MORE U-TURNS FROM THE SHAMBOLIC, OUT OF TOUCH TORIES . . .

… but on their most disastrous decisions, they’re going straight ahead

Within hours of Labour’s call for the August fuel duty rise to be put to a vote if it wasn’t dropped, David Cameron and George Osborne performed another massive U turn.

For months, Ministers have said that they can’t afford to help families on fuel – despite finding the cash to fund their millionaires’ tax cut.

This incompetent, out of touch Tory-led Government keeps making the wrong choices. That's why David Cameron and George Osborne are continually forced in to making these embarrassing U-turns.

Since their disastrous Budget, they’ve been forced to change course on the “pasty tax”, the “charity tax”, the “caravan tax” and the “skip tax” – because they hadn’t thought their unfair tax rises through.

I welcome all these U turns, but on their most disastrous decisions, they’re still going straight ahead.

For example, they are pressing on with their £40,000 tax cut for millionaires, while at the same time hitting 4.4 million pensioners with a tax rise.

And they also are going straight ahead with their failed economic plan which has pushed us into a double-dip recession, and which means borrowing is now higher than last year.

It seems to me that they are heading for a dead end – with a double-dip recession made in Downing Street.

Britain needs a change of direction.

The Tories promised change, but failed to deliver.

Only Labour stands for fairness in tough times.

DEATH TOLL WILL CONTINUE TO RISE UNTIL SOCIETY SAYS ‘NO’ TO PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP

IT beggars belief that our modern society continues to allow for the private possession and storage of firearms.

Latest figures released by the Gun Control Network have shown that at least 10 people’s lives were taken by firearms in the UK during April and May.

In addition, there were seven convictions during that period for charges relating to gun homicide.

Do we live in a society driven by terror? Of course not. So why is it that we allow the continued licensing and private ownership of killing machines?

And, let’s face it, that’s all guns are. Whether they are used for that purpose or simply as a threat, the implication is the same.

Part of the reason that they are considered socially acceptable is, regrettably, that some portions of our society still believe there is a place for guns to be kept for what they deem as ‘sport’.

It is the same people who think it is acceptable to kill animals for fun and then try to convince the rest of us that they are providing a valuable rural pest control service or, more galling still, insist that it is part of countryside culture.

I will state it here and I will say it to their faces: those sorts of people sicken me and leave me feeling cold.

The truth is that the vast majority of people living in rural areas are as sickened as I am by killing animals for fun. So the lies of the landed gentry and other apologists for the gun-toting minority just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

But, despicable or not, those people continue to peddle their lies in a desperate attempt to justify the reprehensible activities in which they are involved. By default, they are supporting the private possession and storage of firearms.

I wonder if the families of the 10 victims of gun deaths in April and May would agree. I suspect not.

COSY UP TO THE LIB DEMS - NO THANKS

IN RECENT weeks there have been various discussions and speculation about the future of the Liberal Democrats and their relationship with Labour.

Some have made a comparison between Labour’s position in the 1980s and the Liberal Democrats today. The theory goes that those who remain as Lib Dem members will be inspired by the failings of their leaders to do better in the future.

For that reason, some say we should cosy up to the Lib Dems and avoid conflict with them in case we want to form a coalition after the next election.

But that presupposes Labour cannot win outright on its own. I don’t consider myself complacent but I do not share that defeatist view. Labour is in great shape to win an overall majority next time. Under Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour is reinforcing its historic purpose as the only credible vehicle to deliver progressive legislative change.

Since being elected MP for Derby North, I have been struck by the determination and unity of purpose inside and outside Parliament to win back the trust of the British people.

Surely Labour’s task over the next three years should be to consolidate its support throughout the country? The party’s membership is growing and large numbers of those new members and new Labour voters are former Lib Dem supporters.

Furthermore, there are enough Tory seats with a majority smaller than the Lib Dem vote to give Labour an overall majority at the next election. Labour’s message is resonating with growing numbers of the electorate and we are now the only party with a genuinely nationwide appeal.

