policy ideas that flow forward. 

One of the most pernicious labels that the Conservatives have ever managed to stick on Labour is that we are the party of ‘Big Government’.  Such claims have had two effects – one positive and one very, very negative.

The negative connotation is fermented in the minds of voters.  ‘Big Government’ is synonymous with interference, of an Orwellian superstate intruding into every aspect of people’s lives.  This line of attack was regularly trotted out during the early Blair years as the Tories found themselves unable to put forward an alternative agenda.  It was hardly accurate, but some of the mud flung during that time stuck.

The positive view of ‘Big Government’ is the Corporatist State that delivered the NHS, universal education and social security, a method of Government which survived from the early war years right up until the collapse of consensus in 1979.  That was the genuine era of ‘Big Government’ and a lot of Labour Party members are still emotionally and politically attached to the notions formed in that era.  One of the problems with that notion, however, is that Labour was actually only in power for 17 years of that near 40 year period.  Labour may have played a large part in constructing the Corporatist State, but the Tories actually spent more time running it.

In the early days of the Labour Party, a lot of time was spent discussing just how socialism and redistribution were to be achieved.  Many, including Hardie himself, the Fabian Society and some Trades Unions favoured a localist approach.  The argument went that conditions in the mills of Lancashire or the blast furnaces of Teesside were so particular to those areas that decisions about them were best made by people on the ground.  Local Unions, local people and local politicians would find the best ways of running services and industries, making them work for their particular area, rather than having a ‘one size fits all’ policy for different industries.  Once the party had decided on a programme of nationalisation, central strictures made more sense, but that is no longer a world we inhabit.  Outside the NHS and education, there are very few areas which present problems needing national cures.  It is growing increasingly likely that the localist agenda favoured by Hardie would be more likely to fit today’s issues than Attlee’s agenda.  Glasgow Social Services face vastly different issues than those operating in Monmouth.  The best we can do is to look at best practice and to adapt ideas to meet local needs.

One small but significant example concerns allotments.  I doubt you would be able to find too many people arguing that such ideas are not a force for good.  How to administer them, however, is rapidly becoming a big problem.  Here in Monmouth we have an issue with plots that are not being utilised, despite being allocated to specific people.  There is also a waiting list of people chomping at the bit, waiting to grow their own.  One of the problems is that the allotments are administered by the County Council in Cwmbran, around 26 miles away.  Why?  There is already a committee in situ, so why on earth do decisions concerning a local resource need to be taken by people who may never have set foot on the ground concerned?  Better, surely, to give control of the facilities to the committee.  If someone’s patch goes unattended for a fixed period of time, let the chair knock on their door to ask why.  In the case of sickness or incapacity, the patch becomes the committee’s responsibility until the person is well enough to tend it once more.  If the tenant is simply not bothered any longer, then the committee should have the power to declare the land vacant, allowing the next person on the list to take possession.  If the list were ‘blind’ then no-one would be able to favour their friends.  All of this could be backed up by a little dedicated administrative time from the County Council.

While this is a small example, it is the kind of issue that matters greatly to those concerned.  There are plenty of services that are already run by local people whilst remaining in public ownership.  The problem is that they are dominated by bureaucracy.  Surely cutting that layer of administration and letting people get on with what they already do is a better alternative?  It is not a Trojan Horse for privatisation, nor is it an excuse to cut.  It is a practical step towards giving power to people.  None of those iconic figures who make up the Labour Party’s back story would object to that.  Neither, of course, should we.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - @ Liam Stubbs

Government by the wealthy, for the wealthy

If anyone had doubts as to where the Cameron government’s sympathy lay, the events of the last few days amply demonstrate that this is government for the few, not the many.

