It is a worrying statistic that one in ten Brits are exposed to dangerous pocket lighters on a regular basis. According to market analysis, consumers are tempted with hundreds of lighter models that do not conform to minimum safety standards set out in a European regulation which was transposed into UK law in September 2006.
Around 100 million lighters are sold on the UK high streets each year and independent tests show that an alarming 79% of models are non-conforming and potentially unsafe. The laws are in place to prevent this from happening but we need to properly enforce them.
I have heard about people who have been victims of lighters exploding in their faces and having their clothes set on fire. One such victim was Elaine Young who suffered third degree burns and had to undergo a skin graft.
This is something that we have an obligation to prevent – as law makers we cannot allow these lighters to be on the market.
We must make sure that Trading Standards remove these lighters from the market so that we can prevent any more horrific injuries like the ones which Elaine suffered as a result of a faulty lighter.
Saturday 24 September 2011
Friday 23 September 2011
ONLY WAY TO TACKLE DEBT PROBLEMS ACROSS THE WORLD IS BY THE GETTING GROWTH WE NEED
"The Prime Minister is quite good at lecturing other people on getting their problems sorted out and it’s true that the Eurozone needs to sort out its debt problems," Ed Miliband MP said today:
He added: “But the only way we’re going to tackle the debt problems across the world is by getting the growth that we need. And all the Prime Minister seems to be offering is to say 'I’ve got austerity here at home, I’m going to now export it abroad'.
“But when the recovery here in Britain was choked off last autumn, well before the global problems of recent months, that’s not a solution to the problems the world faces.
"We need a plan for growth here at home and across the world. That’s the way we tackle the debt issues that we face. The problem is that the Prime Minister may have woken up to the crisis but he doesn’t have a plan to deal with it.
"You need coordinated action and that’s why I say to the Prime Minister, President Sarkozy is the President of the G20, get him to bring forward the G20 meeting, have an emergency meeting, get the world's leaders together and get a grip on the crisis facing the world."
He added: “But the only way we’re going to tackle the debt problems across the world is by getting the growth that we need. And all the Prime Minister seems to be offering is to say 'I’ve got austerity here at home, I’m going to now export it abroad'.
“But when the recovery here in Britain was choked off last autumn, well before the global problems of recent months, that’s not a solution to the problems the world faces.
"We need a plan for growth here at home and across the world. That’s the way we tackle the debt issues that we face. The problem is that the Prime Minister may have woken up to the crisis but he doesn’t have a plan to deal with it.
"You need coordinated action and that’s why I say to the Prime Minister, President Sarkozy is the President of the G20, get him to bring forward the G20 meeting, have an emergency meeting, get the world's leaders together and get a grip on the crisis facing the world."
Thursday 22 September 2011
GEORGE OSBORNE IS ACCELERATING INTO ECONOMIC DANGER
Every motorist knows that if you see a car crash on the road ahead, you must either slowdown or take evasive action to avoid being involved in an accident. Only an idiot would say keep your foot on the accelerator and plough on regardless. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to learn from this motoring analogy because he is driving the British economy towards one almighty economic car crash.
Ever since the Liberal Democrats threw in their lot with the Conservatives to form the Coalition Government, both parties have insisted that there is no alternative to their austerity measures. It seems the very expensive public schools attended by David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg failed to teach them anything about economic history. Making deep cuts during a recession just does not work and can even make matters worse. That is precisely what happened in the UK in the 1930s and 1980s when millions of British people were impoverished by this flawed rightwing economic doctrine. Furthermore, the austerity measures in some Eurozone countries provides additional confirmation that massive cuts simply do not work and only result in further economic decline.
But despite of the overwhelming evidence that their economic prospectus didn’t work in the past and isn’t working today, Government Ministers still insist that there is no alternative. I remember Margaret Thatcher doing much the same thing in her notorious “no alternative” speech to the 1980 Conservative Party conference. The consequences of her Government’s “no alternative” approach saw our manufacturing industry decimated, public services destroyed and unemployment climb to almost 4 million. It was that “no alternative” attitude that also resulted in the deregulation of British banks in 1986. The toxic combination of de-industrialisation and banking deregulation saw finance and banking become the principal engine of economic growth and sowed the seeds of today’s economic woes.
But when Mrs Thatcher imposed massive cuts and downgraded British manufacturing, she was at least able to create an alternative motor for economic growth by deregulating the financial services sector. The Tory-led Coalition has no such alternative at their disposal today and their belated damascene conversion to manufacturing would be more credible if their deeds matched their rhetoric. The abolition of Regional Development Agencies, which supported manufacturing companies, and the Government’s decision to overlook Britain’s last train maker to build the Thameslink trains in Germany is undermining British industry.
Further proof that the Government’s economic policies are going in the wrong direction came earlier this week when the International Monetary Fund once again slashed its UK growth forecasts. The IMF also said Britain should delay plans to cut spending and raise taxes if growth continues to weaken. Then on Wednesday, figures were released showing Government borrowing in August reached a record high for the month.
The truth is since this Tory-led coalition came to power we have seen economic growth faltering, public services deteriorating, inflation increasing, unemployment rising, Government borrowing escalating and living standards falling. But in spite of the weight of historical and contemporary evidence that cutting too far and too fast makes things worse, Government Ministers continue to spout the “no alternative” mantra.
Once upon a time, the Chancellor told us he would cut borrowing, reduce unemployment and grow the economy. But he is failing on every count and unless he changes direction now, the casualties caused by his economic car crash will continue to grow.
Ever since the Liberal Democrats threw in their lot with the Conservatives to form the Coalition Government, both parties have insisted that there is no alternative to their austerity measures. It seems the very expensive public schools attended by David Cameron, George Osborne and Nick Clegg failed to teach them anything about economic history. Making deep cuts during a recession just does not work and can even make matters worse. That is precisely what happened in the UK in the 1930s and 1980s when millions of British people were impoverished by this flawed rightwing economic doctrine. Furthermore, the austerity measures in some Eurozone countries provides additional confirmation that massive cuts simply do not work and only result in further economic decline.
But despite of the overwhelming evidence that their economic prospectus didn’t work in the past and isn’t working today, Government Ministers still insist that there is no alternative. I remember Margaret Thatcher doing much the same thing in her notorious “no alternative” speech to the 1980 Conservative Party conference. The consequences of her Government’s “no alternative” approach saw our manufacturing industry decimated, public services destroyed and unemployment climb to almost 4 million. It was that “no alternative” attitude that also resulted in the deregulation of British banks in 1986. The toxic combination of de-industrialisation and banking deregulation saw finance and banking become the principal engine of economic growth and sowed the seeds of today’s economic woes.
But when Mrs Thatcher imposed massive cuts and downgraded British manufacturing, she was at least able to create an alternative motor for economic growth by deregulating the financial services sector. The Tory-led Coalition has no such alternative at their disposal today and their belated damascene conversion to manufacturing would be more credible if their deeds matched their rhetoric. The abolition of Regional Development Agencies, which supported manufacturing companies, and the Government’s decision to overlook Britain’s last train maker to build the Thameslink trains in Germany is undermining British industry.
Further proof that the Government’s economic policies are going in the wrong direction came earlier this week when the International Monetary Fund once again slashed its UK growth forecasts. The IMF also said Britain should delay plans to cut spending and raise taxes if growth continues to weaken. Then on Wednesday, figures were released showing Government borrowing in August reached a record high for the month.