So why should Labour offer a lifeboat to the Liberal Democrats after they scuttled their own ship by facilitating the most vicious, ideologically-driven rightwing Government since the second world war?

They have betrayed virtually everything they claimed to stand for and have obliterated any suggestion that they are a progressive political party. Let’s face it, if Cameron and his cronies are Thatcher’s children, then Clegg and his cohorts must be the nieces and nephews.

Nobody forced the Lib Dems to jump on this ride and nobody’s making them stay on board, but they are hanging on like grim death.

People are now asking: just what do the Liberal Democrats stand for? Indeed, what did they ever stand for? The truth is they are essentially a franchise with no underlying value-based ideology and don’t actually stand for anything. They win votes by claiming to be an alternative to Labour in Tory seats and an alternative to the Tories in Labour seats. In reality they’re not a genuine alternative to either.

In the last two years, for the first time, the Lib Dems have had a chance to make a difference, to implement their policies and show some political leadership. Instead, they have shown their lack of competence, lack of policies and lack of values by jumping through Tory hoops and doing exactly as they’re told.

From the moment Nick Clegg stood with David Cameron in the walled rose garden of 10 Downing Street, the Lib Dems have been all too willing agents of Conservatism. As a consequence they are as culpable as the Tories for every shameful decision made by this Government and are deservedly on their knees right now. So it makes no sense for Labour to offer them any salvation when most people who lent the Lib Dems their votes regard them as fraudulent tricksters.

The Tories chose to go into coalition with the Lib Dems because they were desperate for power and it was their only route to claiming it. I don’t believe for a moment the majority of Labour members would consider it palatable to share a table with the Lib Dems now.

Moreover, so long as Labour remains focused on the values that the party has always held dear, values which are driving up membership and increasing support, fate will decree that we will not be reliant on the support of others in any case.

DOGMA OVER REALITY IS DRIVING SALE OF WORLD-CLASS FIRE COLLEGE

Backhanded attempts at privatisation are as synonymous with the Tories as workers’ rights are with Labour.

But there can be fewer instances as frustrating as the short-sightedness displayed by Fire and Rescue Minister Bob Neill when he described the sale of the Fire Service College as an opportunity to bring “innovation and investment”.

The decision is flawed on a variety of levels.

The only triumph is that of dogma over reality. Mr Neill effectively told us that only the private sector is capable of delivering a world class Fire Service College for years to come.

Mr Neill appears not to have grasped the contradiction contained in that statement. In his previous sentence he reiterated that the college, run as a public concern since its inception, is an “asset of national importance with a world class reputation”. It is that lack of vision which repeatedly undermines this Government. And it is that dismissive attitude towards the public sector which continues to damage any hopes we have of a swift economic recovery.

It seems the Government is terrified to throw any support behind a publicly funded enterprise, however strong the argument. But cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face does not do justice to the scale of this ridiculous decision that is risking the future of an offering the Government recognises as “world class”.

You couldn’t write the script.

One line on which Mr Neill and I do agree is that the Fire College is a wonderful asset. Governments from overseas send their firefighters there, such is the quality of the training on offer. It is true, too, that steps need to be taken to protect the future of the college while the Government liberally waves an axe at any service with the first name ‘public’. But that is not a reason to sell off such a marvellous asset to the highest bidder and promise that they will make a business of it.

The irony of this proposed privatisation is that much of the college’s income is derived from the nation’s Fire and Rescue Services that are being hammered by the funding cuts by the same minister who is sponsoring the sale. But the Government’s desire to dispose of this national resource might yet be undone with potential bidders said to be viewing the sale with considerable caution. Some insiders believe the sale will only go ahead if the Government offers an ongoing revenue subsidy as a sweetener, but that would undermine the justification for sale.

I have submitted a number written parliamentary questions seeking assurances from the Fire Minister that additional public subsidies will not be made available to enable the Government to indulge its ideology. I am still awaiting a reply!

