GROWTH IS THE KEY TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY NOT THIS TORY BUDGET

A week before the general election, the Prime Minister said:
"The test of a government is how it looks after the most vulnerable, not just in good times but also in bad".

On April Fools’ Day, he told BBC News that the Conservatives' plans did not involve an increase in VAT, and when speaking on "The Andrew Marr Show", the Prime Minister also said that

"any cabinet minister...who comes to me and says, "Here are my plans" and they involve frontline reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again."

That prompts the question: why did he not ask the Chancellor to think again about his dreadful Budget-a Budget that will result in the quality of life of Britain's most vulnerable people being sacrificed on the altar of Tory dogma, a Budget that will result in massive reductions in front-line services, and a Budget that will lead to a colossal increase in unemployment? It is less than seven weeks since the Prime Minister made those solemn pledges, but the Chancellor's proposal to increase VAT is making a fool out of him.

We must not forget the Deputy Prime Minister either, who said that he wanted to "hardwire fairness" into society. However, increasing VAT does not hardwire fairness into society; on the contrary, it short-circuits fairness, because it hits the poorest families twice as hard as the richest. Britain's richest families spend just 7% of their disposable income on VAT, while the poorest spend almost 14%. How fair is that? The truth is that it is not fair at all. Cutting tax credits, freezing child benefit, slashing housing allowances, cancelling the help in pregnancy grant and chopping free school meals are not fair either.

No doubt the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition Government will point to the increase in tax thresholds that they wrung out of the Chancellor as evidence of their influence. However, the sad fact is that the meagre increase that they secured will make little difference to low-paid workers and will be more than offset by the regressive measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday. Worse still, many of the workers who might benefit from the modest uplift in tax allowances will end up losing their jobs if the Liberal Democrats vote through the Budget.

Of course, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor insist on repeating their quasi-egalitarian mantra, "We're all in this together." Needless to say, it is nonsense, and it has overtones of the infamous scene in George Orwell's "Animal Farm" when the animals realise that the pigs have changed the seven commandments to read:
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"- or, to put it another way, "We're all in this together, but if you're poor, you're in it a lot deeper than others," such as the numerous millionaires who sit on the Government Benches.

Increased unemployment will force more people on to state benefits, which will put pressure on the size of the national deficit, which the Chancellor claims to be so concerned about. However, unless he has a damascene conversion, I suspect that he will respond to the failure of his economic prospectus by making even deeper cuts in welfare provision, as happened in the 1930s and 1980s. No doubt he will try to justify his failure by repeating his Orwellian mantra, but the reality is that it will not be his former Bullingdon club colleagues paying the price of that failure. No, it will be Britain's poorest people, who will be in it up to their necks.

Of course, the Tories have form on that. I saw what they did in the 1980s to proud working-class communities in constituencies such as mine all over the country. They caused mass unemployment, slashed welfare provision, decimated front-line public services and did not stop cutting until they were thrown out of office in 1997. They even used another Orwellian ploy: to blame the unemployed for being out of work, labelling them as "scroungers". Indeed, I see that the Prime Minister was at it again over the weekend when he talked about "welfare scroungers". The Chancellor joined in the Orwellian chorus with his "Ministry of Truth" description of his Budget as a "progressive Budget".

Let us never forget that everything that I have described has only been made possible by the vacillating Liberal Democrats, who say one thing then do another. Less than seven weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his party represented a new kind of politics, with fresh ideas. What we got was a party supporting reactionary right-wing policies instead. Fewer than seven weeks ago, he was apparently opposed to the self-same right-wing policies that he now endorses. This is what he told his party conference on 23 September last year: "We know what happens when you simply squeeze budgets, across the board, until the pips squeak. We know, because we lived through it before, under the Conservatives. We remember the tumble-down classrooms, the pensioners dying on hospital trolleys, the council houses falling into total disrepair. We remember, and we say: never again."

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on 12 April this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said: "Do I think that these big cuts are merited or justified, at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not."

Millions of people who rejected the Conservatives' right-wing policy prospectus were seduced into voting for the Liberal Democrats by the Deputy Prime Minister's rhetoric. People actually believed that the Liberal Democrats represented progressive values. How wrong they were. People now see that the reality is very different from the Deputy Prime Minister's rhetoric. People see that he is now so determined to appease his Conservative masters that he is even prepared to sacrifice his own constituents by opposing a Government loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.

That is nothing new. The Liberal Democrats and their predecessors in the Liberal party have assisted the Conservatives into power in four out of the last seven general elections. It is thanks to the Liberal party splitting the centre-left vote in 1983 and 1987 that Margaret Thatcher was able to secure two landslide election victories. Then the Liberal Democrats did the same thing in 1992, forcing the country to endure another five years of Tory rule. The truth is that they are not a progressive party at all; they are merely a collection of self-indulgent political loners.

