I wrote to George Osborne before Christmas about him misleading the House over the Thameslink contract. This is my my response to his reply calling him to ensure the Government upholds the law on this issue.
Dear George
Thank you for your letter dated 14 December 2011.
I am disappointed, however, that your response contains numerous inaccuracies. I can only presume that you have been poorly briefed on this matter as I am sure you would not deliberately ignore the facts to score cheap party political points.
You refer to Lord Falconer’s comments that it was impossible for Bombardier to compete with Siemens. But when the Department for Transport, under the previous Labour administration, compiled the original tender document, it did so on behalf of the train company. As such, it would have been inappropriate to incorporate social benefits to the people of Derby and beyond.
Indeed, the notice initiating this process, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, clearly stated the procurement exercise was one being undertaken by Government on behalf of train operating companies. This view was reinforced by the Department for Transport’s written evidence to the Transport Select Committee. Presumably, as this was not started as a Government contract, the procurement exercise was undertaken in accordance with the procurement rules comprised within The Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006.
However, there was a significant modification to the contract, after the OJEU notice was published, converting it from an operator to a Government contract. You will appreciate the significance of this absolutely fundamental alteration. I was therefore delighted that you acknowledged in your letter that this is indeed a Government contract. You will understand that a Government contract could have taken into account the contract’s social effect on Derby and further afield.
This change to the contract should have led to the procurement exercise being re-advertised on the basis of it being a Government contract. Taking it forward using the competitive dialogue procedure of The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 could have resulted in an entirely different outcome. Notably, reasons would have had to be found for retaining Siemens in the procurement exercise, rather than for excluding it.
I know with certainty that this major flaw has been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the last Secretary of State for Transport, and the Business Secretary. It has been raised time and again by constituents and MPs representing the Derby area. In addition, questions have been put to the European Commission by members of the European Parliament.
You will also be aware that the Business Secretary has already accepted that the tender evaluation criterion was structured in such a way that the outcome was inevitable.
Yet your Government has repeatedly tried to transfer blame for this fiasco to the previous administration. However, the nineteen page document that resulted in Siemens being nominated as preferred bidder was first issued by the Department for Transport in November 2010. That was a full six months after the last General Election.
You go on to point the finger at the last Labour Government for the delays in this tendering process. But your account appears to have conveniently forgotten that the delays were in fact substantially caused by the effects of the rail privatisation undertaken by the last Conservative Government.
Your assertions about delays are therefore misleading and disingenuous. I struggle to see the logic behind your claim that retendering would put the whole project back by at least another two years. The Cabinet Office Minister has advised Government buyers that procurement exercises should be completed in a maximum of 120 days. If other organisations can procure trains in a few months, why should your Government take a minimum of two years? Just look how quickly the recently announced Southern Trains order for ‘Electrostars’ from Bombardier has moved forward. According to Justine Greening, her department played a crucial role in its rapid completion. So if the DfT can move quickly on new rolling stock for Southern Trains, why should Thameslink take significantly longer?
In your penultimate paragraph you state that planned reforms will in future give suppliers the confidence that they will be able to compete on a level playing field. Can I take this to be an undertaking that, despite what has been reported, you will ensure that never again will the procurement of new trains be based on either Government PFIs or other similar forms of bundled finance. As you will we aware, inferior credit ratings disadvantage British based suppliers against some of their competitors with manufacturing plants on mainland Europe?
In conclusion, it is apparent that this Government contract has not been undertaken in accordance with English Law and the Government is under an obligation to comply with the law. I trust you will therefore urge the Transport Secretary to terminate the process using the powers vested in her by the invitation to tender and start afresh.
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Thursday 26 January 2012
GDP DOWN AND WORSE STILL TO COME FOR CONSTRUCTION SECTOR
This week’s GDP figures, published by ONS, show that the UK economy has fallen by 0.2per cent in the final quarter of 2011. This follows growth of just 0.6 per cent in the previous two quarters.
The main contributors to this fall were the manufacturing and construction sectors, which fell 0.9 per cent and 0.5 per cent respectively.
Commenting on these figures, Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, said: “The GDP figures show that the final quarter of last year was extremely difficult for the economy, in which both construction and manufacturing had a significant effect.
“Unfortunately the prospects looking forward are even worse, as construction is expected to fall a further 5.2 per cent during 2012.”
This will inevitably exacerbate the problems in an industry that has already lost 300,000 jobs, and will severely hinder growth for the economy as a whole. The public sector cuts are having a particularly damaging impact on construction.
Noble Francis added: “Undoubtedly the problems in the euro zone have increased uncertainty in the private sector making investors highly risk averse to investment.
“However, this does not tell the whole story as capital investment from the public sector, which accounts for more than one-third of total construction activity, will have fallen 30% by the end of 2013.
“As construction has been highlighted by government as essential for recovery, the decline is severely harming prospects for the sector as well as constraining overall economic growth.”
The main contributors to this fall were the manufacturing and construction sectors, which fell 0.9 per cent and 0.5 per cent respectively.
Commenting on these figures, Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association, said: “The GDP figures show that the final quarter of last year was extremely difficult for the economy, in which both construction and manufacturing had a significant effect.
“Unfortunately the prospects looking forward are even worse, as construction is expected to fall a further 5.2 per cent during 2012.”
This will inevitably exacerbate the problems in an industry that has already lost 300,000 jobs, and will severely hinder growth for the economy as a whole. The public sector cuts are having a particularly damaging impact on construction.
Noble Francis added: “Undoubtedly the problems in the euro zone have increased uncertainty in the private sector making investors highly risk averse to investment.
“However, this does not tell the whole story as capital investment from the public sector, which accounts for more than one-third of total construction activity, will have fallen 30% by the end of 2013.
“As construction has been highlighted by government as essential for recovery, the decline is severely harming prospects for the sector as well as constraining overall economic growth.”
CAMERON GETS HIS FACTS WRONG AT PMQs - AGAIN!
The Prime Minister got his facts badly wrong at PMQs on Wednesday prompting Ed Miliband to write to Cameron asking him to correct the record.
This is the text of Ed's letter
Dear Prime Minister
I wanted to write following this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions to draw your attention to some inaccurate claims you made today.
In an answer to me, you said that “There are more people in work today than there were at the time of the last election”. In fact, the most recent employment figures from the Office for National Statistics show that total employment between May-July 2010 and September-November 2011 fell by 26,000.
In an answer to Lindsay Roy MP, you said that the Merlin agreement “actually led to an increase in bank lending last year”. In fact, the latest Trends in Lending report from the Bank of England, published last Friday, said that “the stock of lending to SMEs contracted between end-April and end-November 2011”.
In an answer to Paul Maynard MP, you spoke of “the real shame… that there are so many millions of children who live in households where nobody works and indeed that number doubled under the previous government”. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of children living in workless households fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997 and April-June 2010.
In an answer to Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP, who said that your Government was planning to cut benefits to disabled children, you said that “The Hon Lady is wrong”. In fact, according to page 28 of the Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment on the introduction of universal credit, your policy of mirroring for disabled children the current adult eligibility for Disability Living Allowance means that the rate paid to those disabled children who do not qualify for the highest rate of the DLA care component "would be less than now (£26.75 instead of £53.84)".
I am sure that you will want to take this opportunity to correct the record.
Yours sincerely,
Ed Miliband
This is the text of Ed's letter
Dear Prime Minister
I wanted to write following this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions to draw your attention to some inaccurate claims you made today.
In an answer to me, you said that “There are more people in work today than there were at the time of the last election”. In fact, the most recent employment figures from the Office for National Statistics show that total employment between May-July 2010 and September-November 2011 fell by 26,000.
In an answer to Lindsay Roy MP, you said that the Merlin agreement “actually led to an increase in bank lending last year”. In fact, the latest Trends in Lending report from the Bank of England, published last Friday, said that “the stock of lending to SMEs contracted between end-April and end-November 2011”.
In an answer to Paul Maynard MP, you spoke of “the real shame… that there are so many millions of children who live in households where nobody works and indeed that number doubled under the previous government”. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, the number of children living in workless households fell by 372,000 between April-June 1997 and April-June 2010.
In an answer to Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP, who said that your Government was planning to cut benefits to disabled children, you said that “The Hon Lady is wrong”. In fact, according to page 28 of the Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment on the introduction of universal credit, your policy of mirroring for disabled children the current adult eligibility for Disability Living Allowance means that the rate paid to those disabled children who do not qualify for the highest rate of the DLA care component "would be less than now (£26.75 instead of £53.84)".
I am sure that you will want to take this opportunity to correct the record.
Yours sincerely,
Ed Miliband
Tuesday 24 January 2012
DISGRACED TORY MPS USE FLAWED RESEARCH TO ATTACK UNION REPS
Disgraced right wing MPs are exposed today as using flawed research to launch an ideological attack on trade union representatives, the Public and Commercial Services union says.
New analysis published by the Trades Union Congress shows that for every £1 spent on having union reps in public sector workplaces, up to £9 is returned in benefits to the wider economy.
This 'facility time' - used by reps to negotiate terms and conditions for workers, help ensure workplaces are healthy and safe, and assist staff with training and development - is highly-valued by employers.
The TUC report also shows failings in figures relied on by a group calling itself the Trade Union Reform Campaign - headed by disgraced Tory MP Aidan Burley.
Far from costing taxpayers money, the report 'Facility time for union reps: separating fact from fiction' says that reps could be worth between GBP 267 million and GBP 701 million a year to our economy.
Benefits arise through: lower staff turnover; fewer workplace-related injuries and sickness; and fewer employment tribunals.
Mr Burley was sacked from his post as a parliamentary aide to the transport secretary after he reportedly joined friends who were wearing hired SS costumes when attended a Nazi-themed stag party in France.
Liam Fox MP, who is helping to lead the campaign in parliament, was forced to resign in October from his post as defence secretary following revelations that he gave his friend Adam Werritty unprecedented access to official meetings, with serious questions raised about the funding of Mr Werritty's trips.
Union reps work incredibly hard on behalf of their members, often in their own time and for no personal reward other than to help their colleagues and their employer.
It’s pretty clear from their anti trade union setiments that the current crop of Tories are every bit as nasty as their predecessors during Margaret Thatcher’s era.
New analysis published by the Trades Union Congress shows that for every £1 spent on having union reps in public sector workplaces, up to £9 is returned in benefits to the wider economy.
This 'facility time' - used by reps to negotiate terms and conditions for workers, help ensure workplaces are healthy and safe, and assist staff with training and development - is highly-valued by employers.