The row over bonuses in the banking sector saw battle lines clearly drawn: the public on one side, annoyed that they see living standards falling while the industry responsible for many current problems continues to over-reward poor performance.  On the other side, Cameron sent out an army of ministers to explain why the world would go to hell in a hand cart if Stephen Hester wasn’t given shares to the value of £963,000.  Just as he did with Rupert Murdoch last summer, Ed Miliband chose to stand with the outraged against the rich and powerful.  More kudos to him for that, but shame on Ian Duncan Smith, who claimed that the banking world would be plunged into some kind of “chaos” (his word, not mine), if the Government started to interfere with the pay arrangements of the sector’s higher echelons.  I can just imagine it.  They might all threaten to stop lending money to individuals and small businesses, preferring instead to twist the Government round their little finger.  Pretty much as they did a year ago with ‘Operation Merlin’.  It’s worth remembering that current Government policy has led to nurses and teachers having to work longer for less reward.  It has also led to bankers choosing whether to add a £963,000 bonus to their £1,200,000 salary. 

After Miliband threatened to force a Commons vote on the issue, Stephen Hester climbed down.  Chillingly, the Government then reiterated their refusal to interfere with any other bonus payments RBS choose to award.  It’s worth remembering that the financial sector donated £11.4 million to the Conservative Party last year.

Another move by the Conservatives, wholeheartedly supported by the LibDems, has been to alter the arrangements for payment in the legal system.  Under new legislation, the present ‘No Win, No Fee’ system will be altered.  As things stand, all costs in a successful action brought under such a deal are borne by the guilty party.  So, for instance, if I beat you up and you bring a successful civil case against me, I have to pay all of your costs.  Under the new proposal, you would have to pay a percentage of your lawyers costs for the pleasure of successfully suing me.  I’ll be better off, so if you don’t mind, I’ll beat you up next year if it’s all the same with you.  Why change the current arrangements?  Well, I have a sneaky suspicion that some law firms are not particularly happy with the level of damages that courts are setting.  As I am not a particularly wealthy man, the court cannot fine me millions for beating you up (apologies, that’s twice I’ve done it now).  A fee taken as a percentage of damages related to my circumstances would not be huge.  On the other hand, if you have to pay some of your costs, it would be more worthwhile for the lawyers to only pick wealthy clients.  If you are wealthy, the law firm could make sure they get their pound of flesh from you whatever the outcome of the case.  If you can’t afford to pay their fees then I guess it will be even cheaper for me to beat you up (I really must stop doing that).

All in all, it has been a mixed few days for the wealthy and the powerful.  It looks like lawyers will get away with charging victims of crime rather than the perpetrators, but it’s not great news if you’re a money driven Chief Executive of a state owned bank.  Perhaps Ed Miliband will choose the legal system as his next moral crusade.  Given his success in forcing the Leveson inquiry and making RBS climb down, victims of crime had better hope he does.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter - @liamstubbs
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour

Needing to Ed in the right direction

Being Leader of the Labour Party, especially in opposition, is not an easy job.  Support is often sympathetically, rather than enthusiastically, given and enemies are never difficult to find.  Take this January comment from a senior M.P.:

“The man doesn’t understand the Labour Party.  He is isolated, depressed.  He won’t last beyond the end of the year.”

Cutting stuff.  Although, that quote wasn’t from this January, it was from January 1995.  Nor was it from a sitting M.P. but came from the late, great Gwyneth Dunwoody.  She was talking about Tony Blair.  Twelve and a half years and three General Election victories later, he did go before the end of the year.  Despite his failings, he proved a few people wrong along the way, too.

Ed Miliband is coming in for the same sort of criticism Blair had to put up with, as well as Wilson did and others in between.  People expect the Leader of the Opposition to be able to perform miracles, to storm ahead in opinion polls and to take the country by storm.  Even if Ed Miliband did all that, though, would it matter?  Neil Kinnock usually had a very healthy lead over Margaret Thatcher in the polls, but that hardly stopped the Conservative gaining a three figure majority in the poll that mattered, in 1987.

Real votes count and in the traditional Tory area of St Albans, Labour took a council seat at a by-election with a huge swing last week.  One Council seat may not mean a lot in the great scheme of things, but these were real votes cast in real ballot boxes.