The truth is since this Tory-led coalition came to power we have seen economic growth faltering, public services deteriorating, inflation increasing, unemployment rising, Government borrowing escalating and living standards falling. But in spite of the weight of historical and contemporary evidence that cutting too far and too fast makes things worse, Government Ministers continue to spout the “no alternative” mantra.
Once upon a time, the Chancellor told us he would cut borrowing, reduce unemployment and grow the economy. But he is failing on every count and unless he changes direction now, the casualties caused by his economic car crash will continue to grow.
Tuesday 20 September 2011
CHRIS HUHNE MUST TRY HARDER ON ENERGY PRICES
Labour's Shadow Energy Secretary, Meg Hillier MP, has blasted Chris Huhne's speech to the Lib Dem conference. She said:
"How can families whose finances are being squeezed take this seriously from the man who is standing idly by while energy companies raise their prices way above inflation?
"Only last week Chris Huhne was criticising consumers for not switching supplier.
"He is tinkering while people face a cold winter shivering under blankets. His own plans to reform the energy market do nothing of the sort and will exclude many potential new entrants.
"Labour called for more competition in the market months ago and for a competition commission enquiry. Chris Huhne is fiddling with an already broken system. Labour is calling for radical reform.
"Chris Huhne's failure to take on the energy companies is yet another example of how this Tory-led Government is refusing to tackle the irresponsible behaviour at the top, while hard working families suffer."
"How can families whose finances are being squeezed take this seriously from the man who is standing idly by while energy companies raise their prices way above inflation?
"Only last week Chris Huhne was criticising consumers for not switching supplier.
"He is tinkering while people face a cold winter shivering under blankets. His own plans to reform the energy market do nothing of the sort and will exclude many potential new entrants.
"Labour called for more competition in the market months ago and for a competition commission enquiry. Chris Huhne is fiddling with an already broken system. Labour is calling for radical reform.
"Chris Huhne's failure to take on the energy companies is yet another example of how this Tory-led Government is refusing to tackle the irresponsible behaviour at the top, while hard working families suffer."
Monday 19 September 2011
THE LIB DEMS WILL BE JUDGED BY THEIR ACTIONS, NOT THEIR WORDS
Following Vince Cable’s speech at the Lib Dem conference, John Denham MP, Labour’s Shadow Business Secretary, said: “The Lib Dems will be judged by their actions, not their words.
“Vince Cable says his biggest regret from the last year is not tackling bank bonuses, but it should be his complete failure to support business, create jobs, help small and medium enterprises to access finance and to build on the growth he inherited from Labour.
“The recovery has been choked off and yet despite calling for a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis, he still relentlessly supports George Osborne’s reckless policy of cutting too far and too fast. Youth unemployment has gone up, the economy has flatlined and inflation is rising far faster than wages.
“And making his annual speech on high pay to the Lib Dem faithful doesn’t make it policy in the Tory-led Government. Given his failure on banks, why should anyone believe he can deliver on high pay? Vince Cable needs to bring forward concrete proposals on boardroom pay and not capitulate to the Treasury as usual.”
“Vince Cable says his biggest regret from the last year is not tackling bank bonuses, but it should be his complete failure to support business, create jobs, help small and medium enterprises to access finance and to build on the growth he inherited from Labour.
“The recovery has been choked off and yet despite calling for a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis, he still relentlessly supports George Osborne’s reckless policy of cutting too far and too fast. Youth unemployment has gone up, the economy has flatlined and inflation is rising far faster than wages.
“And making his annual speech on high pay to the Lib Dem faithful doesn’t make it policy in the Tory-led Government. Given his failure on banks, why should anyone believe he can deliver on high pay? Vince Cable needs to bring forward concrete proposals on boardroom pay and not capitulate to the Treasury as usual.”
BRITAIN IS NOT A SAFE HAVEN IN OSBORNE'S HANDS
The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, is calling for a change in the UK's economic direction. The following are his thoughts on this crucially important issue.
THE global economy has entered a dangerous new phase. It's now more vital than ever that countries have credible economic plans to ensure economic growth and get deficits down.
I believe there are three tests for a credible economic plan. First, there has to be a transparent plan with clear medium-term goals - whether that's to halve the deficit over four years as the last Labour government legislated for, or to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in this parliament, as George Osborne announced a year ago.
Second, that plan must command sufficient political support for it to be implemented. In America, the lack of agreement in Congress and political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling was disastrous for confidence and ultimately led to the credit rating downgrade. And in the Eurozone there has been a complete failure of political leadership to grasp the nettle of what needs to be done, as we saw again in Poland this weekend.
But political disagreement is not an issue in Britain. Despite the party conference rhetoric this weekend from Vince Cable - who called for "a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis" - the policy of rapid deficit reduction remains and is the cornerstone of the coalition.
There is, however, a third and vital credibility test - the plan has to deliver what it promises. This is where Britain and some of those Eurozone countries have something in common. Austerity is not working for countries like Greece, which now looks set to enter a fourth year of recession, and it is not working in Britain either.
A year ago, Osborne said spending cuts and tax rises that go further and faster than any other major economy would boost confidence and economic growth. At the time I warned that the recovery was too fragile and this risked tearing up the foundations of the house just as a global hurricane was brewing.
And what has happened? Consumer and business confidence has collapsed. Unemployment is rising again. Far from being a safe haven, our recovery was choked off last autumn with only Japan growing more slowly in the G7 over the last year. As the IMF's Christine Lagarde has rightly said "growth is necessary for fiscal credibility" - and to get deficits down too.
It's not just Labour making the case for a more balanced approach - a tough mediumterm plan to get deficits down, but which puts jobs and growth first. The founder of Pimco is now calling for a change of course and Lagarde says there is scope for reducing deficits more steadily to support growth and that, if slow growth continues, ministers must act, for instance through temporary tax cuts - like the temporary VAT cut Labour has called for.
The reckless thing for Osborne to do now is to continue with his absurd claim that Britain is some kind of safe haven and plough on regardless with a plan that is not working. The credible and cautious thing to do is to listen to wise advice and change course before it is too late.
THE global economy has entered a dangerous new phase. It's now more vital than ever that countries have credible economic plans to ensure economic growth and get deficits down.
I believe there are three tests for a credible economic plan. First, there has to be a transparent plan with clear medium-term goals - whether that's to halve the deficit over four years as the last Labour government legislated for, or to go further and eliminate the structural deficit in this parliament, as George Osborne announced a year ago.
Second, that plan must command sufficient political support for it to be implemented. In America, the lack of agreement in Congress and political brinkmanship over the debt ceiling was disastrous for confidence and ultimately led to the credit rating downgrade. And in the Eurozone there has been a complete failure of political leadership to grasp the nettle of what needs to be done, as we saw again in Poland this weekend.
But political disagreement is not an issue in Britain. Despite the party conference rhetoric this weekend from Vince Cable - who called for "a Keynesian approach to a demand crisis" - the policy of rapid deficit reduction remains and is the cornerstone of the coalition.
There is, however, a third and vital credibility test - the plan has to deliver what it promises. This is where Britain and some of those Eurozone countries have something in common. Austerity is not working for countries like Greece, which now looks set to enter a fourth year of recession, and it is not working in Britain either.
A year ago, Osborne said spending cuts and tax rises that go further and faster than any other major economy would boost confidence and economic growth. At the time I warned that the recovery was too fragile and this risked tearing up the foundations of the house just as a global hurricane was brewing.