The TUC report also shows failings in figures relied on by a group calling itself the Trade Union Reform Campaign - headed by disgraced Tory MP Aidan Burley.
Far from costing taxpayers money, the report 'Facility time for union reps: separating fact from fiction' says that reps could be worth between GBP 267 million and GBP 701 million a year to our economy.
Benefits arise through: lower staff turnover; fewer workplace-related injuries and sickness; and fewer employment tribunals.
Mr Burley was sacked from his post as a parliamentary aide to the transport secretary after he reportedly joined friends who were wearing hired SS costumes when attended a Nazi-themed stag party in France.
Liam Fox MP, who is helping to lead the campaign in parliament, was forced to resign in October from his post as defence secretary following revelations that he gave his friend Adam Werritty unprecedented access to official meetings, with serious questions raised about the funding of Mr Werritty's trips.
Union reps work incredibly hard on behalf of their members, often in their own time and for no personal reward other than to help their colleagues and their employer.
It’s pretty clear from their anti trade union setiments that the current crop of Tories are every bit as nasty as their predecessors during Margaret Thatcher’s era.
Monday 23 January 2012
START-UP VIDEO GAMES DEVELOPER-PUBLISHERS HELD BACK BY LACK OF FINANCE
Former Financial Secretary to the Treasury is calling for the Government to look again at Games Tax Relief
TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, revealed today that while 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, there were also 197 closures. Limited access to private and public finance is contributing to the high studio mortality figures. The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting in 2011 of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector.
Stephen Timms MP, former Financial Secretary to Treasury, commented: “This timely report is a further indication that in Government we were right to recognise the growth potential of the video games industry and propose a targeted tax relief to help the sector to grow and create hundreds of highly skilled jobs in the UK. I urge the Coalition Government to review Games Tax Relief for the forthcoming Budget.”
Key findings from TIGA’s Report include:
• 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, but there were also 197 closures.
• The UK’s share of global investment (venture capital and private equity) in the games industry declined from 10 per cent in the mid-2000s to 3.5 per cent.
• 93 per cent of TIGA members said that a new Games Tax Relief would result in more private investment in the UK games industry.
• 63 per cent of TIGA members said that they would seek private investment in new games following the introduction of a new Games Tax Relief.
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “Despite an almost record number of start-up studios, the industry’s potential is being held back by limited access to both private and public finance. UK developers are missing out on investment from global publishers and from global venture capital. This is partly because the UK, unlike many of our key competitors, lacks a tax break for games production, which effectively reduces the cost of games development. Access to debt, bonds and equity finance is difficult because of the high levels of uncertainty about consumer demand and the intangible nature of IP in the games sector. In contrast to the film industry which benefits both from a tax credit and from lottery funding, there is negligible public financial support available for video games development.
“Poor access to finance has contributed to a high incidence of business closures in the games sector. The Coalition Government should consider the introduction of a carefully targeted tax break for games production. This would improve the availability of finance for the sector and enable the sector to compete on a level playing field with our overseas competitors. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”
Oli Christie, CEO at Neon Play, said: “UK game developers and digital publishers have the skills, the creativity and the ability to generate new IP. However, our industry is being held back by difficulty accessing finance. A well-targeted tax break for games production would help our industry overcome this challenge and enable us to contribute to the UK’s economic recovery.”
Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The fact that many studios struggle to raise finance beyond the prototype phase is particularly worrying and is contributing to the high studio mortality rate. A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enhance the availability of finance for studios, improve the UK’s attractiveness to global investors and allow studios to grow and retain experienced development staff.”
TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, revealed today that while 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, there were also 197 closures. Limited access to private and public finance is contributing to the high studio mortality figures. The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting in 2011 of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector.
Stephen Timms MP, former Financial Secretary to Treasury, commented: “This timely report is a further indication that in Government we were right to recognise the growth potential of the video games industry and propose a targeted tax relief to help the sector to grow and create hundreds of highly skilled jobs in the UK. I urge the Coalition Government to review Games Tax Relief for the forthcoming Budget.”
Key findings from TIGA’s Report include:
• 216 new games companies entered the UK games industry between 2008 and 2011, but there were also 197 closures.
• The UK’s share of global investment (venture capital and private equity) in the games industry declined from 10 per cent in the mid-2000s to 3.5 per cent.
• 93 per cent of TIGA members said that a new Games Tax Relief would result in more private investment in the UK games industry.
• 63 per cent of TIGA members said that they would seek private investment in new games following the introduction of a new Games Tax Relief.
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “Despite an almost record number of start-up studios, the industry’s potential is being held back by limited access to both private and public finance. UK developers are missing out on investment from global publishers and from global venture capital. This is partly because the UK, unlike many of our key competitors, lacks a tax break for games production, which effectively reduces the cost of games development. Access to debt, bonds and equity finance is difficult because of the high levels of uncertainty about consumer demand and the intangible nature of IP in the games sector. In contrast to the film industry which benefits both from a tax credit and from lottery funding, there is negligible public financial support available for video games development.
“Poor access to finance has contributed to a high incidence of business closures in the games sector. The Coalition Government should consider the introduction of a carefully targeted tax break for games production. This would improve the availability of finance for the sector and enable the sector to compete on a level playing field with our overseas competitors. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”
Oli Christie, CEO at Neon Play, said: “UK game developers and digital publishers have the skills, the creativity and the ability to generate new IP. However, our industry is being held back by difficulty accessing finance. A well-targeted tax break for games production would help our industry overcome this challenge and enable us to contribute to the UK’s economic recovery.”
Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The fact that many studios struggle to raise finance beyond the prototype phase is particularly worrying and is contributing to the high studio mortality rate. A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enhance the availability of finance for studios, improve the UK’s attractiveness to global investors and allow studios to grow and retain experienced development staff.”
Saturday 21 January 2012
UK VIDEO GAMES SECTOR AFFLICTED BY BRAIN DRAIN OF SKILLED STAFF
Derby has a strong heritage of creativity and innovation and was the birthplace of Lara Croft. But Derby’s games industry is not what it once was and the industry is under pressure right across the country. TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, released fresh evidence this week about a brain drain of skilled development staff to overseas jurisdictions. With 41 per cent of the jobs lost by the games development sector between 2009 and 2011 relocating overseas, urgent Government action is needed to arrest this decline in the British games industry.
TIGA has revealed that:
• The UK games industry workforce shrunk by over 10 per cent between 2008 and 2011.
• 41 per cent of the jobs lost between 2009 and 2011 relocated overseas. The majority of these jobs went to Canada, with the next largest territory being the USA.
• Many games businesses reported that the losses were particularly damaging due to the seniority of the positions and the difficulty in replacing like-for-like when competing with packages of salary, seniority and other incentives offered by Canadian companies.
• Former staff of a single major studio (Bizarre Creations) closed by its global publisher owner (Activision) in 2011 indicate that up to 35 per cent of them left the UK, mostly to Canada, and that disproportionately senior staff went overseas versus those that stayed in the UK.The loss of jobs in British games studios has seen the Exchequer receive nearly £100m less direct and indirect tax revenues, while the sector’s contribution to UK GDP has fallen by nearly a quarter of a billion since 2008.
• The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector (January 2012).
Game developers in countries including Canada, France, Singapore and the USA receive tax breaks for games production. Studios in receipt of public support in Canada are receiving support equivalent to 23 per cent of their turnover, giving them a significant competitive advantage. No tax break for games production exists in the UK. Consequently, the UK is missing out on investment and employment in the video games sector.
TIGA advocates the introduction of a well-targeted tax relief for games development, similar to the existing film tax relief. This would effectively reduce the cost of games development in the UK, attract inward investment, stimulate growth in the sector and halt the brain drain.
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “The UK video games development and digital publishing sector provides high levels of graduate employment, has a high propensity to export, is at the cutting edge of R&D, and has a world class reputation for IP generation. The video games industry is exactly the kind of sector that the Government should be supporting to help rebalance the UK economy.
“Yet our industry is suffering from a serious brain drain. Our competitors in Canada and elsewhere are able to recruit highly skilled developers from the UK largely because they benefit from tax breaks, which effectively reduce the cost of games development. Tax breaks both stimulate job creation in the games sector and provide games businesses with significant financial resources with which they can deploy to recruit staff.”
TIGA recommends that the Government introduce a carefully targeted tax break for games production to enable the UK games sector to compete on a level playing field and to prevent the brain drain. TIGA conducted a snap survey of 27 of its members about the potential impact of a new Games Tax relief.Of those surveyed, 93 per cent said a tax relief in the UK would slow or halt the brain drain abroad while none felt it would cause the situation to worsen.
Dr Richard Wilson added:
“Without a tax relief, the UK runs the risk of losing its leadership position in video games development and becoming a finishing school for the Canadian games industry: with UK universities educating developers and UK studios then honing their skills before they leave for employment in the Canadian games sector. This is bad for the UK video games sector, bad for the Government and bad for the UK taxpayer. We need a targeted tax relief to halt the brain drain.”
Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The UK has a highly skilled development workforce but the brain drain of talented staff overseas is jeopardising this competitive advantage. The evidence from overseas is that the provision of tax relief enables studios to attract and retain high quality staff and to increase employment.
“A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enable UK studios to grow and retain experienced development staff, halt the brain drain and stimulate growth in the games development sector. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”
TIGA has revealed that:
• The UK games industry workforce shrunk by over 10 per cent between 2008 and 2011.
• 41 per cent of the jobs lost between 2009 and 2011 relocated overseas. The majority of these jobs went to Canada, with the next largest territory being the USA.
• Many games businesses reported that the losses were particularly damaging due to the seniority of the positions and the difficulty in replacing like-for-like when competing with packages of salary, seniority and other incentives offered by Canadian companies.
• Former staff of a single major studio (Bizarre Creations) closed by its global publisher owner (Activision) in 2011 indicate that up to 35 per cent of them left the UK, mostly to Canada, and that disproportionately senior staff went overseas versus those that stayed in the UK.The loss of jobs in British games studios has seen the Exchequer receive nearly £100m less direct and indirect tax revenues, while the sector’s contribution to UK GDP has fallen by nearly a quarter of a billion since 2008.
• The findings are based on a survey conducted by Games Investor Consulting of 75 per cent of the UK’s games businesses and published by TIGA in a forthcoming report, Making Games in the UK Today: A Census of the UK Developer and Digital Publishing Sector (January 2012).