Most of the disapproval seems to be coming from the media, or is at least media lead.  The two newspapers most vociferous in their criticisms are the Sun and the Times.  Both these publications are owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose News International stable is up to its neck in the phone hacking scandal.  The one party leader who brought the phone hacking issue to the fore, the one who was willing to break with Murdoch and risk his newspapers ire was Ed Miliband.  For this reason, should we be surprised that they are turning on him?  The Times published a disgraceful cartoon last summer, showing one starving child in the Horn of Africa saying to another “I’ve had a bellyful of phone hacking”.  This amply demonstrates the low standards the Murdoch empire will stoop to in trying to deflect attention away from their disgusting behaviour.  Stirring opposition to Miliband is another ruse to this very end.  Remove him, the theory goes, and his successor may not make such a principled stand.  Fortunately, not everyone has the same moral cowardice practised by News International on a daily basis.

I would accept, however, that Miliband is tainted by association.  Outgoing governments are not popular – if they were, they would not be outgoing Governments.  Labour were rightly criticised for over spending, but are being wrongly blamed for the majority of the current economic problems.  It was Gordon Brown who made the Child Trust Fund universal, rather than only applicable to those who truly needed it.  It was not Gordon Brown who caused chaos in the Eurozone.  It was Labour who failed to impose stricter regulation on the banks.  It was not Labour who allowed American banks to become so heavily involved in the sub-prime market.  Labour have to be honest about their failings in Government.  They do not have to accept the ridiculous and dishonest Tory line that the current situation is all down to Labour.

Ed Miliband needs to put forward his principles and hope they resonate with the people of Britain.  He has already started to do this by attacking the poor ethics of the ‘get rich quick and don’t give a toss’ merchants that have dominated British business for too long.  Unfortunately, Cameron and Clegg have both been quick to try to steal those ideas for themselves.  Not bad for a man who supposedly has no direction and poor leadership – having the Prime Minister and his deputy trying to muscle in on his ground.

To my mind, Miliband has one real problem at the moment, and it is a substantial one.  He’s not being himself.  A recent set-piece speech included an urge to David Cameron to “..bring it on”.  Whoever wrote that phrase or at least allowed it to stay in the speech needs to be sacked immediately.  I cannot for one minute imagine Miliband being the kind of person who would use that phrase.  He is not Clint Eastwood.  He’s more the kind of bloke you know who has intimate knowledge of tax returns or I.T. requirements.  Let him relax and talk to people in his own way.  He may not be the most charismatic politician in the world, but that does not matter as long as his substance shows through.  At the moment, those around him are not allowing this to be the case.

After years of showmanship, of slick politicians who looked more likely to sell you a photocopier than to provide ideas for the future, the country could benefit from a serious politician who had more substance than style.  Ed Miliband could be that politician.  But he will only succeed if his advisors realise that he should be allowed to actually be Ed Miliband.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk

Twitter - @liamstubbs

Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour

Bank on local people to lead a revival

A new year is a good time to set out new directions.  We make resolutions that involve changing our behaviour and generally seek out ways in which this new period of time is different and distinctive from the last one.  Given the dreadful economic outlook which hangs like a huge grey cloud over all of us, there has never been a better time to rethink the way we do even the most fundamental things.

Traditionally, anyone hoping to start a new commercial venture has an anxious time, putting together a business case to present to an investor, normally a bank, order to obtain funding.  If that hurdle is cleared, the next step is usually for the request to be referred up the chain of command until the final agreement is given by a regional or even national office.  So by the time the crunch decision comes, the people who have the final say are far removed from the environment in which the initial application was made.  This means that most business decisions are made on a theoretical model, rather than on the practicalities faced 'on the ground'.

A good example of the problems this can bring has come recently in Monmouth.  A new coffee shop has opened, a branch of Cafe Nero.  Now let me say that I have nothing against Cafe Nero and have sampled their latte many times during my time in Bolton and in other places too.  Unfortunately, around the time that this chain cafe has opened, two locally owned and run cafes have closed.  This is not just another case of market forces taking their natural course.  It's a situation that takes money out of the local economy.  When a chain opens, the profits it makes are distributed in the form of dividends to shareholders, wherever they may be.  When a locally owned business makes money, the profits are usually recycled into the local economy, supporting local suppliers and distributors.  I'm no expert on Cafe Nero's purchasing policy, but it would not be unusual for large businesses to buy in bulk and deliver.  So milk, for example, will come from the cheapest source nationally, rather than helping to guarantee the survival of a local dairy.