KEN LIVINGSTONE SAYS THERE NEEDS TO BE REGULATION OF THE FLOW OF LABOUR IN AN OPEN BRITISH ECONOMY

“An open economy is one that is going to be much more dramatic. London is the only city in Europe that matches American levels of productivity and competiveness and because we are the most open, you’ve got to regulate that flow of labour, not necessarily by having more barriers but by saying you’ve got to have a proper living wage, you’ve got to make certain you are providing the housing otherwise people, like the far right, come along and say ‘those people are taking your jobs, your housing’.

“The real accusation since the last Labour government is that it didn’t build local housing, it didn’t make certain - as Germany has done - to preserve good jobs for working class people. We allowed our manufacturing to be wiped out as it begun under Mrs Thatcher.”

FIRMER PROPOSALS

The former mayor of London said over the coming year Labour will come up with much firmer proposals for a living wage.

“I think what you’re seeing is Labour rethinking all its policies. I suspect in months, or a year or so ahead, Labour will come up with much firmer proposals for a living wage paying a good bit more than the minimum wage and for a proper council house building programme so you tackle these problems.

“I think the big critique of the last Labour government is it took working class voters for granted, it focused almost exclusively on the middle class, The Daily Mail reader. It just assumed working class people would always come out and vote for us but if you’re not providing them with jobs, not providing them with homes, why should they?”

HOMES FOR RENT

Mr Livingstone said Labour will go into the next election with very clear policies about building good quality homes for rent.

“Labour will go into that next election with very clear policies about building good quality homes for rent in a way we haven’t for 30 years and changing the structure of our economy so we move away from the dependence on finance and services and look at the success of Germany, unemployment there is under half of what it is here. They invested in their manufacturing, they got a better range of jobs.

“All those jobs when I left school, every boy from my school in Brixton got a job, and it paid enough to keep a family. We’ve got to get back to that sort of balanced economy not a lot of low-paid, semi-skilled jobs and then a small elite making hundreds of millions.”

DERBY PAYS PRICE AS CRISIS DEEPENS FOLLOWING £4bn AFFORDABLE HOMES CUT

THE number of new affordable homes being built in Derby has plummeted by 97 per cent as the flawed Conservative-Lib Dem response to Britain’s housing crisis deepens.

Incredibly, out of almost 1,000 starts on affordable homes in the East Midlands during 2011-12, just three of them were in Derby.

While housing waiting lists grew and increasing pressure was heaped on Derby City Council and housing providers, the number of new affordable homes started in the city slumped from 116 a year earlier.

Not just that, but the situation in Derby is much worse than the national average. The 15,698 homes started in 2011-12 compared to 49,363 the year before represents a 68 per cent drop.

The horrible reality is that the Tory-Lib Dem Government is failing families in Derby and across the land. The crisis is deepening and their response is only making matters worse.

When I saw the statistics for Derby I could barely believe that just three projects were started in Derby in the whole of 2011-12 compared to 116 a year earlier. It’s utterly shameful.

But this isn’t simply about bricks and mortar. It’s about families who don’t have homes. They’re the victims of this Government’s bungled policies.

Under the Tory-Lib Dem Government, there has been a £4 billion cut to the affordable housing budget, locking families out of the housing market, fuelling rising rents in the private rented sector and leaving more people on housing waiting lists.

Labour has pledged to build 25,000 new affordable homes and propose a one-year VAT cut on house improvements, paid for by repeating the bankers’ bonus tax.

FOOTNOTE: The Homes and Communities Agency Statistics show that a total of 19,967 homes started on site in 2011-12, a decrease of 65 per cent compared to the 57,648 homes started in 2010-11. 15,698 homes started were for affordable housing, a decrease of 33,665 or 68 per cent from 2010-11.

In the East Midlands, there was a 58 per cent drop, with 971 starts in 2011-12 compared to 2,297 a year earlier. In Derby, there 116 starts in 2010-11 and just three in 2011-12 – a 97 per cent fall.

CONSTRUCTION OUTPUT IN APRIL A BAD OMEN FOR THE ECONOMY IN Q2

YET more evidence of the total failure of this Government's economic policies was revealed today.  The latest ONS construction figures that have just been released show that construction output in April fell by 13% compared to March and was 9% lower than the same month one year earlier. Furthermore, ONS also revised the contraction in construction output during Q1, for the third time, to -4.9%.