Game developers in countries including Canada, France, Singapore and the USA receive tax breaks for games production. Studios in receipt of public support in Canada are receiving support equivalent to 23 per cent of their turnover, giving them a significant competitive advantage. No tax break for games production exists in the UK. Consequently, the UK is missing out on investment and employment in the video games sector.
TIGA advocates the introduction of a well-targeted tax relief for games development, similar to the existing film tax relief. This would effectively reduce the cost of games development in the UK, attract inward investment, stimulate growth in the sector and halt the brain drain.
Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA CEO, said: “The UK video games development and digital publishing sector provides high levels of graduate employment, has a high propensity to export, is at the cutting edge of R&D, and has a world class reputation for IP generation. The video games industry is exactly the kind of sector that the Government should be supporting to help rebalance the UK economy.
“Yet our industry is suffering from a serious brain drain. Our competitors in Canada and elsewhere are able to recruit highly skilled developers from the UK largely because they benefit from tax breaks, which effectively reduce the cost of games development. Tax breaks both stimulate job creation in the games sector and provide games businesses with significant financial resources with which they can deploy to recruit staff.”
TIGA recommends that the Government introduce a carefully targeted tax break for games production to enable the UK games sector to compete on a level playing field and to prevent the brain drain. TIGA conducted a snap survey of 27 of its members about the potential impact of a new Games Tax relief.Of those surveyed, 93 per cent said a tax relief in the UK would slow or halt the brain drain abroad while none felt it would cause the situation to worsen.
Dr Richard Wilson added:
“Without a tax relief, the UK runs the risk of losing its leadership position in video games development and becoming a finishing school for the Canadian games industry: with UK universities educating developers and UK studios then honing their skills before they leave for employment in the Canadian games sector. This is bad for the UK video games sector, bad for the Government and bad for the UK taxpayer. We need a targeted tax relief to halt the brain drain.”
Jason Kingsley, TIGA Chairman and CEO and Creative Director at Rebellion, said: “The UK has a highly skilled development workforce but the brain drain of talented staff overseas is jeopardising this competitive advantage. The evidence from overseas is that the provision of tax relief enables studios to attract and retain high quality staff and to increase employment.
“A carefully targeted Games Tax Relief would enable UK studios to grow and retain experienced development staff, halt the brain drain and stimulate growth in the games development sector. TIGA will bring forward a revised, well-targeted tax break for games production in time for the March 2012 Budget.”
ANDREW LANSLEY, HAS LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY
On Thursday the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) moved to oppose the Health and Social Care Bill, arguing that serious concerns have not been addressed during the parliamentary process, listening exercise or political engagement.
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley's response illustrated that he has lost touch with reality. His reaction to the RCN’s move was to say: "They want to have a go at the government … about pay and pensions. The public know we have to do this. It's a purely political operation." (sic).
The RCN, which had not previously opposed the bill as a whole, has taken this decision at this point arguing that the proposals will not deliver on the principles originally set out, and that recent announcements such as the rise in the cap on private patients being treated in NHS hospitals to almost half (49%) make the bill in its entirety a serious threat to the NHS.
Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive & General Secretary said: “Opposing this bill is not a decision we have taken lightly – we have worked hard on behalf of all our members to influence the decisions that have been taken as the bill has gone through parliament. However, it is now clear that these ‘reforms’ are forging ahead on the ground – without the concerns of nurses and other clinicians being heeded. We have sought a range of assurances, but now feel that the reforms as they stand could have the opposite effect from that which was intended. These root and branch reforms are pressing ahead in tandem with the “Nicholson challenge”, which requires the NHS to save £20 billion in England alone by 2014.
“The RCN has been on record as saying that withdrawing the bill would create confusion and turmoil, however, on the ground, we believe that the turmoil of proceeding with these reforms is now greater than the turmoil of stopping them. The sheer scale of member concerns, which have been building over recent weeks, has led us to conclude that the consequences of the bill may be entirely different from the principles which were originally set out.
“The RCN feels that these concerns are so fundamental that we must now oppose the Health and Social Care Bill. Our Frontline First campaign has shown that cuts are being made, 48,000 in England alone at the last count, and patient care is undoubtedly being put in jeopardy. With this in mind, the RCN proposed an amendment to the bill which would guarantee safe staffing levels, but the government chose not to take this proposal forward. Without these checks and balances, and a commitment to regulate the Healthcare Assistants who are so crucial to the delivery of care, these reforms could damage the very system they were designed to improve.
“Most recently, the announcement that the cap for private income would be 49% has left nurses with real fears that the needs of the market could come ahead of the needs of patients. While we are not opposed to the principle of competition in the NHS, recent developments have shown that the balance between competition and quality has become skewed.”
The RCN has set out a number of areas of concern since July 2010. It believes that concerns remain across all these areas which have led to the change in the RCN position.
• Competition, as opposed to competition and collaboration
• Nurse involvement
• Health inequalities
• National pay, terms and conditions
• Staffing levels
• Private income cap
• Public health
• Workforce planning
• Any qualified provider
Dr Peter Carter added: “While we will continue to raise the concerns of our members around all aspects of this bill, our overall view is that the bill as a whole risks damaging the NHS which our members work hard to build and to support. In combination with the financial pressures all Trusts are facing, and with the rising public health challenge of the coming years, we fear the NHS is now facing a very bleak future.”
The health secretary, Andrew Lansley's response illustrated that he has lost touch with reality. His reaction to the RCN’s move was to say: "They want to have a go at the government … about pay and pensions. The public know we have to do this. It's a purely political operation." (sic).
The RCN, which had not previously opposed the bill as a whole, has taken this decision at this point arguing that the proposals will not deliver on the principles originally set out, and that recent announcements such as the rise in the cap on private patients being treated in NHS hospitals to almost half (49%) make the bill in its entirety a serious threat to the NHS.
Dr Peter Carter, Chief Executive & General Secretary said: “Opposing this bill is not a decision we have taken lightly – we have worked hard on behalf of all our members to influence the decisions that have been taken as the bill has gone through parliament. However, it is now clear that these ‘reforms’ are forging ahead on the ground – without the concerns of nurses and other clinicians being heeded. We have sought a range of assurances, but now feel that the reforms as they stand could have the opposite effect from that which was intended. These root and branch reforms are pressing ahead in tandem with the “Nicholson challenge”, which requires the NHS to save £20 billion in England alone by 2014.
“The RCN has been on record as saying that withdrawing the bill would create confusion and turmoil, however, on the ground, we believe that the turmoil of proceeding with these reforms is now greater than the turmoil of stopping them. The sheer scale of member concerns, which have been building over recent weeks, has led us to conclude that the consequences of the bill may be entirely different from the principles which were originally set out.
“The RCN feels that these concerns are so fundamental that we must now oppose the Health and Social Care Bill. Our Frontline First campaign has shown that cuts are being made, 48,000 in England alone at the last count, and patient care is undoubtedly being put in jeopardy. With this in mind, the RCN proposed an amendment to the bill which would guarantee safe staffing levels, but the government chose not to take this proposal forward. Without these checks and balances, and a commitment to regulate the Healthcare Assistants who are so crucial to the delivery of care, these reforms could damage the very system they were designed to improve.
“Most recently, the announcement that the cap for private income would be 49% has left nurses with real fears that the needs of the market could come ahead of the needs of patients. While we are not opposed to the principle of competition in the NHS, recent developments have shown that the balance between competition and quality has become skewed.”
The RCN has set out a number of areas of concern since July 2010. It believes that concerns remain across all these areas which have led to the change in the RCN position.
• Competition, as opposed to competition and collaboration
• Nurse involvement
• Health inequalities
• National pay, terms and conditions
• Staffing levels
• Private income cap
• Public health
• Workforce planning
• Any qualified provider
Dr Peter Carter added: “While we will continue to raise the concerns of our members around all aspects of this bill, our overall view is that the bill as a whole risks damaging the NHS which our members work hard to build and to support. In combination with the financial pressures all Trusts are facing, and with the rising public health challenge of the coming years, we fear the NHS is now facing a very bleak future.”
Friday 20 January 2012
BADGER KILLING TRIAL IS RIGGED - AND USELESS
The Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government says its culling trials will be science-led, but it has rigged the pilots from the start. It has chosen two areas “as the most suitable to pilot controlled shooting of badgers”. The next sentence claims the trial will be “part of a science-led policy” to control bovine tuberculosis (bTB).
The Badger Trust says any trial that takes place in a “carefully selected area” only, cannot possibly be science-led and would be useless if the methods were applied to other areas.
No exact whereabouts are given in the official announcement, nor in the Minister’s accompanying statement. Consequently it is difficult for the public, both lay and scientific, to verify any assertions about effectiveness. Furthermore, no indications have yet been provided of how the pilot trials will be adequately and independently monitored to ensure they are effective and humane. There are no details of any plausible means of measuring the effects of shooting over six weeks in areas of at least eight miles by eight (150 sq km).
The announcement refers to the 25,000 cattle slaughtered because of bTB in 2010, but fails to give the context – the total number of cattle slaughtered prematurely. This is has been estimated as at least ten times as many as for bTB, 300,000 from mastitis, lameness, and infertility among the many other reasons for premature slaughter.
The document, is riddled with half-truths, such as a statement by Mr Jim Paice, the Tory farming Minister that: “No country in the world where wildlife carries TB has eradicated the disease in cattle without tackling it in wildlife too”. Firstly, Britain brought it down to 628 in 1979 – without killing badgers. Secondly, there is a world of difference between badgers in the UK and wildlife (unspecified) in other countries (unnamed) and the methods used are not revealed. Crucially, there is a known risk unique to badgers – that stirring up a population increases the risk of bTB transmission (perturbation). No other country has controlled bTB without draconian cattle restrictions and testing regimes.
Another half-truth, in the notes to the statement, was that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) of 1998-2007 showed that badger control done correctly over time reduces the incidence of bovine TB in high incidence areas. It also said (but the Minister did not): “After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain”.
Yet another was a reference in the statement to the 16 per cent benefit over nine years, which tends to support rather than contradict the RBCT’s conclusion. The figure was in a report of a meeting between Defra’s Chief Scientist and scientific experts in April, but not published until four months later.
The Badger Trust and its legal advisers are studying this and any other statements that may be forthcoming before deciding whether or not to start legal proceedings.
The Badger Trust says any trial that takes place in a “carefully selected area” only, cannot possibly be science-led and would be useless if the methods were applied to other areas.
No exact whereabouts are given in the official announcement, nor in the Minister’s accompanying statement. Consequently it is difficult for the public, both lay and scientific, to verify any assertions about effectiveness. Furthermore, no indications have yet been provided of how the pilot trials will be adequately and independently monitored to ensure they are effective and humane. There are no details of any plausible means of measuring the effects of shooting over six weeks in areas of at least eight miles by eight (150 sq km).