It's my feeling that local issues need local solutions.  If someone wants to start a business locally, then decisions about it should be made as close to home as possible, including issues about investment.  The Bank of England recently printed a great deal of money in a process known as 'Quantatative Easing', money which was given to banks to lend to businesses, but the majority of which is sitting securely in bank vaults.  That money was intended to kick start the economy, but will not achieve the objective unless it is put into the hands of people who know where it needs to be used.  We need community investment partnerships, made up of councillors, members of business organisations and voluntary groups to decide what kind of businesses towns need.  Forget large and unwieldy regional development bodies, allow locally elected people to take charge of their towns and counties.  Give them the power to attract businesses to their areas.  Allow community investment partnerships to decide where resources need to be allocated.  And most importantly, give them the money to back people who want to create local jobs and local services. 

At the moment, the QE money is serving no purpose.  Even if it was used for investment, the decisions would be made a long way from local communities.  I'd rather see someone with business ideas going to a local partnership to ask for loans and grants to help them get started and the QE money could fund that.  Yes, there may be an issue of overlap, with people having vested interests, but this is important too.  Of course the local butcher does not want a competitor on his doorstep, but why should his voice not be heard?  Surely two identical businesses in a small community is a bad thing anyway?  One example of that here in Monmouth goes back to coffee.  You would need more than two hands to count the amount of places you could buy a cup around the high street.  If you're after a new cd, however, forget it.  Diversity keeps the shoppers coming and keeps a town alive.  Local people know that, so it is they who should be making decisions on the direction of their local economy.

Of course, there's always an issue of trust when financial matters are concerned.  Could we have faith in local people not to misappropriate large sums of cash?  Or perhaps, in the wake of the expenses scandal and the financial crisis, we should leave this money in the hands of politicians and banks.  Just a thought.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter: @liamstubbs
Facebook: Liam Stubbs Labour

Poor figures show we're not all in this together

Statistics are always throwing up anomalies, especially when precise definitions have been attempted.  Such an anomaly was pointed out by a report into child poverty on this morning’s Today programme.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9661000/9661128.stm
Let me explain.

The definition of a child living in poverty is someone under the age of 16 who lives in a household where the income is under 60% of the median wage.  Not the average, but the median.  This means that if all the wages in the country were set out in a line, we would find out which one is in the middle and measure 60% of it.  Anything under that would count.  For instance, take the following eleven families earnings as a snapshot:

100 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20

60 would be the median.  60% of 60 is 36.  Any child living below that line would be in poverty.

All relatively simple.  However, in a recession, we expect the figure to alter.  If the top earning families lose 10% of their income, the line suddenly looks like this:

90 86 81 72 63 54 45 36 35 30 20

Now the middle number is 54.  60% of that is 32.4.  This usually means that fewer children are counted as being in poverty, as the amount which counts has reduced.  Previously, the bottom three families would have counted.  Now only the bottom two count.  This is the anomaly.  Due to our way of counting it, the number of children in poverty reduces when times are bad.

With me so far?  Good.  Because something strange has happened.  The number of children defined as living in poverty has risen.  These are difficult economic times.  As I have pointed out, the number should have reduced.  How has this happened?  How could this happen?

Easy.  Our second example reduces the wages of the highest earners.  Let’s try reducing the earnings of the lower income families:

100 95 90 80 70 60 10 10 10 10 10

The median wage is still 60.  The 60% line still kicks in at 36.  How many families in our new line are under that level?  Five.  The top and middle earners are still as well off as they were.  The lowest half of earners has been decimated.  So the median wage remains the same, but everyone, yes EVERYONE under that has seen their income fall below the official poverty line.

