A few days after the Peasants Revolt was put down in 1381, King Richard ii made a speech in which he said:
"Peasants you were and peasants you are.
"You will remain in bondage not as before, but in an incomparably worse state.
"For as long as we are alive to achieve this, and by the grace of God rule this kingdom, we shall work with our minds, powers and possessions to keep you in such subjection that the abject state of your servitude may be an object lesson to posterity."
We need to ensure David Cameron, who is related to royalty, doesn't get another five years to inflict a 21st century version of Richard ii's menacing and pitiless peroration
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Sunday, 27 July 2014
GOVE’S GONE BUT THE FREE SCHOOL DEBACLE CONTINUES
THE axe may have fallen on Michael Gove’s tenure as Education Secretary, but it would be a mistake to confuse the Prime Minister’s tactical manoeuvring with a genuine agenda for change.
Far from being concerned by the radical attacks on education, David Cameron seems to have been delighted as Mr Gove has taken schools to the brink of privatisation and stripped power away from local authorities.
But the gross unpopularity of Mr Gove has made him a liability, and Mr Cameron’s decision was focussed purely on clinging on to votes ahead of next year’s General Election.
In all my adult life I have never known an education minister invoke such loathing among teaching professionals, unions and parents alike, as that directed towards Mr Gove.
He has stood in Conservative Party conferences and all-but accused teachers of being good-for-nothings without a care in the world for the education of children. He has moved the goalposts so many times that education professionals don’t know whether they are coming or going.
And he has imposed changes, like his disastrous ‘free schools’ programme, which has used young people as pawns in the Conservative Party’s foolish ambition to privatise as many public services as possible.
We have had first-hand experience in Derby of the Conservatives allowing their preposterous party political dogma to trump blindingly obvious common sense.
The shambolic introduction of the Al-Madinah Free School in my home city of Derby, and the failure to involve the local council in its running, put the education of hundreds of local children at great risk. Other examples of free school failures have emerged up and down the country.
Within hours of Mr Cameron’s announcement, social media was rife with jokes and quips about the welcome end of an era following Mr Gove’s move to Chief Whip. Somebody even went to the trouble to create an app allowing users to hit a cartoon figure of Mr Gove, and it predictably went viral.
But among the humour and delight of teachers and parents alike, we should not lose sight of the fact that, much of the damage has already been done.
In all the euphoria over Mr Gove’s departure, it’s worth remembering that at no point has the Prime Minister declared that his party will backtrack on any of Mr Gove’s more extreme policies.
On the contrary, from what I can see it’s business as usual. Mr Gove has played the bad guy brilliantly, but his removal in the cabinet reshuffle is just cynical window dressing 10 months before the General Election.
I’m afraid the dark clouds that have formed over schools across our country in the last four years show no signs of clearing while the Conservatives remain in Government.
Far from being concerned by the radical attacks on education, David Cameron seems to have been delighted as Mr Gove has taken schools to the brink of privatisation and stripped power away from local authorities.
But the gross unpopularity of Mr Gove has made him a liability, and Mr Cameron’s decision was focussed purely on clinging on to votes ahead of next year’s General Election.
In all my adult life I have never known an education minister invoke such loathing among teaching professionals, unions and parents alike, as that directed towards Mr Gove.
He has stood in Conservative Party conferences and all-but accused teachers of being good-for-nothings without a care in the world for the education of children. He has moved the goalposts so many times that education professionals don’t know whether they are coming or going.
And he has imposed changes, like his disastrous ‘free schools’ programme, which has used young people as pawns in the Conservative Party’s foolish ambition to privatise as many public services as possible.
We have had first-hand experience in Derby of the Conservatives allowing their preposterous party political dogma to trump blindingly obvious common sense.
The shambolic introduction of the Al-Madinah Free School in my home city of Derby, and the failure to involve the local council in its running, put the education of hundreds of local children at great risk. Other examples of free school failures have emerged up and down the country.
Within hours of Mr Cameron’s announcement, social media was rife with jokes and quips about the welcome end of an era following Mr Gove’s move to Chief Whip. Somebody even went to the trouble to create an app allowing users to hit a cartoon figure of Mr Gove, and it predictably went viral.