The announcement refers to the 25,000 cattle slaughtered because of bTB in 2010, but fails to give the context – the total number of cattle slaughtered prematurely. This is has been estimated as at least ten times as many as for bTB, 300,000 from mastitis, lameness, and infertility among the many other reasons for premature slaughter.
The document, is riddled with half-truths, such as a statement by Mr Jim Paice, the Tory farming Minister that: “No country in the world where wildlife carries TB has eradicated the disease in cattle without tackling it in wildlife too”. Firstly, Britain brought it down to 628 in 1979 – without killing badgers. Secondly, there is a world of difference between badgers in the UK and wildlife (unspecified) in other countries (unnamed) and the methods used are not revealed. Crucially, there is a known risk unique to badgers – that stirring up a population increases the risk of bTB transmission (perturbation). No other country has controlled bTB without draconian cattle restrictions and testing regimes.
Another half-truth, in the notes to the statement, was that the Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) of 1998-2007 showed that badger control done correctly over time reduces the incidence of bovine TB in high incidence areas. It also said (but the Minister did not): “After careful consideration of all the RBCT and other data presented in this report, including an economic assessment, we conclude that badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain”.
Yet another was a reference in the statement to the 16 per cent benefit over nine years, which tends to support rather than contradict the RBCT’s conclusion. The figure was in a report of a meeting between Defra’s Chief Scientist and scientific experts in April, but not published until four months later.
The Badger Trust and its legal advisers are studying this and any other statements that may be forthcoming before deciding whether or not to start legal proceedings.
Wednesday 18 January 2012
ED MILIBAND TAKES ON RIP-OFF BRITAIN
Labour leader, Ed Miliband has identified at least six areas for immediate attention in his bid to tackle rip-off Britain, including:
* Savings fees: Pension firms should set out how much they are charging savers to invest their money. Research presented to the Treasury suggests up to 16 fees and levies can be applied toprivate pension schemes. If charges do not fall, Mr Miliband proposes capping total charges for pensions.
*Car-parking charges: Railway companies have dramatically increased the cost of parking at stations, with South Eastern recently hiking costs by 16 percent at 50 stations. The cost of parking should be capped – along with season tickets and other fares.
*Airline levies: Travellers face a wide array of charges from low-cost airlines for baggage, paying with a credit card and even checking in without printing out a boarding pass. These fees would have to be disclosed upfront with the cost of actual travel to avoid consumers being misled when they come to pay for a fare.
* Bank charges: Mr Miliband says his biggest concern is the £2 billion which banks make from unauthorised overdraft fees. He backs plans to give a new consumer watchdog the power to intervene and outlaw excessive fees in the finance sector.
*Consumer helplines: The Labour leader draws attention to the unacceptable practice of people being charged “50p a minute just to complain”.
*Energy companies: Labour have already outlined plans to break up the country’s energy firms and believes transparent pricing to enable proper competition is essential.
* Savings fees: Pension firms should set out how much they are charging savers to invest their money. Research presented to the Treasury suggests up to 16 fees and levies can be applied toprivate pension schemes. If charges do not fall, Mr Miliband proposes capping total charges for pensions.
*Car-parking charges: Railway companies have dramatically increased the cost of parking at stations, with South Eastern recently hiking costs by 16 percent at 50 stations. The cost of parking should be capped – along with season tickets and other fares.
*Airline levies: Travellers face a wide array of charges from low-cost airlines for baggage, paying with a credit card and even checking in without printing out a boarding pass. These fees would have to be disclosed upfront with the cost of actual travel to avoid consumers being misled when they come to pay for a fare.
* Bank charges: Mr Miliband says his biggest concern is the £2 billion which banks make from unauthorised overdraft fees. He backs plans to give a new consumer watchdog the power to intervene and outlaw excessive fees in the finance sector.
*Consumer helplines: The Labour leader draws attention to the unacceptable practice of people being charged “50p a minute just to complain”.
*Energy companies: Labour have already outlined plans to break up the country’s energy firms and believes transparent pricing to enable proper competition is essential.
Monday 16 January 2012
GOVERNMENT’S MISTAKES WILL LIMIT FUTURE ACTION BUT LABOUR WILL STAND FOR PEOPLE AND STAND UP TO VESTED INTERESTS
By Ed Balls MP
Times are tough right now. Jobs are being lost, bills are going up and tax credits are being unfairly cut.
If Labour was in government now we’d be making different choices.
We wouldn’t be cutting spending and raising taxes as far and as fast as David Cameron and George Osborne.
Because their reckless plan has done exactly what we warned – choked off the recovery and put more people out of work which means £158 billion more borrowing than planned.
We would tax bankers’ bonuses and use the money to get 100,000 young people into work.
And we’d have a temporary VAT cut to help people struggling with rising prices and help kick-start the economy.
But even with Labour’s five point plan for jobs, there would still need to be some cuts and tax rises to get the deficit down.
And the reality is that this Tory led government’s failure on the economy means tough times are set to continue. Incomes will continue to be squeezed for both public and private sectors workers.
But in tough times the priority has got to be getting people into jobs rather than people in work being paid more. That is why Labour cannot oppose the decision to cap public sector pay rises at an average of 1 per cent. But it should be done fairly – tougher on those at the top to help protect those at the bottom.
And I’m afraid that three years before the next election Ed Miliband and I cannot make any promises now to reverse spending cuts or tax rises. After five years of the Tories we don’t know how bad the economy will be.
We cannot duck the reality – this government’s mistakes mean tough choices for the next Labour government. Cameron and Osborne are getting it badly wrong. They should change course and put jobs first.
Times are tough right now. Jobs are being lost, bills are going up and tax credits are being unfairly cut.
If Labour was in government now we’d be making different choices.
We wouldn’t be cutting spending and raising taxes as far and as fast as David Cameron and George Osborne.
Because their reckless plan has done exactly what we warned – choked off the recovery and put more people out of work which means £158 billion more borrowing than planned.
We would tax bankers’ bonuses and use the money to get 100,000 young people into work.
And we’d have a temporary VAT cut to help people struggling with rising prices and help kick-start the economy.
But even with Labour’s five point plan for jobs, there would still need to be some cuts and tax rises to get the deficit down.
And the reality is that this Tory led government’s failure on the economy means tough times are set to continue. Incomes will continue to be squeezed for both public and private sectors workers.
But in tough times the priority has got to be getting people into jobs rather than people in work being paid more. That is why Labour cannot oppose the decision to cap public sector pay rises at an average of 1 per cent. But it should be done fairly – tougher on those at the top to help protect those at the bottom.
And I’m afraid that three years before the next election Ed Miliband and I cannot make any promises now to reverse spending cuts or tax rises. After five years of the Tories we don’t know how bad the economy will be.
We cannot duck the reality – this government’s mistakes mean tough choices for the next Labour government. Cameron and Osborne are getting it badly wrong. They should change course and put jobs first.
Sunday 15 January 2012
DAVID CAMERON CHALLENGED OVER HIS VIEW ON HUNTING ACT
The League Against Cruel Sports is questioning David Cameron’s commitment to repealing the Hunting Act following his comments on the issue on this evening’s BBC Countryfile. The Prime Minister used his interview to repeat his pledge to bring forward a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.
However, the League is challenging Mr Cameron’s commitment to this given his reluctance to act on it since coming into power in May 2010. The PM told Countryfile ‘I think there should be a free vote in the House of Commons, I think that the House of Commons should make up its mind about this.”
League chief executive Joe Duckworth said ”David Cameron is the one man who can make a vote on repeal happen yet he doesn’t appear to want to put his money where his mouth is. He is happy to state he wants a free vote yet very reluctant to make it happen and one has to question why this is. The obvious answer is because Mr Cameron knows repealing this legislation would be a deeply unpopular move and flies in the face of public opinion. It also goes against the will of the Parliament where there is currently a majority in favour of keeping the Hunting Act in place.
In the interview to be aired on Sunday evening the Prime Minister also voiced concerns at the forthcoming badger culls. He said these would be fraught with difficulties.
Commenting on the badger cull Mr Duckworth added: “There is absolutely no dispute that action is needed to tackle bovine TB but the proposed culls do not offer a solution and could in fact make matter worse. Culling is not the answer and it’s not too late to reverse the decision and implement a solution which does not involve the needless slaughter of badgers and will actually improve the situation across the country.”
However, the League is challenging Mr Cameron’s commitment to this given his reluctance to act on it since coming into power in May 2010. The PM told Countryfile ‘I think there should be a free vote in the House of Commons, I think that the House of Commons should make up its mind about this.”
League chief executive Joe Duckworth said ”David Cameron is the one man who can make a vote on repeal happen yet he doesn’t appear to want to put his money where his mouth is. He is happy to state he wants a free vote yet very reluctant to make it happen and one has to question why this is. The obvious answer is because Mr Cameron knows repealing this legislation would be a deeply unpopular move and flies in the face of public opinion. It also goes against the will of the Parliament where there is currently a majority in favour of keeping the Hunting Act in place.
In the interview to be aired on Sunday evening the Prime Minister also voiced concerns at the forthcoming badger culls. He said these would be fraught with difficulties.
Commenting on the badger cull Mr Duckworth added: “There is absolutely no dispute that action is needed to tackle bovine TB but the proposed culls do not offer a solution and could in fact make matter worse. Culling is not the answer and it’s not too late to reverse the decision and implement a solution which does not involve the needless slaughter of badgers and will actually improve the situation across the country.”
Tuesday 10 January 2012
A NEW VISION FOR LABOUR
Ed Miliband has today set out a new vision for Labour. Only the Labour Party is capable and willing to deliver a fairer Britain in difficult economic times.
This is the text of Ed’s speech
“Labour will deliver fairness when there’s less money around. And only Labour can
Thank you for that inspiring introduction Richard, and thank you for everything you do to showcase the great things young people do across our capital city.
And thank you all for coming this morning.
It’s great to see so many members of Citizens UK here.
Every day, you take action to change communities for the better, from the CitySafe initiative to campaigning for the Living Wage.
Thanks to you, the cleaners at the Queen Mary University are earning a Living Wage.
And they’re not the only ones.
From KPMG to the Olympic Delivery Authority – working men and women are now being paid enough to cover the essentials of life.
Citizens UK don’t just read about problems in society, you get organised and lead change.