And what has happened? Consumer and business confidence has collapsed. Unemployment is rising again. Far from being a safe haven, our recovery was choked off last autumn with only Japan growing more slowly in the G7 over the last year. As the IMF's Christine Lagarde has rightly said "growth is necessary for fiscal credibility" - and to get deficits down too.
It's not just Labour making the case for a more balanced approach - a tough mediumterm plan to get deficits down, but which puts jobs and growth first. The founder of Pimco is now calling for a change of course and Lagarde says there is scope for reducing deficits more steadily to support growth and that, if slow growth continues, ministers must act, for instance through temporary tax cuts - like the temporary VAT cut Labour has called for.
The reckless thing for Osborne to do now is to continue with his absurd claim that Britain is some kind of safe haven and plough on regardless with a plan that is not working. The credible and cautious thing to do is to listen to wise advice and change course before it is too late.
Friday 16 September 2011
TORY CLAIMS TO BE THE PARTY OF LAW & ORDER FELL INTO FURTHER DISREPUTE WITH PLANS TO CUT SUPPORT TO VICTIMS OF CRIME
Sadiq Khan MP, Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary has criticised Government plans, revealed today, to slash the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority by fifty per cent.
He said: “Victims should be at the heart of our justice system but this Tory-led Government is consistently letting victims of crime down.
“The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority provides a lifeline to those who have been physically or mentally injured because they were a blameless victim of violent crime. Its vital that funds are there to help victims rebuild their lives. It is disgraceful that this Government is planning to reduce by half the financial support available to them.
“We agree that savings need to be made in the Ministry of Justice, but slashing the justice budget by almost one quarter must not be at the expense of victims of crime and their families.
“This Government has cut resources to victim support services, refused to unequivocally back a new Victims’ Law, delayed compensation payments to victims of overseas terrorism and are now planning to slash the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. They should entirely rethink their approach to victims and start putting their needs first.”
He said: “Victims should be at the heart of our justice system but this Tory-led Government is consistently letting victims of crime down.
“The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority provides a lifeline to those who have been physically or mentally injured because they were a blameless victim of violent crime. Its vital that funds are there to help victims rebuild their lives. It is disgraceful that this Government is planning to reduce by half the financial support available to them.
“We agree that savings need to be made in the Ministry of Justice, but slashing the justice budget by almost one quarter must not be at the expense of victims of crime and their families.
“This Government has cut resources to victim support services, refused to unequivocally back a new Victims’ Law, delayed compensation payments to victims of overseas terrorism and are now planning to slash the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. They should entirely rethink their approach to victims and start putting their needs first.”
Thursday 15 September 2011
ED MILIBAND DEMANDS CAMERON RETURNS TO PARLIAMENT TO CORRECT INACCURATE STATISTICS
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, has written to David Cameron to demand that he returns to the House of Commons to correct inaccurate statistics that the Prime Minister used at PMQs yesterday.
Labour has also compiled a document detailing many occasions, over several months, when David Cameron's factual claims at Prime Minister's Questions do not stand up to scrutiny.
This is the letter from Ed Miliband to David Cameron:
Dear Prime Minister,
Yesterday, in response to me at Prime Minister’s Questions, you said that “since the election there are 500,000 more jobs in the private sector. There are more people—300,000 more people—in work than there were a year ago” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1028).
This answer is inaccurate. Between June 2010 and June 2011 the Office of National Statistics has confirmed that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 and that net employment increased by just 24,000. The only way it is possible to claim 500,000 extra private sector jobs is by including jobs created between 1 April and 30 June 2010 – but of course this includes time when Labour was still in office, which is not “since the election” at all.
You also said, after I correctly pointed out that the UK has grown more slowly in the last year than any other EU country apart from Portugal and Romania, that “this year, Britain is growing faster than America” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1029). In fact, the UK has grown by 0.7 per cent over the last year to the end of Q2 2011, the latest period for which figures are available, while the USA grew by 2.6 per cent over the same period.
Everyone in public life has a responsibility to ensure we rebuild and maintain trust in politics and politicians. Ensuring accuracy in our answers in the House of Commons is central to that, a responsibility underlined in the Ministerial Code.
Furthermore, the British people will want to be assured that the decisions you take, which have such profound consequences for families and young people, are being based on properly researched data and empirical evidence.
As such, I trust you will return to the House and correct the record at the earliest opportunity.
Yours,
Ed Miliband MP
Labour has also compiled a document detailing many occasions, over several months, when David Cameron's factual claims at Prime Minister's Questions do not stand up to scrutiny.
This is the letter from Ed Miliband to David Cameron:
Dear Prime Minister,
Yesterday, in response to me at Prime Minister’s Questions, you said that “since the election there are 500,000 more jobs in the private sector. There are more people—300,000 more people—in work than there were a year ago” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1028).
This answer is inaccurate. Between June 2010 and June 2011 the Office of National Statistics has confirmed that private sector employment increased by only 264,000 and that net employment increased by just 24,000. The only way it is possible to claim 500,000 extra private sector jobs is by including jobs created between 1 April and 30 June 2010 – but of course this includes time when Labour was still in office, which is not “since the election” at all.
You also said, after I correctly pointed out that the UK has grown more slowly in the last year than any other EU country apart from Portugal and Romania, that “this year, Britain is growing faster than America” (Hansard, 14 September 2011, column 1029). In fact, the UK has grown by 0.7 per cent over the last year to the end of Q2 2011, the latest period for which figures are available, while the USA grew by 2.6 per cent over the same period.
Everyone in public life has a responsibility to ensure we rebuild and maintain trust in politics and politicians. Ensuring accuracy in our answers in the House of Commons is central to that, a responsibility underlined in the Ministerial Code.
Furthermore, the British people will want to be assured that the decisions you take, which have such profound consequences for families and young people, are being based on properly researched data and empirical evidence.
As such, I trust you will return to the House and correct the record at the earliest opportunity.
Yours,
Ed Miliband MP
Saturday 10 September 2011
A PERSONAL MEMORY OF 9/11
A PERSONAL MEMORY OF 9/11
I still have vivid memories of 11 September 2001. I remember switching on the car radio after leaving a meeting of the community legal advice services and tuning in to a special news broadcast. As I listened to the events that were unfolding I initially thought I had tuned into Radio 4’s afternoon play. It was a good few minutes before I realised that the horrific eyewitness accounts were actually true.
It made me think how fragile all our lives are and how they can be snuffed out in an instant. I thought about the sheer terror that the passengers on those airplanes must have felt knowing they were powerless to do anything about the circumstances in which they found themselves.
Just the day before I had returned to the UK on a flight from Brussels where NATO’s headquarters are located, which could just as easily have been targeted like the Pentagon had been. I pondered how I would have reacted had the aeroplane on which I had been travelling had been hijacked. It sent a cold shudder down my spine.
When arrived back in Derby the news had not filtered through. I remember telling my late wife, Lonny Wilsoncroft, what had happened. She thought it would cause a war, but I said a war against who? How prophetic Lonny’s words were. Little did I think then that the events of September 11 would lead two years later to an ill-judged war in Iraq. Still less did I think that 10 years after our young servicemen and women would be losing their lives in a conflict in Afghanistan.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I believe the West’s response to 9/11 was wrong. It did not make the world a safer place and probably contributed to the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil on the 7 July 2005. That was the day that four young British men turned themselves into suicide bombers to kill their own countrymen.