Is this the explanation for the rise in the numbers of children living in poverty?  There is no other logical reason.  In good times, the numbers rise but these are not good times.  Unemployment is sky rocketing, inflation is high and public sector pay is frozen.  These are bad times, by anyone’s calculations.

We’re left with the reality that the poorest in our society are paying for the country's dire economic situation.  The cuts are hitting the poorest harder, part time workers are losing their jobs at a disproportionate rate and now we have proof of this.  We’re not all in this together.  David Cameron is willing to put our European future in jeopardy to protect City millionaires.  Poor people are left to carry the can.

If the Government is serious about reducing child poverty, this situation would be reversed.  The results suggest that they are not.  Iain Duncan Smith’s warm words have as much chance of succeeding as anything he did when leading the Conservative Party.  Things are still tough.  And the poor are continuing to pay most.

Praise and rewards for those who deserve it

It’s around three years since David Cameron first used the phrase ‘Big Society’.  Indeed, Conservative M.P. Jesse Norman had earlier written a book on the subject.  It was mentioned in the last Tory election manifesto, has been heralded in various speeches and has been talked about almost as often as the economy or spending cuts.  Amazing, then, that we still have no idea what the Tories mean when they mention it.

Most people, when questioned, feel that it is a vague notion about volunteers running public services and for that reason, it’s a phrase and an idea that puts people off.  In short, the public feel as though using your free time to help others has been politicised.  David Cameron spent a large part of his first six months in office being photographed with any group of volunteers he could get anywhere near.  This hobby seems to have tailed off in recent times – could that be because private polling tells him what he doesn’t want to hear?  Perhaps he is getting the message that people are put off by this grandstanding, this taking advantage of people, this cynical attempt to manufacture party political kudos from people’s good will?  There’s an irony here.  As unemployment rises and people have more time on their hands, the number of volunteer hours clocked seems to be falling.  Rather than stepping into the breach to run closing services, people are angry at this attempt by the Government to get something for nothing.  Society is treating me as though I am worthless, the feeling goes, so why should I put anything back?  As one who has run an organisation which depended upon volunteers for its success, I can also vouch for the notion that people volunteer when they feel good about themselves.  If you’re made to feel undervalued in the labour market, you’re hardly going to feel as though you have huge amounts of skills to offer the ‘Third Sector’.

This, of course, is where Government should be stepping in.  Rather than expecting volunteers to do more in our society, why are we not doing more to reward those who already give their skills and time?  Of course central Government won’t lift a finger to help – there are no votes in recognising things that people already do.  But communities, led by Local Government could make a massive difference.

Here in Monmouth, we have a number of organisations which rely on help from unpaid sources.  Two examples are the Guides and the local football club.  It would seem logical to me that by rewarding the work people already do, we could not only make people realise that they are held in high esteem, but also encourage more people to help out.  What rewards could we offer?  Well, I doubt very much whether our local Leisure Centre is full to capacity all the time.  Why can’t we give the Guides and the football club vouchers for off-peak periods to be given as rewards for those who help out?  Log, perhaps, 10 volunteer hours and you could have a free swimming session as a thank you from the community.  If you’ve been helping out with Guides, you and a partner could have a badminton court for free.  It may not sound much, but it sends a definite signal – we appreciate you and value the commitment you give to the community.

Once this is established, it can be built upon.  The idea that helping out can have its rewards doesn’t have to stop with organised groups.  How many people could do with a helping hand somewhere along the line?  Whether it’s help with the garden or taking something to the tip, picking children up from school or a few logs chopped for the fire, people need help all the time.  Normally, the reward comes with a similar favour returned, but not everyone can do that.  A system of Community Credits would assist those who need help and encourage those who are able to provide it.  Local businesses could be involved too, without any great loss – a free cake at the café for anyone who has 10 Community Credits, or a half price hour in the Playbarn if you’re looking after someone else’s children.

Such a scheme would be bound to attract criticism, on the basis of cost, administration and abuse.  None of these issues is insurmountable. 

Many supermarkets run loyalty schemes which can be adapted for this use.  Tesco and Sainsbury are not renowned for doing things which are prohibitively costly and they would not run their schemes if they cost too much money. 