But among the humour and delight of teachers and parents alike, we should not lose sight of the fact that, much of the damage has already been done.
In all the euphoria over Mr Gove’s departure, it’s worth remembering that at no point has the Prime Minister declared that his party will backtrack on any of Mr Gove’s more extreme policies.
On the contrary, from what I can see it’s business as usual. Mr Gove has played the bad guy brilliantly, but his removal in the cabinet reshuffle is just cynical window dressing 10 months before the General Election.
I’m afraid the dark clouds that have formed over schools across our country in the last four years show no signs of clearing while the Conservatives remain in Government.
Monday, 23 June 2014
WHY I BECAME A VEGAN
THERE are meat-eaters who abhor animal cruelty and vegans who are driven by matters other than animal welfare. But, in my case, the two have always been intrinsically linked.
I vividly remember being horrified as a 14-year-old given a summer job by my local butcher.
Having been led to believe I would be serving behind the counter, I was surprised on my first day to find myself exposed to the slaughterhouse next door.
Rather than serving up some prime steak for Mrs Smith or chicken fillets for Mr Brown, my unglamorous job was to feed sheep intestines through my fingers to be used for sausage skin.
But if that was unpleasant enough, nothing could have prepared me for some of the other horrors that I experienced on that first day.
I saw the fear in the eyes of the animals who were about to be killed. I can still picture that now, just as I can still smell the rank scent of death which filled the air in that awful place.
It was an experience that stayed with me for life and something that influenced my eventual decision that I could no longer partake in this industry.
I made that choice in 1976, some five years after that dreadful experience in the butcher's slaughterhouse.
Thinking back, I was inspired by people like Mahatma Gandhi, who said: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
I can even remember hearing Spike Milligan discussing his vegetarianism as he was being interviewed on the Michael Parkinson Show. That unquestionably influenced me, too, and may well have been the deciding factor. But, for me, becoming a vegan was less about emulating my heroes or making a statement.
It was much more about taking what seemed to be the next natural step, as a 19-year-old who was beginning to come to terms with some of the social injustices that would epitomise much of the next couple of decades.
It was an era that shaped the person and politician I became. My ideologies and beliefs were shaped in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and becoming a vegan was part of that.
Cruelty seemed inherent within the meat industry. So why would I want to partake in such a thing when I felt so passionately about it?
I joined the Hunt Saboteurs Association at around the same time and was elected on to the League Against Cruel Sports' board of trustees in 1979. It's a position I still hold with pride. And I'm as passionate now about fighting against cruelty to animals as I was back then. That made it easy for me to take my natural position on debates such as fox-hunting before that was finally resolved by the last Labour Government. It also sheds some light on why I have been such a vocal opponent of the appalling badger cull which remains in place, even if our campaign against it has forced the Tory-led Government to slow its progress. All that is because it is easy to campaign on an issue when it rankles with the belief systems you hold at your very core.
I abhor cruelty in any form and the way in which animals are reared has become more intensive, which has inevitably compromised welfare. But there are so many other reasons to believe that eating animals is fundamentally wrong, especially at a time when the earth's natural resources are under intense pressure and energy efficiency is more topical than ever.
Farmed animals consume 13 pounds of grain for every pound of meat produced. It is an incredibly wasteful use of land. It would be far more efficient to eat the crops directly rather than feeding them to animals first. Food crops can produce up to 15 times more protein per acre than each acre of land set aside for meat production.
Even more perversely, farmed fish need to be fed five pounds of wild-caught fish for every pound of flesh produced for human consumption.
It is grossly inefficient and makes no sense whatsoever.
In terms of energy consumption, 11 times more fossil fuel is exhausted to make a calorie of animal protein than it takes to make a calorie of food protein. And the livestock industry is responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the world's climate changing emissions.
Add in other alarming statistics, such as the fact that 50% of antibiotics are used to tackle health problems of animals being reared in intensive conditions, and it casts a dark shadow over the whole meat industry.