Commenting on the figures, Noble Francis, Economics Director at the Construction Products Association said: "With ONS reporting that both manufacturing and construction sectors fell in April, prospects for the UK economy escaping recession in Q2 are dissipating rapidly. It was unfortunately unsurprising to see the sharp fall in construction output during April, given the extent of the public sector cuts. Public housing output in April fell 10% compared with March and was 23% lower than a year earlier. Public non-housing, which covers education and health, was 13% down on March and 21% lower than a year earlier.’

"The government has made much play of private sector construction leading the recovery as the public sector cuts bite but it is clear that this is not the case. Private sector work was clearly hindered by investor confidence, adversely affected by euro zone uncertainty, and this was exacerbated by the poor weather in April. Output in private commercial, the largest construction sector, fell 10% during April and was 3% lower than a year earlier.’

"Overall, construction output fell in every sector during April. With further public sector cuts in the pipeline and little to suggest that a resolution to the euro zone crisis is imminent, it is clear that the trend in output during the next 12-18 months will be downward. The IMF has openly stated that government should do more to switch current spending to capital investment, which would help to drive the UK out of recession and support future growth."

The situation is deteriorating with each passing month.  And with each passing month, the need for an economic Plan B becomes ever more pressing.  The economic and social damage this Tory-Lib Dem Government is inflicting on the nation is nothing short of scandalous will make Labour's task of rebuilding more dificult.  But Labour founded the NHS and welfare state after WW2, and we will rise to the challenge of put right the destruction being wreaked by Messrs Cameron, Osborne and Clegg.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN DERBY UP BY A FIFTH AS GOVERNMENT CUTS CONTINUE

THE increase in the number of Derby people who are out of work is more than three times the national average.

That is the alarming statistic that shows how the Government’s cut-now-pay-later approach to the economy is plunging thousands into poverty.

With jobs at a premium and opportunities choked off at every turn, more and more Derby people are finding themselves without a job and with little prospect of finding one.

In total, there were 6,839 Derby people claiming unemployment benefit in April 2011. That figure had risen by a fifth to 8,184 by April 2012.

That 20 per cent hike compares to a national average rise of 6.3 per cent.

And with an incredible 25,722 people in Derby now claiming Council Tax Benefit, thousands of people across the city are struggling to put food on the table.

These figures reveal a horrifying upward trend of unemployment and poverty and show the desperate situation facing real families all across Derby and beyond.

We’ve seen our city hammered by the Government. It is galling yet unsurprising that unemployment has risen so sharply here given the spate of dreadful decisions we’ve witnessed, from public sector cuts to the Bombardier fiasco.

Like so many other Government policies, the Work Programme has failed miserably. It’s unbelievable that these statistics come a year after that programme was introduced.

Nationally, an extra £9bn is being spent on dole payments and housing benefits.

This downward spiral shows no sign of letting up as long as this shortsighted Government remains focused on drastic cuts that can only shrink our economy.

LOCAL GOVT CAN ANSWER THE ENGLISH QUESTION

THE so-called English question is beginning to exercise the minds of politicians and the public alike and deserves an answer. One solution could be devolving genuine powers to local government.

But if we are to truly devolve power to local authorities in England then we must first establish precisely what it is we aim to achieve.

Are we merely seeking to ensure less legislative constraints on councils, making it easier for them to deliver the services upon which people depend? Would that be enough to provide an adequate answer?

Or are we contemplating something much more fundamental? Should we consider an entirely fresh approach to the funding of local government and the way in which they choose to operate and run their services?

We should start by looking at where we are and how we got here.

Unquestionably, the creation of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies provided models that tested years of debate on whether or not such arrangements could work successfully.

But it is just as doubtless that their arrival created a conspicuous anomaly in terms of the English establishment.

It is an anomaly which has sometimes simmered and sometimes bubbled over.

For example, the public may not be that interested in the differences in house buying north or south of the border, so long as it doesn’t impact on them directly.