It was Martin Luther King who said: "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” And it was Winston Churchill who acknowledged that “It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”
The ghastly events of 9/11 changed our world forever. But modern day world leaders and policy makers would do well to be guided by the wise words of Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill. It is not a sign of weakness to try to understand why some people resort to evil deeds. It is not a feeble act to meet the forces of hate with love. And there is no betrayal in talking to your enemies.
I accept that when faced with unspeakable acts of violence and cruelty the urge for retribution is understandable. But we must resist that urge and remember Martin Luther King’s counsel. In my view, love, understanding and dialogue are more likely to prevent a repetition of the appalling events of 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.
I still have vivid memories of 11 September 2001. I remember switching on the car radio after leaving a meeting of the community legal advice services and tuning in to a special news broadcast. As I listened to the events that were unfolding I initially thought I had tuned into Radio 4’s afternoon play. It was a good few minutes before I realised that the horrific eyewitness accounts were actually true.
It made me think how fragile all our lives are and how they can be snuffed out in an instant. I thought about the sheer terror that the passengers on those airplanes must have felt knowing they were powerless to do anything about the circumstances in which they found themselves.
Just the day before I had returned to the UK on a flight from Brussels where NATO’s headquarters are located, which could just as easily have been targeted like the Pentagon had been. I pondered how I would have reacted had the aeroplane on which I had been travelling had been hijacked. It sent a cold shudder down my spine.
When arrived back in Derby the news had not filtered through. I remember telling my late wife, Lonny Wilsoncroft, what had happened. She thought it would cause a war, but I said a war against who? How prophetic Lonny’s words were. Little did I think then that the events of September 11 would lead two years later to an ill-judged war in Iraq. Still less did I think that 10 years after our young servicemen and women would be losing their lives in a conflict in Afghanistan.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I believe the West’s response to 9/11 was wrong. It did not make the world a safer place and probably contributed to the worst terrorist atrocity on British soil on the 7 July 2005. That was the day that four young British men turned themselves into suicide bombers to kill their own countrymen.
It was Martin Luther King who said: "Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.” And it was Winston Churchill who acknowledged that “It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”
The ghastly events of 9/11 changed our world forever. But modern day world leaders and policy makers would do well to be guided by the wise words of Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill. It is not a sign of weakness to try to understand why some people resort to evil deeds. It is not a feeble act to meet the forces of hate with love. And there is no betrayal in talking to your enemies.
I accept that when faced with unspeakable acts of violence and cruelty the urge for retribution is understandable. But we must resist that urge and remember Martin Luther King’s counsel. In my view, love, understanding and dialogue are more likely to prevent a repetition of the appalling events of 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.
Friday 9 September 2011
Ed Balls' response to the OECD’s Economic Outlook published today
“A year ago, while the Chancellor was saying he was cautiously optimistic and Britain was out of the danger zone, I warned that there was a hurricane building and this was not the right time to rip out the foundations of the house. And I am even more worried now about Europe, America and Britain than last summer.
“This is now a critical moment for the world economy. We urgently need some leadership from our Chancellor and the G7 meeting this weekend to agree a global plan for growth and more balanced plans to get deficits down in the medium term.
“The deputy head of the OECD was right to warn earlier this year that there is merit in slowing the pace of deficit reduction if weak growth continues, as these latest forecasts suggest. The OECD is now calling for short term fiscal stimulus if needed, following warnings by wise voices including the new head of the IMF and the founder of the largest investment fund in the world on the danger that cutting too far and too fast threatens economic recovery.
“George Osborne should note that over the last twelve months the UK has grown more slowly than any G7 country other than earthquake-hit Japan, as the recovery was choked off by his decision to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast. And the forecasts for the next six months are extremely concerning with the UK set to grow more slowly than any G7 country other than Italy.
“As the IMF’s Christine Lagarde has rightly said ‘growth is necessary for fiscal credibility’ and without growth it will not be possible to get deficits down. We cannot afford for George Osborne to continue sitting on his hands and saying Britain will plough on regardless with a reckless policy that is hurting, but clearly not working.”
“This is now a critical moment for the world economy. We urgently need some leadership from our Chancellor and the G7 meeting this weekend to agree a global plan for growth and more balanced plans to get deficits down in the medium term.
“The deputy head of the OECD was right to warn earlier this year that there is merit in slowing the pace of deficit reduction if weak growth continues, as these latest forecasts suggest. The OECD is now calling for short term fiscal stimulus if needed, following warnings by wise voices including the new head of the IMF and the founder of the largest investment fund in the world on the danger that cutting too far and too fast threatens economic recovery.
“George Osborne should note that over the last twelve months the UK has grown more slowly than any G7 country other than earthquake-hit Japan, as the recovery was choked off by his decision to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast. And the forecasts for the next six months are extremely concerning with the UK set to grow more slowly than any G7 country other than Italy.
“As the IMF’s Christine Lagarde has rightly said ‘growth is necessary for fiscal credibility’ and without growth it will not be possible to get deficits down. We cannot afford for George Osborne to continue sitting on his hands and saying Britain will plough on regardless with a reckless policy that is hurting, but clearly not working.”
Wednesday 7 September 2011
NICK CLEGG HAS CLAIMED VICTORY ON TORY HEALTH REFORMS - IS HE HAVING A LAUGH?
Nick Clegg claims that he has secured eleven of the 13 changes demanded by his party at its spring conference in March. This is Labour‟s analysis of how well he has performed according to his own goals.
1. More democratically accountable commissioning. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. There will be no elected members or councillors on commissioning consortia boards, while Health and Wellbeing Boards are only able to give their opinion to consortia – consortia are under no obligation to abide by that opinion. (Clause 23 – 14Z12)
2. A much greater degree of coterminosity between local authorities and commissioning areas. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia will be more coterminous with local authorities than previously planned, but the populations for whom consortia will be responsible will be based on the practice lists of the GPs not the consortia‟s geographic boundaries. These practice lists don‟t have to bear any relation to local authority boundaries. (Clause 10)
3. No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia will not be as transparent as PCTs are currently. PCTs have to abide by the Nolan principles on public life and the Public Meetings Act, while consortia do not. It is left up to them to decide what business to conduct in private and not in public. (Schedule 2 – 5B)
4. The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers 'compete' on quality of care. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. There will continue to be a number of NHS services not covered by the tariff. With greater competition from private providers, this means that price competition for those services is not ruled out.
5. New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of "cherry picking" which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Government amendments addressing cherry-picking (now in the Bill as clause 108) only required that a provider be “transparent” in how they chose their patients. It said nothing about actually preventing providers from picking the easiest and most profitable patients. Furthermore picking patients is only one part of cherry-picking. Private providers will also be able to pick the easiest and most profitable types of treatment to provide, for example elective say surgery, while leaving the NHS to do the expensive, loss-making treatment, like emergency inpatient care. Nothing in the Government‟s amendments prevents this, and therefore risks destabilising those NHS services. Labour has tabled an amendment to achieve what the Government has failed to do (Amendments 42 and 43)
6. NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill does nothing to prevent consortia outsourcing their entire commissioning function to private companies, and only having a limited oversight function. There is no compulsion for consortia to employ any NHS staff. (Schedule 2, 3(3) and 10)
7. The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interests. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill gives power to GPs to commission services, and allows GPs to have a stake in health companies that provide services that the consortia might commission. Furthermore the GPs‟ surgeries themselves might be providing community services that the consortia might commission. The provisions against conflicts of interest are very weak – consortia only have to make provision “for dealing with conflicts of interest”. (Schedule 2, 7(2))
8. An NHS, responsive to patients' needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and which promotes quality and equity not the market. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill gives extensive competition enforcement powers to Monitor, the new economic regulator, including powers to fine hospitals up to 10% of their turnover for anti-competitive behaviour, and powers to investigate and direct commissioning consortia on competition. Monitor has a new duty to promote integration, but that is less undefined, whereas the scope of anti-competitive behaviour is well defined in existing UK and EU competition law.