So, while my original decision was about cruelty to animals, there are dozens of other factors that reinforce my view that veganism is not just about morals, but about making a sustainable life choice.
Population growth and environmental considerations mean that meat consumption at present levels is untenable. Consequently, the likelihood is that, for future generations, a vegan diet will be the norm rather than the exception that it is today.
I vividly remember being horrified as a 14-year-old given a summer job by my local butcher.
Having been led to believe I would be serving behind the counter, I was surprised on my first day to find myself exposed to the slaughterhouse next door.
Rather than serving up some prime steak for Mrs Smith or chicken fillets for Mr Brown, my unglamorous job was to feed sheep intestines through my fingers to be used for sausage skin.
But if that was unpleasant enough, nothing could have prepared me for some of the other horrors that I experienced on that first day.
I saw the fear in the eyes of the animals who were about to be killed. I can still picture that now, just as I can still smell the rank scent of death which filled the air in that awful place.
It was an experience that stayed with me for life and something that influenced my eventual decision that I could no longer partake in this industry.
I made that choice in 1976, some five years after that dreadful experience in the butcher's slaughterhouse.
Thinking back, I was inspired by people like Mahatma Gandhi, who said: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
I can even remember hearing Spike Milligan discussing his vegetarianism as he was being interviewed on the Michael Parkinson Show. That unquestionably influenced me, too, and may well have been the deciding factor. But, for me, becoming a vegan was less about emulating my heroes or making a statement.
It was much more about taking what seemed to be the next natural step, as a 19-year-old who was beginning to come to terms with some of the social injustices that would epitomise much of the next couple of decades.
It was an era that shaped the person and politician I became. My ideologies and beliefs were shaped in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and becoming a vegan was part of that.
Cruelty seemed inherent within the meat industry. So why would I want to partake in such a thing when I felt so passionately about it?
I joined the Hunt Saboteurs Association at around the same time and was elected on to the League Against Cruel Sports' board of trustees in 1979. It's a position I still hold with pride. And I'm as passionate now about fighting against cruelty to animals as I was back then. That made it easy for me to take my natural position on debates such as fox-hunting before that was finally resolved by the last Labour Government. It also sheds some light on why I have been such a vocal opponent of the appalling badger cull which remains in place, even if our campaign against it has forced the Tory-led Government to slow its progress. All that is because it is easy to campaign on an issue when it rankles with the belief systems you hold at your very core.
I abhor cruelty in any form and the way in which animals are reared has become more intensive, which has inevitably compromised welfare. But there are so many other reasons to believe that eating animals is fundamentally wrong, especially at a time when the earth's natural resources are under intense pressure and energy efficiency is more topical than ever.
Farmed animals consume 13 pounds of grain for every pound of meat produced. It is an incredibly wasteful use of land. It would be far more efficient to eat the crops directly rather than feeding them to animals first. Food crops can produce up to 15 times more protein per acre than each acre of land set aside for meat production.
Even more perversely, farmed fish need to be fed five pounds of wild-caught fish for every pound of flesh produced for human consumption.
It is grossly inefficient and makes no sense whatsoever.
In terms of energy consumption, 11 times more fossil fuel is exhausted to make a calorie of animal protein than it takes to make a calorie of food protein. And the livestock industry is responsible for nearly 20 per cent of the world's climate changing emissions.
Add in other alarming statistics, such as the fact that 50% of antibiotics are used to tackle health problems of animals being reared in intensive conditions, and it casts a dark shadow over the whole meat industry.
So, while my original decision was about cruelty to animals, there are dozens of other factors that reinforce my view that veganism is not just about morals, but about making a sustainable life choice.
Population growth and environmental considerations mean that meat consumption at present levels is untenable. Consequently, the likelihood is that, for future generations, a vegan diet will be the norm rather than the exception that it is today.
Friday, 6 June 2014
QUEEN’S SPEECH WAS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
WEDNESDAY’S Queen’s Speech was yet another missed opportunity, by this out-of-touch zombie government, to announce measures that would address the real issues affecting people up and down the country.