You know that with a bit of optimism, coordination, and persistence, we can change the world around us, one fight at a time.
Those are your values, and they are mine as well.
The Challenge to Labour
A lot of people will hear me talk about values and say:
“welcome to the real world: values cost money, but right now the government just doesn’t have money to spend.”
A lot of people say:
“These are tough times. It’s easy to talk about fairness, but how are you going to achieve it when there’s less money around?”
That’s the challenge for Labour.
And it’s a challenge for me as the leader of the party.
A challenge I relish.
Yes, we live in tough times.
Yes, in the years ahead there will be less money to spend.
But however tough the times are, I believe a simple truth:
Politics can always make a difference.
The Labour Party stands for fairness and fighting injustice.
Those commitments are more important now than ever.
Tough times are to continue
But my argument starts by recognising that tough times will continue.
The government wanted to eliminate the deficit before the next election.
That was the foundation on which their entire programme was built.
But they didn’t understand that you can only eliminate the deficit if the economy is growing.
So they failed.
Last November was a defining moment.
George Osborne admitted that his plan to eliminate the deficit in one Parliament had crumbled.
He wanted to get us to borrow less.
But he bled so much demand out of the economy, that he will have to borrow more.
Much more.
Over five years, £158 billion more than he promised.
Not borrowing to get people back into work, but paying them to be out of work.
That’s the price of George Osborne’s failure.
Of course he’s got excuses.
He’ll blame the Eurozone.
But it’s not as if he wasn’t warned.
As Ed Balls said, if there’s a global hurricane brewing, you don’t rip out the foundations of your house.
But that’s what George Osborne has done.
We always said the deficit had to be reduced.
But in a steady and balanced way.
We warned that trying to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast would make it harder to get that deficit down.
The Government’s failure in eighteen short months has proved the point.
And the consequences of that will be with us for years to come.
The failure of George Osborne’s economic policy creates a different landscape for the 2015 General Election and whoever wins it.
Whoever is the next Prime Minister will still have a deficit to reduce, and will not have money to spend.
Whoever governs after 2015 will have to find more savings.
The Blair/Brown Approach
It means that the Blair/Brown approach will not be enough.
Those governments achieved great things.
Ask the parents who drop their kids off every day at the schools we transformed.
Ask the patients being treated in the new hospitals we built.
Ask people who see more police on their streets.
We should all be proud of that.
Fiscal Constraints Argument
But we could only do it because the economy was growing.
Each time New Labour won an election, it won at a time when business was prospering.
When entrepreneurs could set up new firms and be confident of a return.
When companies knew that there were markets for their goods, and consumers ready to spend.
That growing economy meant that there were tax revenues to invest in our infrastructure, to help hardworking families, and to protect the most vulnerable in our country.
Next time we come back to power, it will be different.
We will be handed a deficit.
We will have to make difficult choices that all of us wish we did not have to make.
So we must rethink how we achieve fairness for Britain in a time when there is less money to spend.
There are some who say that fairness is a luxury we cannot afford in tough times.
That it is inevitable that this country must become:
More unfair.
More unequal.
More unjust.
That fairness is something for good times, and nothing more.
I believe that is profoundly wrong.
When there is less money to spend, the choices are starker.
So our values matter even more.
And if you don’t believe me, talk to the low paid working families who are losing the most, thanks to this Government’s priorities.
Talk to the school-leaver, joining a queue of one million young people looking for work.
It’s Labour’s responsibility to find a new approach for tough times.
So we will be a different party from the one we were in the past.
A changed Labour Party.
The ideas which won three elections between 1997 and 2005 won’t be the ideas which will win the election in 2015.
And not just out of necessity, because there’s less money around.
But because we have to recognise some of the things we didn’t achieve.
The last Labour government did more to tackle poverty than any in British history.
Yet, inequality between the very top and the very bottom still grew.
The last Labour Government saw many jobs created.
But too many people found themselves stuck in low skilled, low wage jobs which offered neither satisfaction, nor time to spend with the family.
New Labour’s answer, tax credits, made a real difference.
But they weren’t enough.
Sometimes in government it felt like, instead of building a new economy, we were spending money to patch up the failures of the economy we inherited.
Fairness wasn’t hard-wired into our economy and society.
That, as well as the deficit, means Labour needs a new approach.
Short term
We have already set out what we would do to get the economy growing again immediately.
We would tax bank bonuses and use the money to get young people back to work.
In short, where the Government is stripping demand out of the economy, we would go less far and less fast.
We call for these things not because we aren’t interested in dealing with the deficit.
We call for them because we are.
The sooner growth and jobs return the easier it is to reduce the deficit we face.
That action to get growth moving must be combined with balanced cuts.
And to get Britain’s budget back into balance and the national debt back on a downward path, we will set out tough new fiscal rules.
But as I said earlier, the deficit will persist well into the next parliament, well beyond 2015.
Long term
So today I want to focus on that horizon.
I want to explain the principles which will guide the Labour Party under my leadership.
I want to set out a new approach.
To demonstrate once and for all that Labour is a party for all times, not only a party for good times.
So in the future, how we deliver when there is much less money available is going to have to be different to the approach taken by Labour in the past.
That means three new ways of delivering fairness in difficult times.
First, reforming our economy so we have long-term wealth creation with rewards fairly shared.
Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze the living standards of families.
And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority.
Long-term wealth creation
So first, Britain needs a new era of long-term wealth creation.
Both to pay its way in the world and to create fairness in tough times.
Too often in the past we ended up with wealth creation which was built on unstable foundations.
With excessive rewards at the top and everybody else seeing their incomes squeezed.
The New Labour approach focused on how government could act to address the consequences of this failure.
But it didn’t focus enough on stopping it happening in the first place.
Not enough on dealing with the roots of our economy’s problems:
Poor quality jobs;
The over-reliance on finance;
And the squeeze on living standards.
The school-leaver in my constituency who years ago would have gone into mining or manufacturing but who now faces an insecure, low-paying job.
The young engineering graduate who is told she is better off designing derivatives than helping British firms design the aeroplanes of tomorrow.
And the workers wondering why their living standards are squeezed and their company is struggling, when the people at the top seem to be getting ever greater rewards.
So what is Labour’s new approach to addressing these problems when there is less money around?
To use the power of government in new ways.
To set new rules that promote the long-term and fair wealth creation we need.
To share a vision with British industry of how we pay our way in an ever more competitive world.
To nurture a growing, thriving economy which creates better jobs, new companies and innovative industries.
That means we have to end the situation where British employers want their companies to invest but can’t find the finance to do so.
That’s why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so small businesses can invest and grow.
It means we have to end the situation where an industry knows it is in its long-term interest to invest in the skills of its workforce, but each firm doesn’t act because it isn’t in their short-term interest.
That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking their responsibilities to bring on the next generation.
And government must play its part.
That’s why we say that major government contracts should only go to those who offer apprenticeships.
It means we have to end the situation where the chief executive wants to make decisions which will benefit his company in five years, when some of his shareholders are only interested in results in the next two months.
That’s why Ed Balls will shortly be announcing our review of short-termism in British corporate life, like quarterly reporting.
All of this is an agenda for responsible business that our business leaders already champion.
It is the one they urge me to address as I go around the country talking with entrepreneurs, visiting factories.
It’s not anti-business it’s pro-business.
Government also has a particular responsibility when times are tough to ensure that rewards go to those who work hard and do the right thing.
That is why we have to take on irresponsibility wherever we find it.
At the top and at the bottom of society.
We have to end the situation where we have rewards for failure at the top — harming the company and its workforce.
That is why we need real change.
Like an employee on every remuneration committee so that top executives have to look an ordinary member of staff in the eye before they award themselves a pay rise.
We are determined to reform our welfare system too, so that it rewards those who do the right thing.
That’s why I’ve said that those on the waiting list for council accommodation should move up that list if they are contributing to their communities, being good neighbours, and seeking work.
We need an economy that builds long-term wealth creation, fairly shared.
Vested interests
But we also need to act on the vested interests that squeeze the living standards of vast numbers of people across the country.
Does anyone doubt that people are feeling squeezed?
The price of food is going up.
The price of gas and electricity is going up.
And the price of getting around, getting to work is going up.
And when there is little money to spend, fairness starts with how you are treated when you spend the money you have.
We need a big change in approach from government.
When big companies use their dominant position to charge too much, we mustn’t be afraid to intervene.
No company that is engaging in predatory behaviour should be too big to challenge.
Take train fares.
This month, some are going up by as much as 11%.
Next year and the year after, some are going to go up by as much as 13%.
And that at a time when so many peoples’ wages are falling.
Some train companies have jacked up prices so much that some season tickets are now a fifth of the average salary in this country.
So much that some parents are giving up jobs because they can’t afford a child minder and a season ticket.
And what are the Government doing about it?
Nothing.
They are afraid to take on the train companies.
In fact they are making it worse.
Just ask a commuter coming into London from Basildon or Basingstoke.
The Government are giving the train companies more freedom to rig the system of fares, so that the busiest routes get the biggest fare increases.
That’s got to change.
I’d make sure the rail companies followed a really simple rule.
The limit for fare increases should apply to every regulated train fare, not just the routes fewer people use.
And it’s not just transport we need change.
Take energy.
Everyone here today who has enjoyed Christmas and New Year with their family has had the central heating on.
But it’s expensive.
And we all know that particularly with the rising costs of energy, there are a growing number of people, many of them elderly, who find it difficult to afford.
We introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance for all pensioners, and we gave specific help to those who were struggling with fuel poverty.
Great Labour achievements.
But what’s going to happen in the future?
As energy gets more expensive, how can we offer the help people need when there is very little money to spend?
The Government has already cut the Winter Fuel Allowance so that it provides less support.
That cut may be something we cannot reverse.
With the economic outlook that we face, we’ll find it hard to do that.
But that doesn’t mean we give up.
Instead our new approach starts by looking at the root of the problem – the way our energy market is letting British consumers down.
We’ve got six main energy companies in Britain.
Competition should be good for consumers.
But the way that the current market works is disadvantaging them.
The tariffs are so complicated at the moment that 80% of people are overpaying for their gas and electricity.
Eighty per cent.
And we know who the most vulnerable are.
Those least able to find the cheapest deal, or to be online.
Often the elderly.
Offering different products is a good thing.
But if those products end up taking advantage of older people – that is wrong.
So I’ll give the energy companies a simple rule.
By all means put different products out there and for different kinds of consumers.
But we will ensure you give pensioners over seventy-five the lowest tariff on offer.
You make it happen, or we’ll put it into law.