All the post-war progressive legislation has been introduced by Labour Governments often in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Tories and sometimes the Liberals, too. Examples include the NHS, the welfare state, comprehensive education, equal pay, civil partnerships, the national minimum wage, Sure Start, the ban on fox hunting, and the Open university, to name but a few.

Some of the country's greatest progressive advances were brought about by Labour when the size of the national debt was far higher than it is today. I heard Members of the coalition parties, including the Chancellor, eulogising the Canadian experience of cutting its deficit in the 1990s and arguing for the same approach to be adopted here, but their "Ministry of Truth" description of themselves as "compassionate Conservatives" imposing so-called caring cuts defies all reason. The reality of the Canadian experience saw increased homelessness, overcrowded classrooms, pension cuts and a drastic shortage of hospital beds. On one occasion, the Canadians even emptied a hospital and blew it up in a desperate attempt to save money. Is that really what the coalition parties mean by "caring cuts"?

By contrast, the US President has written to all G20 leaders begging them not to cut spending too quickly. Mr Obama says it is critical that: "The timing and pace of consolidation in each country suit the needs of the global economy".

He adds: "We must be flexible in adjusting the pace of consolidation and learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession."

But the Chancellor just does not seem to get it. He is obsessed with implementing an approach that failed in the 1930s, failed in the 1980s, failed in the 1990s and is destined to fail again. He wants to implement an unfair budget that will hit the poorest hardest, undermine the economic recovery, destroy public services and increase unemployment.

David Blanchflower, one of Britain's top economists, said today that he is "now convinced that as a result of this reckless Budget the UK will suffer a double-dip recession or worse, not least because there is no room for interest-rate cuts, although lots of additional quantitative easing... from the Bank of England could soften the blow".

Growth is the key to addressing the deficit, and the Budget is a wasted opportunity. The Chancellor has chosen to penalise the weak and the powerless, instead of making the rich and powerful individuals and institutions pay.

Rather than taking the appropriate steps against powerful individuals and institutions, to ensure that they pay a fairer contribution towards reducing the deficit, the Chancellor has chosen to penalise the weak and the powerless. The Budget has let down the great British public. This Budget will come back to haunt the Tories and Lib Dems.

I intend to do all I can to ensure that the British public know what this Government, and the Liberal Democrats in particular, have inflicted on them. When the next general election comes, the Liberal Democrats, who have been swallowed whole by the Conservative party, will live to regret the day that they put the Tories in power.

IGNORANT TORIES SHOW DISDAIN FOR WORLD CUP FEVER

Despite mounting pressure to screen England’s World Cup matches on the city’s big screen in the Market Place, Derby’s Tories have refused to allow the screen to be used.

Derby’s Labour group have been working with local people to collect signatures for a petition urging the Tories to change their mind. They have collected over 4,000 signatures in less than a week and sought to present the petition last Friday. But the Tory leadership refused to see all the petitioners and would only deign to see two representatives, but wouldn’t see any of the Labour councillors.

I wrote to the Tory leader of the council last week, but he hasn’t even bothered to acknowledge my letter, let alone give a considered response. The arrogance is breathtaking; particularly when they are running a minority administration and six out of the 18 Tory councillors were originally elected under a different party banner. Three of them were originally elected as Labour councillors, two are ex Lib Dems and one is an ex UKIP councillor.

Ironically, when the screen was originally purchased it came from Germany where it had been used to show football matches from the last world cup tournament. When the Labour group sanctioned to the deal to install the screen, it was with the express intention of showing world cup matches from this tournament.

Last week I understand the big screen was being used to show opera. It seems the Tories are happy to allow the screen to be used for highbrow cultural events, but not for events that are enjoyed by the masses!

This is the letter I sent to Cllr Harvey Jennings

“Dear Harvey

“I was dismayed when I heard that Alan Grimadell had vetoed the screening of world cup matches on the city’s ‘Big Screen’. I am therefore requesting you to reverse that decision to enable world cup matches to be screened after all.

“As you will know, I was the leader of the council when we agreed to install the ‘Big Screen’ and it was always my intention that it should be used to broadcast live world cup matches. It is particularly ironic that Alan has refused to use the ‘Big Screen’ for world cup screenings because that was precisely what it was used for during the last world cup tournament in Germany.

“I am sure that most of my constituents would wish to have the world cup screened in the Market Place. It would provide a great opportunity to bring the community together to celebrate a fantastic footballing festival. Derby is a renowned football city and should not be denied the opportunity to come together to enjoy this once in a generation opportunity.

“I understand that concerns about crowd control have been raised, but that is something that simply needs to be policed. I am sure Derby County would consider assisting with stewarding. I would be happy to assist you by brokering an arrangement with the club to enable this incredibly popular sporting extravaganza to go ahead.

“Please don’t let the city down Harvey. Stand up and be counted for Derby’s great footballing tradition.

“Yours sincerely

“Chris Williamson MP”

CUTS TO DERBY’S CHILDREN’S SERVICES REVEALED

We now know more details of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government’s cuts to local services for children and young people in Derby.