One or two laudable bills like action on modern slavery were included, but it’s clear that this government has run out of ideas and is marking time up to the next election. It is more than half a century since so few bills were contained in a Queen's Speech.
By contrast, in response to the government’s pathetic programme for the year ahead, Labour leader, Ed Miliband set out what would be in a Labour Queen’s Speech.
We would have a bill to make work pay for all workers. That would include an increase in the National Minimum Wage and then linking it to a higher proportion of average earnings. It would outlaw exploitative zero-hour contracts and guarantee a regular contract to people working regular hours month after month. It would encourage businesses to pay the living wage and it would support working parents by offering 25 hours free childcare for three and found year olds.
We would have a Banking bill to establish a British Investment Bank as well as regional banks to support small businesses. And we would create at least two new sizeable and competitive banks to challenge the current domination of retail banking by the existing high street banks.
We would have a community bill to devolve power to local communities, enabling local councils to stop the spread of pay day lenders on their high streets. Local authorities like Derby City and Derbyshire County Councils would be given real powers over things like transport and skills policy to drive economic growth and create well-paid local jobs.
We would have an Immigration bill to stop ruthless employers and rogue employment agencies using migrant workers to undercut wages. This would be achieved by strengthening minimum wage enforcement, increasing the maximum fine to £50,0000 and banning the recruitment of workers exclusively from abroad.
We would have a Consumers' Bill that would include a commitment to freeze energy bills, reform the energy market and embark on a home insulation programme to secure lower longterm prices.
We would have a Housing bill to tackle the housing crisis and commit to building a million new homes by 2020. We would give councils powers to force developers sitting on land holdings with planning permission to build on it or lose it. Three year tenancies with predictable rents would become the norm in the private rented sector and letting agents would be prevented from imposing fees on tenants.
And we would have an NHS Bill to make it easier to see your GP, guaranteeing appointments within 48 hours. The Bill would include measures to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to stop in its tracks the creeping privatisation of our NHS that this government has been championing.
Other priorities that wouldn't necessarily need primary legislation, but would be mentioned in a Labour Queen’s Speech would include: the abolition of the bedroom tax, a jobs guarantee for unemployed kids and the return of the 50p tax rate on earnings above £150,000 per annum.
In just 334 days this optimistic progressive vision for Britain can become a reality when the British people get a chance to decide who governs Britain at the general election.
One or two laudable bills like action on modern slavery were included, but it’s clear that this government has run out of ideas and is marking time up to the next election. It is more than half a century since so few bills were contained in a Queen's Speech.
By contrast, in response to the government’s pathetic programme for the year ahead, Labour leader, Ed Miliband set out what would be in a Labour Queen’s Speech.
We would have a bill to make work pay for all workers. That would include an increase in the National Minimum Wage and then linking it to a higher proportion of average earnings. It would outlaw exploitative zero-hour contracts and guarantee a regular contract to people working regular hours month after month. It would encourage businesses to pay the living wage and it would support working parents by offering 25 hours free childcare for three and found year olds.
We would have a Banking bill to establish a British Investment Bank as well as regional banks to support small businesses. And we would create at least two new sizeable and competitive banks to challenge the current domination of retail banking by the existing high street banks.
We would have a community bill to devolve power to local communities, enabling local councils to stop the spread of pay day lenders on their high streets. Local authorities like Derby City and Derbyshire County Councils would be given real powers over things like transport and skills policy to drive economic growth and create well-paid local jobs.
We would have an Immigration bill to stop ruthless employers and rogue employment agencies using migrant workers to undercut wages. This would be achieved by strengthening minimum wage enforcement, increasing the maximum fine to £50,0000 and banning the recruitment of workers exclusively from abroad.
We would have a Consumers' Bill that would include a commitment to freeze energy bills, reform the energy market and embark on a home insulation programme to secure lower longterm prices.
We would have a Housing bill to tackle the housing crisis and commit to building a million new homes by 2020. We would give councils powers to force developers sitting on land holdings with planning permission to build on it or lose it. Three year tenancies with predictable rents would become the norm in the private rented sector and letting agents would be prevented from imposing fees on tenants.