There may be less money around.
But for those four million pensioners, Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times.
So we need action against these vested interests.
Priorities
But these new straitened times also mean that the next Labour government will have to have a clear sense of priorities.
In the past, the proceeds of a growing economy gave the last Labour government greater room for manoeuvre.
You could cut capital gains tax and reduce child poverty.
It was easier to avoid tough choices.
But that era is gone.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be political choices about the balance between taxation and spending, and about where our priorities are.
But in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means finding the money from somewhere else.
When someone wins, someone else loses.
And for Labour, that means there are no easy choices.
That’s why when we say invest money in our young people to make university more affordable, we also have to be clear that means not giving the banks the corporation tax cut this Government has planned.
Bringing the cap on university fees down to £6,000 would make a real dent in the awful levels of student debt this Government is going to impose on families.
Let me give you another example.
Everyone is now joining us talking about the squeezed middle and the next generation.
But it’s not enough just to talk about them.
If you want to make taxes fairer for those on middle and low incomes, your priority can’t be to scrap the 50p rate for those earning £150,000 or more.
In the years ahead, we will be focused on how we can make the right, tough, long-term decisions to help those on lower and middle incomes succeed.
Building long-term wealth creation, tackling vested interests, and being clear about our priorities – that is how we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around.
It’s my agenda for a fairer country and a more responsible capitalism.
The new approach – only Labour can deliver
When I talked about that in my conference speech, you might say I wasn’t overwhelmed with support from other political parties.
Some even said that I was anti-business.
But in the last few months something strange has happened.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are falling over themselves to say that they too are burning with passion to take on “crony capitalism.”
A Prime Minister who six months ago was gagging to scrap the 50p tax rate now tells us he will keep it for a few more years.
And the same Prime Minister, who said I was anti-business when I called time on undeserved rewards at the top, now claims he’s desperate to stop them too.
I say to the Prime Minister, who are you trying to kid?
No-one is ever going to believe you’re the man to take on crony capitalism.
No-one will believe this is what gets you out of bed in the morning.
But now that you have accepted that this is the battleground of politics, I say:
Bring it on.
Because my message today is not simply that Labour can deliver fairness when there is less money around.
But that only Labour can.
Because the core belief of this Prime Minister is that we can solve the problems Britain faces by government getting out of the way.
His answer to the problems thrown up by the economic crisis, is simply more of the same.
My answer is different.
Different to this Prime Minister.
And different too to the previous Labour Government.
Conclusion
My Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help, that there are no choices to be made.
My Labour Party is going to show that we can deliver fairness even when there’s less money around.
And in the end, once the savings have been made and the deficit has been reduced, the question is this:
What is your vision for this country?
This Government doesn’t have one.
But we do.
Because we understand that a responsible economy is also a stronger, growing economy.
Our vision is for an economy based on sustainable wealth creation.
Where rewards are more fairly shared.
Where we take on the vested interests that squeeze people’s living standards.
Where we stand up for the hard-working majority with the choices we make.
That is the basis on which Labour will govern.
That is what Labour stands for.
That is where Labour stands.”
This is the text of Ed’s speech
“Labour will deliver fairness when there’s less money around. And only Labour can
Thank you for that inspiring introduction Richard, and thank you for everything you do to showcase the great things young people do across our capital city.
And thank you all for coming this morning.
It’s great to see so many members of Citizens UK here.
Every day, you take action to change communities for the better, from the CitySafe initiative to campaigning for the Living Wage.
Thanks to you, the cleaners at the Queen Mary University are earning a Living Wage.
And they’re not the only ones.
From KPMG to the Olympic Delivery Authority – working men and women are now being paid enough to cover the essentials of life.
Citizens UK don’t just read about problems in society, you get organised and lead change.
You know that with a bit of optimism, coordination, and persistence, we can change the world around us, one fight at a time.
Those are your values, and they are mine as well.
The Challenge to Labour
A lot of people will hear me talk about values and say:
“welcome to the real world: values cost money, but right now the government just doesn’t have money to spend.”
A lot of people say:
“These are tough times. It’s easy to talk about fairness, but how are you going to achieve it when there’s less money around?”
That’s the challenge for Labour.
And it’s a challenge for me as the leader of the party.
A challenge I relish.
Yes, we live in tough times.
Yes, in the years ahead there will be less money to spend.
But however tough the times are, I believe a simple truth:
Politics can always make a difference.
The Labour Party stands for fairness and fighting injustice.
Those commitments are more important now than ever.
Tough times are to continue
But my argument starts by recognising that tough times will continue.
The government wanted to eliminate the deficit before the next election.
That was the foundation on which their entire programme was built.
But they didn’t understand that you can only eliminate the deficit if the economy is growing.
So they failed.
Last November was a defining moment.
George Osborne admitted that his plan to eliminate the deficit in one Parliament had crumbled.
He wanted to get us to borrow less.
But he bled so much demand out of the economy, that he will have to borrow more.
Much more.
Over five years, £158 billion more than he promised.
Not borrowing to get people back into work, but paying them to be out of work.
That’s the price of George Osborne’s failure.
Of course he’s got excuses.
He’ll blame the Eurozone.
But it’s not as if he wasn’t warned.
As Ed Balls said, if there’s a global hurricane brewing, you don’t rip out the foundations of your house.
But that’s what George Osborne has done.
We always said the deficit had to be reduced.
But in a steady and balanced way.
We warned that trying to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast would make it harder to get that deficit down.
The Government’s failure in eighteen short months has proved the point.
And the consequences of that will be with us for years to come.
The failure of George Osborne’s economic policy creates a different landscape for the 2015 General Election and whoever wins it.
Whoever is the next Prime Minister will still have a deficit to reduce, and will not have money to spend.
Whoever governs after 2015 will have to find more savings.
The Blair/Brown Approach
It means that the Blair/Brown approach will not be enough.
Those governments achieved great things.
Ask the parents who drop their kids off every day at the schools we transformed.
Ask the patients being treated in the new hospitals we built.
Ask people who see more police on their streets.
We should all be proud of that.
Fiscal Constraints Argument
But we could only do it because the economy was growing.
Each time New Labour won an election, it won at a time when business was prospering.
When entrepreneurs could set up new firms and be confident of a return.
When companies knew that there were markets for their goods, and consumers ready to spend.
That growing economy meant that there were tax revenues to invest in our infrastructure, to help hardworking families, and to protect the most vulnerable in our country.
Next time we come back to power, it will be different.
We will be handed a deficit.
We will have to make difficult choices that all of us wish we did not have to make.
So we must rethink how we achieve fairness for Britain in a time when there is less money to spend.
There are some who say that fairness is a luxury we cannot afford in tough times.
That it is inevitable that this country must become:
More unfair.
More unequal.
More unjust.
That fairness is something for good times, and nothing more.
I believe that is profoundly wrong.
When there is less money to spend, the choices are starker.
So our values matter even more.
And if you don’t believe me, talk to the low paid working families who are losing the most, thanks to this Government’s priorities.
Talk to the school-leaver, joining a queue of one million young people looking for work.
It’s Labour’s responsibility to find a new approach for tough times.
So we will be a different party from the one we were in the past.
A changed Labour Party.
The ideas which won three elections between 1997 and 2005 won’t be the ideas which will win the election in 2015.
And not just out of necessity, because there’s less money around.
But because we have to recognise some of the things we didn’t achieve.
The last Labour government did more to tackle poverty than any in British history.
Yet, inequality between the very top and the very bottom still grew.
The last Labour Government saw many jobs created.
But too many people found themselves stuck in low skilled, low wage jobs which offered neither satisfaction, nor time to spend with the family.
New Labour’s answer, tax credits, made a real difference.
But they weren’t enough.
Sometimes in government it felt like, instead of building a new economy, we were spending money to patch up the failures of the economy we inherited.
Fairness wasn’t hard-wired into our economy and society.
That, as well as the deficit, means Labour needs a new approach.
Short term
We have already set out what we would do to get the economy growing again immediately.
We would tax bank bonuses and use the money to get young people back to work.
In short, where the Government is stripping demand out of the economy, we would go less far and less fast.
We call for these things not because we aren’t interested in dealing with the deficit.
We call for them because we are.
The sooner growth and jobs return the easier it is to reduce the deficit we face.
That action to get growth moving must be combined with balanced cuts.
And to get Britain’s budget back into balance and the national debt back on a downward path, we will set out tough new fiscal rules.
But as I said earlier, the deficit will persist well into the next parliament, well beyond 2015.
Long term
So today I want to focus on that horizon.
I want to explain the principles which will guide the Labour Party under my leadership.
I want to set out a new approach.
To demonstrate once and for all that Labour is a party for all times, not only a party for good times.
So in the future, how we deliver when there is much less money available is going to have to be different to the approach taken by Labour in the past.
That means three new ways of delivering fairness in difficult times.
First, reforming our economy so we have long-term wealth creation with rewards fairly shared.
Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze the living standards of families.
And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority.
Long-term wealth creation
So first, Britain needs a new era of long-term wealth creation.
Both to pay its way in the world and to create fairness in tough times.
Too often in the past we ended up with wealth creation which was built on unstable foundations.
With excessive rewards at the top and everybody else seeing their incomes squeezed.
The New Labour approach focused on how government could act to address the consequences of this failure.
But it didn’t focus enough on stopping it happening in the first place.
Not enough on dealing with the roots of our economy’s problems:
Poor quality jobs;
The over-reliance on finance;
And the squeeze on living standards.
The school-leaver in my constituency who years ago would have gone into mining or manufacturing but who now faces an insecure, low-paying job.
The young engineering graduate who is told she is better off designing derivatives than helping British firms design the aeroplanes of tomorrow.
And the workers wondering why their living standards are squeezed and their company is struggling, when the people at the top seem to be getting ever greater rewards.
So what is Labour’s new approach to addressing these problems when there is less money around?
To use the power of government in new ways.
To set new rules that promote the long-term and fair wealth creation we need.
To share a vision with British industry of how we pay our way in an ever more competitive world.
To nurture a growing, thriving economy which creates better jobs, new companies and innovative industries.
That means we have to end the situation where British employers want their companies to invest but can’t find the finance to do so.
That’s why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so small businesses can invest and grow.
It means we have to end the situation where an industry knows it is in its long-term interest to invest in the skills of its workforce, but each firm doesn’t act because it isn’t in their short-term interest.
That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking their responsibilities to bring on the next generation.
And government must play its part.
That’s why we say that major government contracts should only go to those who offer apprenticeships.