But try calming the storm over differences such as tuition fees or prescription charges depending on which side of the border you live and you’ll face another challenge altogether.

It is not a new puzzle.

WEST LOTHIAN QUESTION
Tam Dalyell first posed the so-called West Lothian question in 1977, when highlighting that he could vote on matters in Blackburn, Lancashire, but not Blackburn, West Lothian, in his own constituency, because of the local government arrangements.

It is something the commission chaired by Sir William McKay was charged with investigating in January.

More recently, Graham Doig’s A Union of Equals, has taken a much closer look at the issues and proposed solutions more closely focused on the arrangement of government at national level.

What I would propose is that the anomalies can be ironed out by instead looking again at the organised, though not necessarily best-structured, family of local authorities in England.

It is a structure governments have looked at time and again with a view to finding better ways of working and smarter solutions.

I would certainly argue that, irrespective of how successful previous restructures have or have not been, we should not be deterred from looking again at local government as a potential solution.

It offers an almost unique contact with local communities, and it is that power to reach into which we should tap.

Devolving power to local government is something which has been touted in various incarnations for many years.
Perhaps the most concerted effort in recent memory was the proposed regional assemblies, but whether their failing was down to the principle or the way in which they were introduced is a moot point.

Certainly, the North East, where the regional assembly model was thought most likely to gain favour, proved not to be as receptive as anticipated. Was it the modelling, the timing or another factor?

LOCALISM
Now the Localism Act is the latest piece of legislation to bring the debate to the table.

But while the very term ‘localism’ suggests giving power to communities, the reality has so far appeared very different. In fact, more than 120 powers previously held locally have been centralised through this legislation.

Which rather begs the question: what needs to be done differently now to how it has been done before if devolution of power to local authorities is truly to flourish?

There is perhaps a psychological hurdle to overcome – and that is challenging our understanding of what local authorities are there for.

Call them what you like, but councils have been around in a shape either broadly or closely representing what we know today since the municipal reforms of the 19th century.

They have, of course, been transformed and reformed time and again during that time.

So we should not be afraid to think differently about them. One of the earliest radical thinkers was Joe Chamberlain, Mayor of Birmingham from 1873.

His vision enabled the creation of municipal gas and water services, resulting in dramatic improvements to his city and the lifestyle of its inhabitants.

Almost 140 years on, we perhaps have another opportunity to make a big impact on people’s lives for the better.

For let us make no mistake – things will need to be done differently. The funding reductions we have seen in the last two years far outstrip anything that has gone before.

They have left a hole in council budgets that mean something radical, drastic even, needs to happen to ensure there are still services and they are still delivered locally.

And that point is at the heart of this debate – doing things locally. If we are to truly give power to councils up and down the land then we need to believe that they can deliver and we must give them the authority to do just that.

NEIGHBOURHOOD AGENDA
While I was Leader of Derby City Council, we launched our Neighbourhood Agenda. The administration I led passionately believed that, with the support of local councillors and other public services, the people in the communities were best placed to recognise their needs and prioritise accordingly.

The premise was simple – formally give communities the appropriate powers we could, provide them with the funding and governance to deliver, and let the rest take care of itself.

And take care of itself it did. Neighbourhood working in the city is among the best developed of those I have seen anywhere because it remains built on the solid foundations.

I am not pretending for a moment that the delivery of the required monumental savings in local government by restructuring and devolving is going to be that straightforward, but I do profess that the principles remain the same.

It is about Government believing that local authorities truly do have the ability to make the right judgements, rather than talking about devolution but then leaving the ultimate decisions to the centre.

BEYOND CORE CITIES
We have already seen a move towards giving more powers towards so-called core cities. That would be a step in the right direction, provided it is properly supported with the finance and legislation to make it meaningful rather than notional.

But we should not fall at the first hurdle and think that a move in the right direction is necessarily good enough.

If Birmingham can do it why can’t Bolton? If Manchester then why not Middlesbrough? If Liverpool then why not Lincoln? The principle remains precisely the same.