9. Uphold the NHS Constitution. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia and the NHS Commissioning Board have new duties to promote the NHS Constitution. But there are no regulations placed upon them to determine how they should do this, or penalties if they fail to do so. Nor are there any regulations placed on them to ensure they have to treat patients with 18 weeks, as mandated under the NHS Constitution.
10. Ensure full scrutiny, including the power to require attendance, by elected local authorities of all organisations in the local health economy funded by public money, including foundation trusts and any external support for commissioning consortia; ensuring that all such organisations are subject to FoI requirements. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. There is nothing in the Bill that ensures that private companies carrying out commissioning functions will be covered by the FoI Act. Their decisions will be stamped „commercial in confidence‟. (Schedule 2, 3(3))
11. Ensure health and wellbeing boards (HWBs) are a strong voice for accountable local people in setting the strategic direction for and co-ordinating provision of health and social care services locally by containing substantial representation from elected local councillors; and by requiring GP commissioning boards to construct their annual plans in conjunction with the HWBs. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia are under absolutely no obligation to abide by the views of Health and Wellbeing Boards. All a Health and Wellbeing Board can do if it is dissatisfied with the consortia is pass its opinion on to the NHS Commissioning Board, which has no power to intervene and force changes on the consortia. (Clause 23, 14Z12)
12. Ensure commissioning of health services has some degree of accountability by requiring about half of the members of the board of commissioning consortia, alongside GPs, to be local councillors appointed as non-executive directors. Alternative Secured say Lib Dems: Instead, they say they will strengthen the accountability of commissioning through health and wellbeing boards (which will have a majority of councillors if that is what local councillors want). This has the support of the movers of the conference amendment.
Fallen short. The Health and Wellbeing Board does not have powers to influence consortia. See point 11 above.
13. Offer additional freedoms only to foundation trusts that successfully engage substantial proportions of their local populations as active members. Alternative secured: Monitor, rather than the foundation trusts themselves, will retain a supervisory role.
Failed. Monitor is an independent quango, with no democratic accountability, and cannot be expected to be a local voice for patients at each Foundation Trust. Furthermore if FTs get into trouble there will be no mechanism to turn them back into NHS Trusts, as now.
Nick Clegg claimed to have secured 11 of his Conference‟s 13 demands. The reality is he has failed on 7 of their demands and fallen short on 6.
Original scorecard published here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/12/nick-clegg-health-reform
1. More democratically accountable commissioning. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. There will be no elected members or councillors on commissioning consortia boards, while Health and Wellbeing Boards are only able to give their opinion to consortia – consortia are under no obligation to abide by that opinion. (Clause 23 – 14Z12)
2. A much greater degree of coterminosity between local authorities and commissioning areas. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia will be more coterminous with local authorities than previously planned, but the populations for whom consortia will be responsible will be based on the practice lists of the GPs not the consortia‟s geographic boundaries. These practice lists don‟t have to bear any relation to local authority boundaries. (Clause 10)
3. No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia will not be as transparent as PCTs are currently. PCTs have to abide by the Nolan principles on public life and the Public Meetings Act, while consortia do not. It is left up to them to decide what business to conduct in private and not in public. (Schedule 2 – 5B)
4. The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers 'compete' on quality of care. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. There will continue to be a number of NHS services not covered by the tariff. With greater competition from private providers, this means that price competition for those services is not ruled out.
5. New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of "cherry picking" which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Government amendments addressing cherry-picking (now in the Bill as clause 108) only required that a provider be “transparent” in how they chose their patients. It said nothing about actually preventing providers from picking the easiest and most profitable patients. Furthermore picking patients is only one part of cherry-picking. Private providers will also be able to pick the easiest and most profitable types of treatment to provide, for example elective say surgery, while leaving the NHS to do the expensive, loss-making treatment, like emergency inpatient care. Nothing in the Government‟s amendments prevents this, and therefore risks destabilising those NHS services. Labour has tabled an amendment to achieve what the Government has failed to do (Amendments 42 and 43)
6. NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill does nothing to prevent consortia outsourcing their entire commissioning function to private companies, and only having a limited oversight function. There is no compulsion for consortia to employ any NHS staff. (Schedule 2, 3(3) and 10)
7. The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interests. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill gives power to GPs to commission services, and allows GPs to have a stake in health companies that provide services that the consortia might commission. Furthermore the GPs‟ surgeries themselves might be providing community services that the consortia might commission. The provisions against conflicts of interest are very weak – consortia only have to make provision “for dealing with conflicts of interest”. (Schedule 2, 7(2))
8. An NHS, responsive to patients' needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and which promotes quality and equity not the market. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. The Bill gives extensive competition enforcement powers to Monitor, the new economic regulator, including powers to fine hospitals up to 10% of their turnover for anti-competitive behaviour, and powers to investigate and direct commissioning consortia on competition. Monitor has a new duty to promote integration, but that is less undefined, whereas the scope of anti-competitive behaviour is well defined in existing UK and EU competition law.
9. Uphold the NHS Constitution. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia and the NHS Commissioning Board have new duties to promote the NHS Constitution. But there are no regulations placed upon them to determine how they should do this, or penalties if they fail to do so. Nor are there any regulations placed on them to ensure they have to treat patients with 18 weeks, as mandated under the NHS Constitution.
10. Ensure full scrutiny, including the power to require attendance, by elected local authorities of all organisations in the local health economy funded by public money, including foundation trusts and any external support for commissioning consortia; ensuring that all such organisations are subject to FoI requirements. Secured say Lib Dems.
Failed. There is nothing in the Bill that ensures that private companies carrying out commissioning functions will be covered by the FoI Act. Their decisions will be stamped „commercial in confidence‟. (Schedule 2, 3(3))
11. Ensure health and wellbeing boards (HWBs) are a strong voice for accountable local people in setting the strategic direction for and co-ordinating provision of health and social care services locally by containing substantial representation from elected local councillors; and by requiring GP commissioning boards to construct their annual plans in conjunction with the HWBs. Secured say Lib Dems.
Fallen short. Consortia are under absolutely no obligation to abide by the views of Health and Wellbeing Boards. All a Health and Wellbeing Board can do if it is dissatisfied with the consortia is pass its opinion on to the NHS Commissioning Board, which has no power to intervene and force changes on the consortia. (Clause 23, 14Z12)
12. Ensure commissioning of health services has some degree of accountability by requiring about half of the members of the board of commissioning consortia, alongside GPs, to be local councillors appointed as non-executive directors. Alternative Secured say Lib Dems: Instead, they say they will strengthen the accountability of commissioning through health and wellbeing boards (which will have a majority of councillors if that is what local councillors want). This has the support of the movers of the conference amendment.
Fallen short. The Health and Wellbeing Board does not have powers to influence consortia. See point 11 above.