There is also no reason why schemes need to be centrally run.  If communities ran them, through a local shop or pub or Community Centre, they would be far more effective.

Thirdly, anyone suggesting that those who currently give their time freely might be corrupted by the idea of a free hour at a swimming pool doesn’t understand why people do these things in the first place.

Let’s stop playing politics with people’s good nature and do what elected representatives should be doing – rewarding people who do the right thing, and encouraging those who do not.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - #liamstubbs

Future jobs? Current despair.

During an episode of Blackadder the Third, it became clear that the bumbling staff of the Prince Regent’s household had burnt the manuscript of the dictionary written by Samuel Johnson.  In the midst of the shock and horror that greeted the news, Baldrick announced that he had a cunning plan.  “Hoorah,” said Prince George.  “Well that’s that, then.”  Of course, the plan had more holes than Swiss cheese, but George’s response to it was similar in many ways to public reaction to Government announcements.  There’s a problem, but the Government has a plan, so that’s okay.  We can forget about it.

The current Government’s own version of Baldrick, Nick Clegg, attempted to solve youth unemployment on the Today Programme this morning by announcing a series of measures which amounted to nothing more than scraping the soot off and sticking the pages back in.  In response to a 20-year old from Middlesbrough who had been unemployed for five months, he announced that she will now be able to go to the job centre every week, instead of every fortnight, and sit down with her adviser.  To look for a job.  That isn’t there.  Well done, Nick.  He also told her that if she was unemployed for another four months, she would qualify for a new work placement programme.  Great.  Kick your heels for another 120 days and we’ll then let you work for someone for free.  I’m not sure whether Clegg expected to be thanked for these announcements, but I doubt whether the good folk of Middlesbrough are currently raising the rafters from Coulby Newham to St Hilda’s.  Clegg also announced subsidies for jobs which sounded spectacularly like the Future Jobs Fund – which was scrapped by this Government and has been rubbished by them ever since.

Leaving aside the issue of why the BBC only ever ventures to Teesside to cover stories of poverty and despair, I’m not sure what Clegg hopes to achieve with these new initiatives.  Perhaps he is hoping that creating enough sound and fury will convince people that he is ‘doing something’ about the problem and therefore the problem is going away.

The first parts of his plan will barely scratch the surface.  It may be the case that one or two young people may, through luck or timing, obtain a job by focussing more often, though Clegg’s assumptions seem to be based on the notion that, at the moment, young people are simply not looking hard enough.  This smacks of the idea of the ‘feckless’ unemployed which we heard so much about in the 1980’s.  Perhaps Clegg’s next suggestion is that they should purchase a bike.  However, in the case of most people looking for work, visiting the Job Centre more often will only improve their chances of finding a job if the jobs are there to find.  Employment advisers do not possess magic wands and can only work with what they have, no matter how many times you see them.  You could move in with them, but if a job is not there, they cannot help you find one.  I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's only visit to Middlesbrough, when she was approached by a man holding 200 unsuccessful application forms.  Her answer to him (as she sped away as quickly as she could) was that he should retrain.  "Retrain as what?" he asked.  "I'm thick."

As for work programmes, I suspect another cunning plan.  Will those undertaking this free labour be counted among the unemployment statistics?  I bet they won’t.  The message is: sign off for a month and we will pay you benefits plus travel costs.  With any luck, that should bring unemployment down by a quarter of a million and make us look good.  Then, when your placement comes to an end, you sign on again and some other poor sap can take your place.  With any luck, people will forget all about you.

Which means we are left with the Future Jobs Fund.  David Cameron has said many times that the fund is unaffordable.  All eyes will be on George Osborne to spot his next move.  I would wager a young person’s Job Seeker’s Allowance that there will either be a cut in Tax Credits or a freeze on benefits.  That should secure enough money to pay for their erroneous ways.  In other news, the Chief Executives of 75 companies whose profits went down last year saw their average pay rise for the same period.  We’re all in this together, didn’t you know?

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter #liamstubbs