In response to a letter from Labour’s shadow children and education secretary Ed Balls, the coalition government admitted that £311m will be cut this year from education and children’s services provided locally but funded by the government.

The Con/Dem government’s cuts include £55,770 from Derby’s school transport, £158,538 from youth activities and local youth clubs and £33,840 from programmes to cut teenage pregnancy. But the biggest cut of £590,066 will come from the funding for Derby’s Connexions service that helps young people into work.

It’s now clear that the Conservatives and Lib Dems believe that the first candidate for cuts should be services for children and young people in areas like ours.

But these cuts are extremely short-sighted and will save very little in the long run if teenage pregnancy rises. If young people have fewer things to do after school more of them could get drawn into crime or anti-social behaviour and that will also increase costs. And if more young people are left without the support that could help them obtain employment, they will be forced to claim unemployment benefits.”

Just a few weeks ago the Tories and Lib Dems said there would be no cuts to frontline services, but already that promise has been broken.

The new government hopes they can pass the buck. They want local councils to take the rap by cutting the budgets for local councils without specifying where these cuts will fall on support for schools, for vulnerable young people and children.

The full breakdown of the existing grants from which this £311 million will be cut can be found at this link: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1536588.xls

UNIVERSITIES MINISTER DAVID WILLETTS SHOULD APOLOGISE TO STUDENTS

DAVID Willetts, the Universities minister, has recently claimed that students' degree courses were "a burden on the taxpayer that had to be tackled".

He makes these comments ahead of the Browne report which is due out in the summer, and is expected to call for a raise in top up fees for students. These comments come despite Willetts telling the NUS Higher Education conference last October that the “case has not been made” for lifting the cap.

There are many students who live in Derby who will be disappointed and offended by these comments. I have therefore written to David Willetts asking him to retract remarks and apologise.

The average student graduates with a debt of around £23,500 and to suggest that this personal debt is a burden on the taxpayer, is completely misleading.

The Con/Dem coalition government’s plan to introduce more flexible options is also very concerning because it will inevitably create a two tier education system. It will allow those from more affluent backgrounds to have the full University experience but force people from poorer backgrounds to make do with second best.

This is so wrong, but typical of what one might expect from the Tories. It also provides further evidence that the Liberal Democrats are fast becoming the very antithesis of progressive politics with their support for the Tories’ reactionary approach. Check my last blog http://miniurl.org/dhz for further evidence of their reactionary tendencies.

DERBY SET TO FACE ONE OF THE COUNTRY’S BIGGEST CUTS IN FUNDING FOR LOCAL SERVICES

Derby is being unfairly singled out for bigger cuts in funding for local services than almost anywhere else in the country.

House of Commons Library research, commissioned by Labour’s Shadow Communities Secretary, John Denham MP, has revealed that Derby will suffer larger cuts in funding than most other areas in England.

The programmes have not been announced but the Con/Dem Government confirmed that the cuts will not fall on dedicated schools grants, Sure Start funding, and Formula Grant - which all councils receive according to a set of formula.

Instead, the cuts will be focused on areas of funding, such as specific grants which are for programmes targeted where help is needed the most. This includes help to tackle unemployment in areas of high worklessness and support for the elderly to live independently in their homes.

The research has shown that the greatest risk of the cuts to the funding of local services is in areas that include some of the poorest neighbourhoods in England. This will leave funding for Derby’s local services at risk of a 19.4% cut from the Tory-Liberal Government.

It is part of the coalition government’s £6.2bn of cuts that were announced on 24 May, of which £1.165bn - nearly 20% - is being pushed onto local government and local services.

Implementing the cuts in this way means communities with the highest levels of deprivation and areas facing the greatest challenges will be affected the most with the greatest risk to their funding, while shire districts, mainly Tory run, face the least risk to their funding, such as the council covering David Cameron’s Witney constituency which faces an estimated 1.7% risk to its funding.

In my view we need to bring down the deficit but the way the Tory-Liberal Government is proposing to do this is unfair. David Cameron said we are all in this together. Of course we now see how false this is as poorer areas will bear more of the burden. The Tory-Liberal Government’s claims of fairness are shown to be hollow. Under Labour the standards of local services on which local people rely greatly improved. These improvements are now at risk and the poorest communities will suffer the most.

The information that was provided to John Denham MP on 27 May 2010 by the House of Commons Library showed wide variations in the impact of these cuts. The total amount of money given by central government to local government is known as Aggregate External Finance (AEF). It shows the estimated 2010/11 AEF for each local authority in England and consists of the revenue support grant, ringfenced grants and other specific grants including area based grants and redistributed business rates. Councils raise money on top of this through council tax.

The likely cuts vary in scale from 0.5% in Tory shire districts to 19.4% in Derby. Only 29 out of 352 local authority areas will experience bigger cuts that Derby