It means we have to end the situation where the chief executive wants to make decisions which will benefit his company in five years, when some of his shareholders are only interested in results in the next two months.
That’s why Ed Balls will shortly be announcing our review of short-termism in British corporate life, like quarterly reporting.
All of this is an agenda for responsible business that our business leaders already champion.
It is the one they urge me to address as I go around the country talking with entrepreneurs, visiting factories.
It’s not anti-business it’s pro-business.
Government also has a particular responsibility when times are tough to ensure that rewards go to those who work hard and do the right thing.
That is why we have to take on irresponsibility wherever we find it.
At the top and at the bottom of society.
We have to end the situation where we have rewards for failure at the top — harming the company and its workforce.
That is why we need real change.
Like an employee on every remuneration committee so that top executives have to look an ordinary member of staff in the eye before they award themselves a pay rise.
We are determined to reform our welfare system too, so that it rewards those who do the right thing.
That’s why I’ve said that those on the waiting list for council accommodation should move up that list if they are contributing to their communities, being good neighbours, and seeking work.
We need an economy that builds long-term wealth creation, fairly shared.
Vested interests
But we also need to act on the vested interests that squeeze the living standards of vast numbers of people across the country.
Does anyone doubt that people are feeling squeezed?
The price of food is going up.
The price of gas and electricity is going up.
And the price of getting around, getting to work is going up.
And when there is little money to spend, fairness starts with how you are treated when you spend the money you have.
We need a big change in approach from government.
When big companies use their dominant position to charge too much, we mustn’t be afraid to intervene.
No company that is engaging in predatory behaviour should be too big to challenge.
Take train fares.
This month, some are going up by as much as 11%.
Next year and the year after, some are going to go up by as much as 13%.
And that at a time when so many peoples’ wages are falling.
Some train companies have jacked up prices so much that some season tickets are now a fifth of the average salary in this country.
So much that some parents are giving up jobs because they can’t afford a child minder and a season ticket.
And what are the Government doing about it?
Nothing.
They are afraid to take on the train companies.
In fact they are making it worse.
Just ask a commuter coming into London from Basildon or Basingstoke.
The Government are giving the train companies more freedom to rig the system of fares, so that the busiest routes get the biggest fare increases.
That’s got to change.
I’d make sure the rail companies followed a really simple rule.
The limit for fare increases should apply to every regulated train fare, not just the routes fewer people use.
And it’s not just transport we need change.
Take energy.
Everyone here today who has enjoyed Christmas and New Year with their family has had the central heating on.
But it’s expensive.
And we all know that particularly with the rising costs of energy, there are a growing number of people, many of them elderly, who find it difficult to afford.
We introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance for all pensioners, and we gave specific help to those who were struggling with fuel poverty.
Great Labour achievements.
But what’s going to happen in the future?
As energy gets more expensive, how can we offer the help people need when there is very little money to spend?
The Government has already cut the Winter Fuel Allowance so that it provides less support.
That cut may be something we cannot reverse.
With the economic outlook that we face, we’ll find it hard to do that.
But that doesn’t mean we give up.
Instead our new approach starts by looking at the root of the problem – the way our energy market is letting British consumers down.
We’ve got six main energy companies in Britain.
Competition should be good for consumers.
But the way that the current market works is disadvantaging them.
The tariffs are so complicated at the moment that 80% of people are overpaying for their gas and electricity.
Eighty per cent.
And we know who the most vulnerable are.
Those least able to find the cheapest deal, or to be online.
Often the elderly.
Offering different products is a good thing.
But if those products end up taking advantage of older people – that is wrong.
So I’ll give the energy companies a simple rule.
By all means put different products out there and for different kinds of consumers.
But we will ensure you give pensioners over seventy-five the lowest tariff on offer.
You make it happen, or we’ll put it into law.
There may be less money around.
But for those four million pensioners, Labour can still deliver fairness in these tough times.
So we need action against these vested interests.
Priorities
But these new straitened times also mean that the next Labour government will have to have a clear sense of priorities.
In the past, the proceeds of a growing economy gave the last Labour government greater room for manoeuvre.
You could cut capital gains tax and reduce child poverty.
It was easier to avoid tough choices.
But that era is gone.
That doesn’t mean there won’t be political choices about the balance between taxation and spending, and about where our priorities are.
But in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means finding the money from somewhere else.
When someone wins, someone else loses.
And for Labour, that means there are no easy choices.
That’s why when we say invest money in our young people to make university more affordable, we also have to be clear that means not giving the banks the corporation tax cut this Government has planned.
Bringing the cap on university fees down to £6,000 would make a real dent in the awful levels of student debt this Government is going to impose on families.
Let me give you another example.
Everyone is now joining us talking about the squeezed middle and the next generation.
But it’s not enough just to talk about them.
If you want to make taxes fairer for those on middle and low incomes, your priority can’t be to scrap the 50p rate for those earning £150,000 or more.
In the years ahead, we will be focused on how we can make the right, tough, long-term decisions to help those on lower and middle incomes succeed.
Building long-term wealth creation, tackling vested interests, and being clear about our priorities – that is how we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around.
It’s my agenda for a fairer country and a more responsible capitalism.
The new approach – only Labour can deliver
When I talked about that in my conference speech, you might say I wasn’t overwhelmed with support from other political parties.
Some even said that I was anti-business.
But in the last few months something strange has happened.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are falling over themselves to say that they too are burning with passion to take on “crony capitalism.”
A Prime Minister who six months ago was gagging to scrap the 50p tax rate now tells us he will keep it for a few more years.
And the same Prime Minister, who said I was anti-business when I called time on undeserved rewards at the top, now claims he’s desperate to stop them too.
I say to the Prime Minister, who are you trying to kid?
No-one is ever going to believe you’re the man to take on crony capitalism.
No-one will believe this is what gets you out of bed in the morning.
But now that you have accepted that this is the battleground of politics, I say:
Bring it on.
Because my message today is not simply that Labour can deliver fairness when there is less money around.
But that only Labour can.
Because the core belief of this Prime Minister is that we can solve the problems Britain faces by government getting out of the way.
His answer to the problems thrown up by the economic crisis, is simply more of the same.
My answer is different.
Different to this Prime Minister.
And different too to the previous Labour Government.
Conclusion
My Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help, that there are no choices to be made.
My Labour Party is going to show that we can deliver fairness even when there’s less money around.
And in the end, once the savings have been made and the deficit has been reduced, the question is this:
What is your vision for this country?
This Government doesn’t have one.
But we do.
Because we understand that a responsible economy is also a stronger, growing economy.
Our vision is for an economy based on sustainable wealth creation.
Where rewards are more fairly shared.
Where we take on the vested interests that squeeze people’s living standards.
Where we stand up for the hard-working majority with the choices we make.
That is the basis on which Labour will govern.
That is what Labour stands for.
That is where Labour stands.”
Wednesday 4 January 2012
PILOT BADGER CULLS FLY IN THE FACE OF SCIENCE
The New Year greeting to England’s cattle farming industry could be an even bigger bill than they expect for badger culling in attempts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (bTB). This is why.
The NFU is likely to propose that badgers could be killed over trial areas from 250 to 450 sq Km, up to three times the Coalition Government’s minimum, according to a report in the Farmers’ Weekly. Cattle farmers collectively could have to pay for a full-scale culling programme if the trial was considered effective and humane. The larger areas would be equivalent to squares of 13 miles by 13, but it is not yet possible to estimate the scale of the actual operations because the locations have not been revealed.
However, as a hypothetical example of the work that would need to be undertaken the Badger Trust has been analysing the Cambridgeshire constituency of Mr James Paice, the farming minister. It is described as being “centred on Ely” and a square of 450 sq Km with Ely at its centre contains almost 3,000 fields, not counting gardens and woodlands which could also be a refuge for badgers.
The size of the culling problem in such an area would be this:
FIRST, all the badgers would have to be counted. Contractors would then have to prove that at least 70 per cent had been killed - in a humane manner - over 70 per cent of the territory.
SECOND, only then could the projected benefit be a possibility: a mere 16 per cent fewer herds affected over nine years as estimated on data from the £50-million Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). The Coalition Government has stated that this is the only sufficiently rigorous trial to be taken into consideration.
THIRD, this benefit would need the conditions to be in line with the RBCT. That involved the smaller task of killing in areas of about six miles square over only a few days – not the six weeks announced in the Commons last year nor over larger areas.
FOURTH, synchronising the killings is essential; it would be much harder over the six weeks.
FIFTH, no comparisons with the RBCT results - including the estimated 16 per cent benefit – can be inferred because the effectiveness of free shooting badgers at night has not been rigorously substantiated. It is not comparable with the humane and accountable method of cage trapping followed by shooting in broad daylight as in the RBCT. Furthermore the trials will not produce any reliable data about the effect on bTB.
SIXTH, farmers would have to meet an even more massive bill for sufficiently expert staff to cover larger areas for four years.
Badger culling, if it comes to pass, will represent a triumph of prejudice over science, a triumph of the feel-good factor over commonsense and a triumph of political expediency at the expense of a gullible industry.
The NFU is likely to propose that badgers could be killed over trial areas from 250 to 450 sq Km, up to three times the Coalition Government’s minimum, according to a report in the Farmers’ Weekly. Cattle farmers collectively could have to pay for a full-scale culling programme if the trial was considered effective and humane. The larger areas would be equivalent to squares of 13 miles by 13, but it is not yet possible to estimate the scale of the actual operations because the locations have not been revealed.
However, as a hypothetical example of the work that would need to be undertaken the Badger Trust has been analysing the Cambridgeshire constituency of Mr James Paice, the farming minister. It is described as being “centred on Ely” and a square of 450 sq Km with Ely at its centre contains almost 3,000 fields, not counting gardens and woodlands which could also be a refuge for badgers.
The size of the culling problem in such an area would be this:
FIRST, all the badgers would have to be counted. Contractors would then have to prove that at least 70 per cent had been killed - in a humane manner - over 70 per cent of the territory.
SECOND, only then could the projected benefit be a possibility: a mere 16 per cent fewer herds affected over nine years as estimated on data from the £50-million Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT). The Coalition Government has stated that this is the only sufficiently rigorous trial to be taken into consideration.
THIRD, this benefit would need the conditions to be in line with the RBCT. That involved the smaller task of killing in areas of about six miles square over only a few days – not the six weeks announced in the Commons last year nor over larger areas.
FOURTH, synchronising the killings is essential; it would be much harder over the six weeks.