13. Offer additional freedoms only to foundation trusts that successfully engage substantial proportions of their local populations as active members. Alternative secured: Monitor, rather than the foundation trusts themselves, will retain a supervisory role.
Failed. Monitor is an independent quango, with no democratic accountability, and cannot be expected to be a local voice for patients at each Foundation Trust. Furthermore if FTs get into trouble there will be no mechanism to turn them back into NHS Trusts, as now.
Nick Clegg claimed to have secured 11 of his Conference‟s 13 demands. The reality is he has failed on 7 of their demands and fallen short on 6.
Original scorecard published here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/12/nick-clegg-health-reform
Tuesday 6 September 2011
We need internationalist spirit – and a plan for global growth
By Ed Balls
A Republican-supporting economics professor, with a dog called Keynes, whose other economics hero was Milton Friedman? As I sat in my first Harvard economics lecture, listening to Greg Mankiw introduce himself to his new graduate class, my head was in a spin.
Could he really be a Republican Keynesian? And a Keynesian disciple of Milton Friedman? For a young Brit, just graduated from Oxford, this was revolutionary; what I thought was the conventional economic wisdom was being turned upside down.
Because, as with every other PPE graduate – including my contemporary, David Cameron – I was well-schooled in the ideological economic debates of 1980s Thatcherite Britain. Were you a Keynesian or a monetarist? A follower of Willem Buiter or Friedman? Fiscal activist or PSBR hawk? Would you trade a little more inflation for a little less unemployment? Did you read Bill Keegan in the Observer or Samuel Brittan in the FT?
Of course, the serious economic debate was more sophisticated than that. But the divides were real, and reflected in the political debate. So much so that in Conservative circles the label Keynesian became a dirty word – profligate, irresponsible, statist, inflation-loving, not to be trusted.
And listening this summer to right-of-centre politicians and commentators, I have regularly been transported back to those 1980s myths that were exploded in that first Harvard economics class 23 years ago. Because the old caricatures are back with a vengeance, on both sides of the Atlantic.
We have all seen financial markets crashing as governments have rushed to embrace fiscal austerity. But warn about the risks of deflationary fiscal policy and that makes you a deficit denier. Worry about the dangers of all countries trying to cut deficits at once and you are a deluded Keynesian. Counsel that the world needs a plan for growth as well as deficit reduction and you are an irresponsible Keynesian deficit denier.
Keynes himself must be turning in his grave. For – as that Greg Mankiw class highlighted to me, and has now been fully documented in Lord Skidelsky's biography – the real Keynes was no profligate tax-and-spender. His seminal 1930 Treatise on Money was as hawkish on inflation as Friedman decades later. His attitude to irresponsible wage bargaining in the 1920s was as unforgiving as Thatcher in the
1980s
Central bank independence? I think Keynes would have backed it, though not if Montagu Norman was the governor. The irresponsible and inflationary profligacy of the 1970s Barber boom? He would have abhorred it. But – and this was his great insight – Keynes also knew that economies could occasionally get stuck in a deflationary rut. Although he called it The General Theory, it was actually a special case: when interest rates are so low that they can't be cut any further; when the "animal spirits" of companies and consumers are so depressed that private spending stagnates; when governments crudely cutting spending risks make deficits worse.
Of course, there will be naive Keynesians who will think it is always a special case – time to let rip. And that is what gave Keynesianism a bad name. Jim Callaghan was right to tell the Labour party conference in 1976 that you can't just spend your way to full employment. And while you can argue about her methods, Margaret Thatcher was right in 1979 to say it was a priority to get inflation down.
But, as I argued a year ago in my Bloomberg speech, the global economy is sliding into that rare and dangerous "special case" that Keynes identified in the 1930s and Japan suffered in the 1990s. And, as Ed Miliband argued this week, our world economic leaders need a global plan B for growth.
Yes monetary policy and quantitative easing can help, and progress on banking and trade reform are important, but fiscal policy is now the key. With growth stagnating around the world, every country pressing ahead with deep cuts risks being a catastrophic mistake. As the International Monetary Fund's Christine Lagarde has warned, "slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery" – as we have already seen in Britain.
It's time that G7 countries led the way by agreeing revised deficit reduction plans, making them steadier and more balanced to support growth and jobs. Yes, have clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but have clear plans to avoid a global slump, too.
This time the world must reject the complacent isolationism of the 1930s and follow Keynes's lead. Because, of course, the other distinguishing feature of Keynes was that he believed in global solutions to global problems. And we could do with a bit of that internationalist spirit now from our prime minister and chancellor, who have been noticeably lacking from the global economic debate.
I remember hearing a great story about Keynes making a wartime trip to Washington to meet the US treasury. Apparently, at the first meeting, treasury secretary Morgenthau asked Keynes: "Where is your lawyer?" When Keynes looked puzzled, Morgenthau exclaimed: "Well, who is going to do your thinking for you?"
I sincerely hope George Osborne will soon recant, follow Keynes's lead and take a flight to Washington to make the case for a global plan for growth.
And George, don't take a lawyer; an economist will do.
A Republican-supporting economics professor, with a dog called Keynes, whose other economics hero was Milton Friedman? As I sat in my first Harvard economics lecture, listening to Greg Mankiw introduce himself to his new graduate class, my head was in a spin.
Could he really be a Republican Keynesian? And a Keynesian disciple of Milton Friedman? For a young Brit, just graduated from Oxford, this was revolutionary; what I thought was the conventional economic wisdom was being turned upside down.
Because, as with every other PPE graduate – including my contemporary, David Cameron – I was well-schooled in the ideological economic debates of 1980s Thatcherite Britain. Were you a Keynesian or a monetarist? A follower of Willem Buiter or Friedman? Fiscal activist or PSBR hawk? Would you trade a little more inflation for a little less unemployment? Did you read Bill Keegan in the Observer or Samuel Brittan in the FT?
Of course, the serious economic debate was more sophisticated than that. But the divides were real, and reflected in the political debate. So much so that in Conservative circles the label Keynesian became a dirty word – profligate, irresponsible, statist, inflation-loving, not to be trusted.
And listening this summer to right-of-centre politicians and commentators, I have regularly been transported back to those 1980s myths that were exploded in that first Harvard economics class 23 years ago. Because the old caricatures are back with a vengeance, on both sides of the Atlantic.
We have all seen financial markets crashing as governments have rushed to embrace fiscal austerity. But warn about the risks of deflationary fiscal policy and that makes you a deficit denier. Worry about the dangers of all countries trying to cut deficits at once and you are a deluded Keynesian. Counsel that the world needs a plan for growth as well as deficit reduction and you are an irresponsible Keynesian deficit denier.
Keynes himself must be turning in his grave. For – as that Greg Mankiw class highlighted to me, and has now been fully documented in Lord Skidelsky's biography – the real Keynes was no profligate tax-and-spender. His seminal 1930 Treatise on Money was as hawkish on inflation as Friedman decades later. His attitude to irresponsible wage bargaining in the 1920s was as unforgiving as Thatcher in the
1980s
Central bank independence? I think Keynes would have backed it, though not if Montagu Norman was the governor. The irresponsible and inflationary profligacy of the 1970s Barber boom? He would have abhorred it. But – and this was his great insight – Keynes also knew that economies could occasionally get stuck in a deflationary rut. Although he called it The General Theory, it was actually a special case: when interest rates are so low that they can't be cut any further; when the "animal spirits" of companies and consumers are so depressed that private spending stagnates; when governments crudely cutting spending risks make deficits worse.