And we would have an NHS Bill to make it easier to see your GP, guaranteeing appointments within 48 hours. The Bill would include measures to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to stop in its tracks the creeping privatisation of our NHS that this government has been championing.
Other priorities that wouldn't necessarily need primary legislation, but would be mentioned in a Labour Queen’s Speech would include: the abolition of the bedroom tax, a jobs guarantee for unemployed kids and the return of the 50p tax rate on earnings above £150,000 per annum.
In just 334 days this optimistic progressive vision for Britain can become a reality when the British people get a chance to decide who governs Britain at the general election.
Wednesday, 28 May 2014
LABOUR WILL INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO HELP THOSE ON LOW PAY COPE WITH THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS
I’m proud that the last Labour government introduced the National Minimum Wage. This boosted pay for millions at the bottom without leading to a loss of jobs and now I can’t imagine a Britain without it.
But the issues we face today are different to those we faced at the end of the last century. The minimum wage was originally designed to prevent extreme low pay and abuse. Today, the challenge is to help people earning above the minimum wage but still living in poverty or dependent on benefits. Over five million people, or one in five employees, are low paid.
This has got worse under the Tories, with families on average £1,600 a year worse off since David Cameron became Prime Minister. And while this Government has given tax cuts to millionaires, the value of the national minimum wage has declined by five per cent since 2010.
Those on the lowest pay are at the sharpest end of the cost-of-living crisis. In-work poverty is a shocking legacy of the Tories’ four years in power and it’s only Labour government that would do something about it.
In September last year Ed Miliband asked Alan Buckle, former Deputy Chairman at KPMG, to investigate how to improve the minimum wage. The report, published today, argues for a new framework to ensure that the minimum wage rises faster over the next five years than it has in the recent past, as part of a national mission to tackle low pay and build a new economy with more high skill, high paid jobs.
The report recommends that the next Labour Government should set an ambitious target to increase the minimum wage, bringing it closer to median earnings over a five-year period. This will ensure that there is a bond between the wealth we earn as a nation and the wages that people earn.
A clear five-year target gives businesses time to plan and adapt their business models so they are able to support higher wages for their employees.
The Tories’ economic policies over the last four years have resulted in higher prices, lower wages and a cost-of-living crisis that has hit tens of thousands of people in Derby. It is only Labour that will create a new economy that works for everyone instead of just a few at the top, and that begins by increasing the National Minimum Wage.
But the issues we face today are different to those we faced at the end of the last century. The minimum wage was originally designed to prevent extreme low pay and abuse. Today, the challenge is to help people earning above the minimum wage but still living in poverty or dependent on benefits. Over five million people, or one in five employees, are low paid.
This has got worse under the Tories, with families on average £1,600 a year worse off since David Cameron became Prime Minister. And while this Government has given tax cuts to millionaires, the value of the national minimum wage has declined by five per cent since 2010.
Those on the lowest pay are at the sharpest end of the cost-of-living crisis. In-work poverty is a shocking legacy of the Tories’ four years in power and it’s only Labour government that would do something about it.
In September last year Ed Miliband asked Alan Buckle, former Deputy Chairman at KPMG, to investigate how to improve the minimum wage. The report, published today, argues for a new framework to ensure that the minimum wage rises faster over the next five years than it has in the recent past, as part of a national mission to tackle low pay and build a new economy with more high skill, high paid jobs.
The report recommends that the next Labour Government should set an ambitious target to increase the minimum wage, bringing it closer to median earnings over a five-year period. This will ensure that there is a bond between the wealth we earn as a nation and the wages that people earn.
A clear five-year target gives businesses time to plan and adapt their business models so they are able to support higher wages for their employees.
The Tories’ economic policies over the last four years have resulted in higher prices, lower wages and a cost-of-living crisis that has hit tens of thousands of people in Derby. It is only Labour that will create a new economy that works for everyone instead of just a few at the top, and that begins by increasing the National Minimum Wage.