A sceptical view would be that for this to be achieved then we must first put some consistency across the local authorities that would be affected.

There is certainly inconsistency at the moment, be it that some have Elected Mayors while others have Leaders and Cabinets, or that some have elections in thirds while others have all-outs.

But I feel this view is just that – sceptical. Enforcing any such changes rather undermines what it is we are trying to achieve: what works best for that area, for the people who live there and in the interests of delivering the right services in a way that best suits.

Although if we are to consider truly radical change then one area which surely deserves re-examination at the very least is the unitaries versus two-tier debate.

SPENDING CUTS
While the enormous cuts in public spending were being announced by the Government, the private sector was being touted as a knight in shining armour that would ride to the rescue of those made jobless by the public sector cuts.

Of course, just as many predicted, this has not come to fruition.

The cuts to public spending have come thick and fast but, unsurprisingly, that has had a significant impact on private sector business too and so there simply haven’t been the economic triggers to create those employment opportunities.

This is where councils can make a real difference if only they had the powers to do so.

Lack of employment is a growing problem in the context of the cuts agenda. National programmes to remedy this are often toothless because the jobs are simply not there.

But what if councils were able to make meaningful arrangements with local employers to provide opportunities?

Just as the planning authority can insist upon Section 106 arrangements from incoming developers, what if councils also made mandatory arrangements for internships or work experience opportunities with local employers, new or existing?

Not only would it give those out of work much-needed purpose and encouragement, but it would also give the local workforce in the best possible opportunity to take advantage should jobs then become available.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
And allow me to propose another example as to how local decision-making can make a genuine difference, again referring to an example from my own city; Derby.

The city has proportionately more jobs in high-technology sectors than any other area outside of London, and workers in Derby on average attract the second highest salaries in England, again behind only the capital.

It is these sorts of economies which the UK needs to nourish and protect if our economy is to recover – and who is better placed to enable that than the people of Derby?

True controls of economic development, with a proper devolution of powers, would make that a reality.

Here there will be inevitable contemplation of Sir Michael Lyons’ local government finance review in 2007, and in particular the potential for improving incentives to promote economic prosperity.

The Shadow Secretary of State has already spelt out details of a new deal for English local councils, resulting in powers on transport, housing, skills and economic development being truly devolved.

And that is clearly the direction in which we must seek to travel.

But we must also learn our lessons from the past if the new deal on offer to those councils has the very best chance of success.

For example, any review of local government structures, and in particular the obvious savings on paper that can be achieved by the introduction of unitary authorities in two tier areas, must be properly thought out and debated.

END WHITEHALL DICTATS
Moreover, in the true spirit of devolution those debates need to take place not in Westminster but in the areas that would be potentially affected. Once again, it is about local decision making.

We need to see a promise of localism supported by actions.

It is no good telling a local authority it knows what is best for its area while simultaneously issuing a dictat on what colour bins it should collect and how often.

It is equally unhelpful to promise local authorities will provide for local people while stripping away their funding so they are hamstrung and totally unable to deliver.

Of course, while entrusting local authorities to make the decisions that matter for their residents we must also put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure those services will meet the required standard.

What we could not possibly contemplate would be a postcode lottery of sorts, where people in some areas are continually let down by poor performance from their council.

So in return for their extra powers, councils would be expected to sign up to a contract with their residents, committing to providing certain standards as a minimum - and pledging to go beyond that where possible.

Maybe then we will have a model that not only replaces what we know now, but is far superior it in terms of performance, delivery of services and, crucially, genuine local democracy.

For it is the latter which we must surely return too: local democracy. That is what Tam Dalyell was talking about, and that is what the very principle of the West Lothian question debate seeks to remedy.

Once we have real local democracy then we have real devolution. Likewise, until we have real local democracy then devolution will ultimately be undermined.

That is why I believe now is the hour for something radical, for the new deal the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government talked about and for a system that finally removes the anomaly in England that breeds, at best, frustration and, at worst, anger and envy.

We may be close to finally answering the West Lothian question. The biggest challenge may yet be persuading those in power to have the courage to deliver on it.