Of course, there will be naive Keynesians who will think it is always a special case – time to let rip. And that is what gave Keynesianism a bad name. Jim Callaghan was right to tell the Labour party conference in 1976 that you can't just spend your way to full employment. And while you can argue about her methods, Margaret Thatcher was right in 1979 to say it was a priority to get inflation down.
But, as I argued a year ago in my Bloomberg speech, the global economy is sliding into that rare and dangerous "special case" that Keynes identified in the 1930s and Japan suffered in the 1990s. And, as Ed Miliband argued this week, our world economic leaders need a global plan B for growth.
Yes monetary policy and quantitative easing can help, and progress on banking and trade reform are important, but fiscal policy is now the key. With growth stagnating around the world, every country pressing ahead with deep cuts risks being a catastrophic mistake. As the International Monetary Fund's Christine Lagarde has warned, "slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery" – as we have already seen in Britain.
It's time that G7 countries led the way by agreeing revised deficit reduction plans, making them steadier and more balanced to support growth and jobs. Yes, have clear medium-term plans to get deficits down, but have clear plans to avoid a global slump, too.
This time the world must reject the complacent isolationism of the 1930s and follow Keynes's lead. Because, of course, the other distinguishing feature of Keynes was that he believed in global solutions to global problems. And we could do with a bit of that internationalist spirit now from our prime minister and chancellor, who have been noticeably lacking from the global economic debate.
I remember hearing a great story about Keynes making a wartime trip to Washington to meet the US treasury. Apparently, at the first meeting, treasury secretary Morgenthau asked Keynes: "Where is your lawyer?" When Keynes looked puzzled, Morgenthau exclaimed: "Well, who is going to do your thinking for you?"
I sincerely hope George Osborne will soon recant, follow Keynes's lead and take a flight to Washington to make the case for a global plan for growth.
And George, don't take a lawyer; an economist will do.
Monday 5 September 2011
GOVERNMENT SET TO DEVASTATE RAIL SUPPLY CHAIN
On the eve of the crucial Transport Select Committee, that will be considering the procurement of trains in the UK, a new survey has just been published revealing the extent of the devastation that will be caused to supply chain companies if the Government refuses to chase its mind on the Thameslink contract.
The survey, conducted by ‘Survation’ for Unite the Union interviewed 125 companies (primarily their Managing Directors) operating in the UK that supply Siemens and/or Bombardier for train manufacture.
The companies were interviewed about the potential impact to their business of Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens. Siemens plan to manufacture the rolling stock in its German factories where as Bombardier pan to build the trains in Derby.
The interviews were conducted between Friday August 26th and Thursday September 1st.
The sample was intended to represent a cross-section of UK businesses involved in supplying services, components and parts to the global train manufacturing industry. Seventeen observations were collected via a web-based invitation survey with the remainder (108) via telephone interviews. The questions were the same for both methods.
Almost half of the suppliers interviewed rely on Bombardier for at least 5% of their sales; while at the other extreme 6% of those interviewed rely almost entirely on Bombardier.
Only 24% of UK Suppliers we interviewed currently supply Siemens, indicating that they are poorly positioned to provide Siemens with future train manufacture. The shortfall in business from the Bombardier plant in Derby not manufacturing Thameslink trains would, in many suppliers’ views, not be supplemented by orders from Siemens.
40.59% of the companies we interviewed - plan to execute job losses. Indeed, some suppliers have already lain off workers. 32% have done so or plan to do so within the next 3 months. Of those expecting job losses 73.7% expect them within the next six months. Despite the government looking to review the UK’s procurement process in the light of recent job losses suffered at Bombardier, the announced 1-year delay to the Crossrail contract is unlikely to help the employment picture as many jobs will already be lost.
When asked “How will they be affected by Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens?” responses ranged from “none” to “substantial”, and in some cases complete closure. We found that of the total sample, 19.2% of businesses believed it would have a substantial negative impact on growth and almost a third (32.0%) believed it would have a substantial negative impact on sales.
Businesses holding one or both of these opinions (a substantially negative impact on growth or sales) could be found nationwide, from Abadare to Witney (See A-Z impact tables in the linked document). While the greatest number of impacted companies were found in Derby – (the UK’s rail production hub) – Birmingham, Nottingham and Chesterfield were ranked highly in the survey in terms of the number of businesses facing job losses. Only one respondent believed Bombardier’s loss of contract to Siemens would have a positive impact.
Overall, Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) will likely see the largest impact on their businesses if Bombardier loses the Thameslink contract. They face higher job losses as a proportion of their business and they are likely to execute job losses in a shorter period. Almost two thirds (65.6%) of SMEs we interviewed do not currently supply Siemens, compared to the survey average of 53.6%.
Damian Lyons Lowe, from ‘Survation’ said: “Our previous survey work relating to Bombardier looked at the striking local political impact in Derby of the government decision to award preferred bidder status to Siemens over Bombardier. This survey has shown there will also be a meaningful impact on jobs and growth nationally, particularly to small and medium sized companies”.
The Government must be persuaded to stop the act of economic vandalism because of the impact on unemployment and economic growth.
The survey, conducted by ‘Survation’ for Unite the Union interviewed 125 companies (primarily their Managing Directors) operating in the UK that supply Siemens and/or Bombardier for train manufacture.
The companies were interviewed about the potential impact to their business of Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens. Siemens plan to manufacture the rolling stock in its German factories where as Bombardier pan to build the trains in Derby.
The interviews were conducted between Friday August 26th and Thursday September 1st.
The sample was intended to represent a cross-section of UK businesses involved in supplying services, components and parts to the global train manufacturing industry. Seventeen observations were collected via a web-based invitation survey with the remainder (108) via telephone interviews. The questions were the same for both methods.
Almost half of the suppliers interviewed rely on Bombardier for at least 5% of their sales; while at the other extreme 6% of those interviewed rely almost entirely on Bombardier.
Only 24% of UK Suppliers we interviewed currently supply Siemens, indicating that they are poorly positioned to provide Siemens with future train manufacture. The shortfall in business from the Bombardier plant in Derby not manufacturing Thameslink trains would, in many suppliers’ views, not be supplemented by orders from Siemens.
40.59% of the companies we interviewed - plan to execute job losses. Indeed, some suppliers have already lain off workers. 32% have done so or plan to do so within the next 3 months. Of those expecting job losses 73.7% expect them within the next six months. Despite the government looking to review the UK’s procurement process in the light of recent job losses suffered at Bombardier, the announced 1-year delay to the Crossrail contract is unlikely to help the employment picture as many jobs will already be lost.
When asked “How will they be affected by Bombardier losing the Thameslink contract to Siemens?” responses ranged from “none” to “substantial”, and in some cases complete closure. We found that of the total sample, 19.2% of businesses believed it would have a substantial negative impact on growth and almost a third (32.0%) believed it would have a substantial negative impact on sales.
Businesses holding one or both of these opinions (a substantially negative impact on growth or sales) could be found nationwide, from Abadare to Witney (See A-Z impact tables in the linked document). While the greatest number of impacted companies were found in Derby – (the UK’s rail production hub) – Birmingham, Nottingham and Chesterfield were ranked highly in the survey in terms of the number of businesses facing job losses. Only one respondent believed Bombardier’s loss of contract to Siemens would have a positive impact.