FIFTH, no comparisons with the RBCT results - including the estimated 16 per cent benefit – can be inferred because the effectiveness of free shooting badgers at night has not been rigorously substantiated. It is not comparable with the humane and accountable method of cage trapping followed by shooting in broad daylight as in the RBCT. Furthermore the trials will not produce any reliable data about the effect on bTB.
SIXTH, farmers would have to meet an even more massive bill for sufficiently expert staff to cover larger areas for four years.
Badger culling, if it comes to pass, will represent a triumph of prejudice over science, a triumph of the feel-good factor over commonsense and a triumph of political expediency at the expense of a gullible industry.
PAYDAY LOANS USED FOR HOUSING COSTS IN TORY DICKENSIAN BRITAIN
In the new Tory Dickensian Britain, almost one million people have taken out a payday loan to help pay their rent or mortgage in the last 12 months, according to a new Shelter survey.
The survey also reveals that almost seven million people in total are relying on credit in some form to help pay their housing costs, using payday loans, unauthorised overdrafts, other loans or credit cards.
These results show the spiral of debt that people are falling into in order to keep a roof over their head.
Shelter is warning that the New Year could bring with it a risk of homelessness for people who are struggling with their housing costs.
They are urging anyone worried about their debts to seek early debt advice as their New Year’s resolution.
Campbell Robb, Shelter’s Chief Executive said: "These shocking findings show the extent to which millions of households across the country are desperately struggling to keep their home.
"Turning to short-term payday loans to help pay for the cost of housing is totally unsustainable. It can quickly lead to debts snowballing out of control and can lead to eviction or repossession and ultimately homelessness.”
The survey also reveals that almost seven million people in total are relying on credit in some form to help pay their housing costs, using payday loans, unauthorised overdrafts, other loans or credit cards.
These results show the spiral of debt that people are falling into in order to keep a roof over their head.
Shelter is warning that the New Year could bring with it a risk of homelessness for people who are struggling with their housing costs.
They are urging anyone worried about their debts to seek early debt advice as their New Year’s resolution.
Campbell Robb, Shelter’s Chief Executive said: "These shocking findings show the extent to which millions of households across the country are desperately struggling to keep their home.
"Turning to short-term payday loans to help pay for the cost of housing is totally unsustainable. It can quickly lead to debts snowballing out of control and can lead to eviction or repossession and ultimately homelessness.”
Tuesday 3 January 2012
GLOOMY PREDICTION FOR CONSTRUCTION IN 2012
The construction industry is a barometer of how well the economy is doing – and as everyone knows, it’s doing very badly under the stewardship of this Tory-Lib Dem Government.
Forecasts out today show more gloomy news for the industry in the coming 12 months. Public Sector construction is set to fall by a further 18% up to 2014. Education construction is predicted to plummet by one quarter in 2012, while health construction is set to decrease by 15% this year.
The only light at the end of the tunnel for the construction industry is that infrastructure construction should see an increase of 20% by 2015 and energy construction a threefold rise over the same period.
But overall, construction output is forecast to fall by more than 5% this year and remain flat throughout 2013. It will be 2014 before the industry is expected to see any significant signs of recovery, by which time output will be 12% lower than at its peak in 2007.
Michael Ankers from the Construction Products Association says: “For the construction industry to return to growth there needs to be a strong private sector recovery, but this is just not happening. Continuing uncertainty about the future of the euro zone and a lack of consumer confidence in the UK are holding back important investment decisions. As a result the largest area of construction activity - private commercial work- is forecast to fall by a further 5% in 2012 and remain at that level in 2013.
“At the same time the cuts in public sector construction activity are really beginning to bite, with construction work on schools, hospitals, and other non-housing work forecast to fall by 23% compared with 2011. Despite the encouraging announcements on public sector investment on infrastructure projects in the Autumn Statement, capital spending on construction will still fall 30% by 2013.
“Although new housing starts in the private sector are set to continue their slow recovery, in the short term these are more than offset by the sharp fall in public sector housing. As a result the number of new homes started in 2012 is forecast to be 5000 fewer than this year, and at just 113,000 this is less than half the number of homes needed to accommodate the additional number of households expected to be created over the next 12 months.”
This is yet more evidence of the disastrous economic path being pursued by George Osborne, which is undermining growth and failing to reduce the deficit or the national debt. The Government needs to embrace a Plan B – and quick – or the implications for unemployment and community cohesion will be terrible.
Forecasts out today show more gloomy news for the industry in the coming 12 months. Public Sector construction is set to fall by a further 18% up to 2014. Education construction is predicted to plummet by one quarter in 2012, while health construction is set to decrease by 15% this year.
The only light at the end of the tunnel for the construction industry is that infrastructure construction should see an increase of 20% by 2015 and energy construction a threefold rise over the same period.
But overall, construction output is forecast to fall by more than 5% this year and remain flat throughout 2013. It will be 2014 before the industry is expected to see any significant signs of recovery, by which time output will be 12% lower than at its peak in 2007.
Michael Ankers from the Construction Products Association says: “For the construction industry to return to growth there needs to be a strong private sector recovery, but this is just not happening. Continuing uncertainty about the future of the euro zone and a lack of consumer confidence in the UK are holding back important investment decisions. As a result the largest area of construction activity - private commercial work- is forecast to fall by a further 5% in 2012 and remain at that level in 2013.
“At the same time the cuts in public sector construction activity are really beginning to bite, with construction work on schools, hospitals, and other non-housing work forecast to fall by 23% compared with 2011. Despite the encouraging announcements on public sector investment on infrastructure projects in the Autumn Statement, capital spending on construction will still fall 30% by 2013.
“Although new housing starts in the private sector are set to continue their slow recovery, in the short term these are more than offset by the sharp fall in public sector housing. As a result the number of new homes started in 2012 is forecast to be 5000 fewer than this year, and at just 113,000 this is less than half the number of homes needed to accommodate the additional number of households expected to be created over the next 12 months.”
This is yet more evidence of the disastrous economic path being pursued by George Osborne, which is undermining growth and failing to reduce the deficit or the national debt. The Government needs to embrace a Plan B – and quick – or the implications for unemployment and community cohesion will be terrible.
Monday 2 January 2012
BOMBARDIER CAMPAIGN WILL CARRY ON IN 2012
There are still a few apologists lurking in the undergrowth, making excuses for the shameful decision by the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition to sell British train manufacturing down the river.
Nobody has argued that the tender specification for Thameslink wasn’t flawed. And yes, the previous Government is culpable for signing off a defective document.
But in spite of its shortcomings, the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation still insisted that the successful bidder provides: “...rolling stock that exploits advances in technology and adopts world class proven solutions in one package”.
Siemens fail that test because they have not yet developed a lightweight bogie.
Furthermore, bidders were required to demonstrate the deliverability of their technical proposals. There is a real question mark hanging over Siemens' ability to deliver the required technical solution within the timescale available.
Remember it took Bombardier 10 years to develop their lightweight bogie.
In assessing the bids the ITT states that: “The score for deliverability of the Overall Programme will be allocated (out of 100%) on the basis of:
(i) 20% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 152 vehicles by the later of July 2013 or 39 months from Contract Award;
(ii) 30% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 452 vehicles by the later of June 2014 or 50 months from Contract Award; and
(iii) 50% for demonstration of the ability to deliver the full fleet by the later of December 2015 or 68 months from Contract Award.
When the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition was formed, the process had not gone past the point of no return, as implied by the dwindling band of apologists. It is not therefore a question of the Government reneging on a decision taken by the previous administration, because no such decision had been made.
Indeed, before the General Election, the Conservative Party's shadow transport minister, Theresa Villiers, said she intended to review all the major rail contracts. More than a year passed before this Government then appointed Siemens as the preferred bidder.
The buck therefore stops with this Government and not the previous administration.
Claims that starting the process again would delay everything by two years or more is also wrong. The truth is a new tendering process could be concluded in six months as used to happen before and for many years after rail privatisation.
So attempts to absolve the present Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government of any blame are well wide of the mark because they have, well and truly sold Bombardier down the river.
Nevertheless, it still isn’t too late for the Government to reverse its decision. We are still at the preferred bidder stage, and in view of the huge question marks about Siemens’ reputation and its ability to deliver on time, Bombardier could, and should, be awarded the contract.
Remember Bombardier has been retained as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink deal.
So my focus in 2012 will be on continuing to press Ministers to do the right thing for Derby and the future of the British train manufacturing industry.
Nobody has argued that the tender specification for Thameslink wasn’t flawed. And yes, the previous Government is culpable for signing off a defective document.
But in spite of its shortcomings, the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documentation still insisted that the successful bidder provides: “...rolling stock that exploits advances in technology and adopts world class proven solutions in one package”.
Siemens fail that test because they have not yet developed a lightweight bogie.
Furthermore, bidders were required to demonstrate the deliverability of their technical proposals. There is a real question mark hanging over Siemens' ability to deliver the required technical solution within the timescale available.
Remember it took Bombardier 10 years to develop their lightweight bogie.
In assessing the bids the ITT states that: “The score for deliverability of the Overall Programme will be allocated (out of 100%) on the basis of:
(i) 20% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 152 vehicles by the later of July 2013 or 39 months from Contract Award;
(ii) 30% for demonstration of the ability to deliver 452 vehicles by the later of June 2014 or 50 months from Contract Award; and
(iii) 50% for demonstration of the ability to deliver the full fleet by the later of December 2015 or 68 months from Contract Award.
When the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition was formed, the process had not gone past the point of no return, as implied by the dwindling band of apologists. It is not therefore a question of the Government reneging on a decision taken by the previous administration, because no such decision had been made.
Indeed, before the General Election, the Conservative Party's shadow transport minister, Theresa Villiers, said she intended to review all the major rail contracts. More than a year passed before this Government then appointed Siemens as the preferred bidder.
The buck therefore stops with this Government and not the previous administration.
Claims that starting the process again would delay everything by two years or more is also wrong. The truth is a new tendering process could be concluded in six months as used to happen before and for many years after rail privatisation.
So attempts to absolve the present Tory-Lib Dem Coalition Government of any blame are well wide of the mark because they have, well and truly sold Bombardier down the river.
Nevertheless, it still isn’t too late for the Government to reverse its decision. We are still at the preferred bidder stage, and in view of the huge question marks about Siemens’ reputation and its ability to deliver on time, Bombardier could, and should, be awarded the contract.
Remember Bombardier has been retained as the preferred bidder for the Thameslink deal.
So my focus in 2012 will be on continuing to press Ministers to do the right thing for Derby and the future of the British train manufacturing industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