Overall, Small-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) will likely see the largest impact on their businesses if Bombardier loses the Thameslink contract. They face higher job losses as a proportion of their business and they are likely to execute job losses in a shorter period. Almost two thirds (65.6%) of SMEs we interviewed do not currently supply Siemens, compared to the survey average of 53.6%.
Damian Lyons Lowe, from ‘Survation’ said: “Our previous survey work relating to Bombardier looked at the striking local political impact in Derby of the government decision to award preferred bidder status to Siemens over Bombardier. This survey has shown there will also be a meaningful impact on jobs and growth nationally, particularly to small and medium sized companies”.
The Government must be persuaded to stop the act of economic vandalism because of the impact on unemployment and economic growth.
Saturday 3 September 2011
SOME QUESTIONS THE COALITION GOVERNMENT MUST ANSWER
The Goverment says it wants to rebalance the economy in favour of manufacturing industry. But talk is cheap. It's not what you say that matters it's what you do. And this Government seems determined to flush 180 years of British train making down the toilet.
But before they do that, they've got some serious questions to answer. Here are some that deserve an answer. If the Tory Secretary of State for Transport gives an honest answer to these questions, he would have to reverse his mad decision to sign the death warrant for the British train making industry.
EU Procurement Rules
1. There are two sets of EU procurement rules; these are adopted as English Law as Statutory Instruments and they became the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Utilities Contract Regulations, also of 2006.
The Department of Transport is listed in Schedule 1 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006; consequently all procurement exercises undertaken by the DfT should be in accordance with these particular regulations.
So why were both the Intercity Express Programme trains and those required for the Thameslink project procured using the Utilities Procurement Regulations 2006 and not the Public Contract Regulations?
Corruption
2. Both sets of regulations state that potential suppliers found guilty of conspiracy, corruption, bribery, fraud etc, are ineligible to tender (clause 23 of the public regulations, clause 26 of the utilities ones); such firms can only be invited if there are "overriding requirements in the general interest" so to do.
As this clause effectively excludes Siemens from the bidding process, what are the overriding general interest requirements which permitted the DfT to invite them to tender?
Social and Environmental Considerations
3. Both sets of regulations also permit "conditions for the performance of contracts"; the regulations state that such conditions "may, in particular, concern social and environmental considerations".
Why were no such conditions included within both the Intercity Express Programme and Thameslink trains invitations to tender?
4. What assurances can be given about the inclusion of conditions relating to social considerations in future invitations to tender issued by the DfT?
Proven Solutions
5. Clause 1.2 of the invitation to tender for the Thameslink trains states that the specification must be met by the tenderers offering to supply trains to a new design which "adopts world class proven solutions in one package".
By in selecting a design with a bogie which doesn't yet exist, has the DfT has changed this requirement?
6. If that is the case, why did you not terminate the existing process, re-advertise, and start over again, as required by EU procurement rules?
Changes to Specifications
7. Moreover, public domain information suggests that there have been major changes to Hitachi's design for the Intercity Express Project trains;
As this seems to be very similar to a proposal put forward by Bombardier and Alstom for the conversion of diesel 'Meridian', 'Voyager' and 'Super Voyager' trains to "bi-modes", why has this not been the subject of a re-advertising/re-tender exercise?
8. Who decided that trains for Thameslink needed to be a new design? What evaluation was there of recent train designs with fast-action bi-parting doors (such as class 378 EMUs operating London Overground services) to see if they (or a derivative of them) would be suitable for Thameslink?
Siemens
9. As, in accordance with clauses of the EU procurement rules which have already been referred to, Siemens is ineligible for being invited to tender for new trains, why have they been selected to receive an invitation to tender for CrossRail trains?
10. Moreover, in view of Siemens ineligibility to be invited to bid, why is the DfT proposing to procure new electric trains for operation of the Manchester-Scotland service from them?
Procurement Timescales
11. British Rail could procure trains in months; why does is take the DfT so long, and why is it so expensive?
Consultants
12. How does the DfT vet and appoint its rail consultants - is it through competitive tender and what assurances are sought about their impartiality
Friday 2 September 2011
CONSTRUCTION ORDERS AT LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1980
As a former bricklayer myself, the news that orders for new construction work fell dramatically in the second quarter of the year is of a particular concern.
Construction is hugely important to any economic recovery and it is therefore particularly worrying that orders for new construction work are now at a level not seen since 1980. Orders fell by over 16 per cent compared with an already low figure in quarter one and are over 23 per cent down on the same quarter in 2010.
I share the concerns of the Construction Products Association Chief Executive Michael Ankers. He says these figures are alarming at a time when the economy is already slowing and the construction industry is supposed to be playing a major part in rebalancing the economy.
The fall in public sector orders of 30 per cent is no surprise given the cut back in public sector spending, but this is compounded by a fall in new orders for private sector construction too. This is down 8 per cent on the first quarter of the year and 10 per cent down on the same quarter last year.
Furthermore, assertions by the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, that this Government would build more houses than Labour are proving to be illusory. The reality is, according to the Construction Products Association, new orders for private housing have fallen again and are down by 8 per cent on the first three months of the year. Meanwhile, orders for commercial work are now back to where they were in the middle of 2009.
Of course talk is cheap. The one thing Government Ministers have been good at is talking. But the outcomes of their policies are proving to be 180 degrees different to their rhetoric. Little wonder then that their growth forecasts are constantly being downgraded when the measures they are taking are so plainly wrong.
The reckless ministerial team in charge at the Department for Communities and Local Government is making matters far worse for the construction industry and is creating an additional drag on economic recovery. Examples of their irresponsible approach include abolishing housing targets, slashing the social housing budget and scrapping regional development agencies.
My worry is that the Government’s ham-fisted approach to economic recovery will only make matters worse. Construction is a good economic barometer and these figures are further evidence of even more economic stormy weather ahead.
Construction is hugely important to any economic recovery and it is therefore particularly worrying that orders for new construction work are now at a level not seen since 1980. Orders fell by over 16 per cent compared with an already low figure in quarter one and are over 23 per cent down on the same quarter in 2010.
I share the concerns of the Construction Products Association Chief Executive Michael Ankers. He says these figures are alarming at a time when the economy is already slowing and the construction industry is supposed to be playing a major part in rebalancing the economy.
The fall in public sector orders of 30 per cent is no surprise given the cut back in public sector spending, but this is compounded by a fall in new orders for private sector construction too. This is down 8 per cent on the first quarter of the year and 10 per cent down on the same quarter last year.
Furthermore, assertions by the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, that this Government would build more houses than Labour are proving to be illusory. The reality is, according to the Construction Products Association, new orders for private housing have fallen again and are down by 8 per cent on the first three months of the year. Meanwhile, orders for commercial work are now back to where they were in the middle of 2009.
Of course talk is cheap. The one thing Government Ministers have been good at is talking. But the outcomes of their policies are proving to be 180 degrees different to their rhetoric. Little wonder then that their growth forecasts are constantly being downgraded when the measures they are taking are so plainly wrong.
The reckless ministerial team in charge at the Department for Communities and Local Government is making matters far worse for the construction industry and is creating an additional drag on economic recovery. Examples of their irresponsible approach include abolishing housing targets, slashing the social housing budget and scrapping regional development agencies.
My worry is that the Government’s ham-fisted approach to economic recovery will only make matters worse. Construction is a good economic barometer and these figures are further evidence of even more economic stormy weather ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