Thursday, 15 May 2014
GUN LICENCE FEES SHOULD PAY FOR HOTLINE TO MONITOR GUN OWNERS
THE debacle over the Prime Minister’s personal intervention to block a rise in gun licence fees continues to rumble on – and taxpayers continue to subsidise wealthy gun owners. Currently the fee is £10 a year – the cost of a few cups of coffee. In an industry where people will regularly pay £1000s for a day’s shooting and champagne that is unacceptable.
The Gun Control Network has been told by Norman Baker, the Minister for Crime Prevention, that the move to full cost recovery has been agreed. But it was agreed by Damien Green his predecessor so whether this Minister will succeed in doing what the previous one failed to do remains to be seen.
The issue now is what the licence fee is supposed to cover and what the real cost is.
Gill Marshall-Andrews Chair of GCN says: “It’s obvious that the licence fee should cover the whole cost of administering a rigorous licensing regime that will keep guns out of the hands of unsuitable people and keep the public safe.
“That means it should cover all administration, checks for mental illness, domestic violence, criminal behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse, police court costs where appeals are made, and a hot line for families and neighbours who are concerned about the behaviour of a gun owner.
“The hot line is particularly important because we know there are many people who feel threatened by a gun owning partner or ex partner, or even a neighbour. Going to the police often doesn’t work for these people so a dedicated hot line is what’s urgently needed.
“Guns are lethal weapons and they do great damage in the wrong hands. The real cost of licensing guns is likely to be in the region of £50 a year not £10. It will be money well spent, but it should not be the taxpayers’ money.”
I complained to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, back in February about the Prime Minister’s intervention as I believed Mr Cameron had potentially breached the Ministerial Code. Paragraph 7.1 state: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
After three reminder letters I eventually received a response from Sir Jeremy last week. He said he was “satisfied that the Prime Minister did not intervene improperly in the decision on firearms licensing fees.” He went on to say the “matter was handled entirely properly through the ministerial clearance process.”
At a time of unprecedented cuts in funding for public services, including the police, there can be no justification for this subsidy to continue.
The Gun Control Network has been told by Norman Baker, the Minister for Crime Prevention, that the move to full cost recovery has been agreed. But it was agreed by Damien Green his predecessor so whether this Minister will succeed in doing what the previous one failed to do remains to be seen.
The issue now is what the licence fee is supposed to cover and what the real cost is.
Gill Marshall-Andrews Chair of GCN says: “It’s obvious that the licence fee should cover the whole cost of administering a rigorous licensing regime that will keep guns out of the hands of unsuitable people and keep the public safe.
“That means it should cover all administration, checks for mental illness, domestic violence, criminal behaviour, alcohol and drug abuse, police court costs where appeals are made, and a hot line for families and neighbours who are concerned about the behaviour of a gun owner.
“The hot line is particularly important because we know there are many people who feel threatened by a gun owning partner or ex partner, or even a neighbour. Going to the police often doesn’t work for these people so a dedicated hot line is what’s urgently needed.
“Guns are lethal weapons and they do great damage in the wrong hands. The real cost of licensing guns is likely to be in the region of £50 a year not £10. It will be money well spent, but it should not be the taxpayers’ money.”
I complained to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, back in February about the Prime Minister’s intervention as I believed Mr Cameron had potentially breached the Ministerial Code. Paragraph 7.1 state: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.
After three reminder letters I eventually received a response from Sir Jeremy last week. He said he was “satisfied that the Prime Minister did not intervene improperly in the decision on firearms licensing fees.” He went on to say the “matter was handled entirely properly through the ministerial clearance process.”
At a time of unprecedented cuts in funding for public services, including the police, there can be no justification for this subsidy to continue.
Friday, 9 May 2014
MORE WORKING PEOPLE IN DERBY NEED HOUSING BENEFIT TO HELP MEET RENT SINCE THIS GOVT CAME TO POWER
THE Tories talk tough about reducing the benefits bill but the truth is they’ve failed to get to grips with the problem. In fact, their cost-of-living crisis has now left hundreds of working people in Derby relying on housing benefit to help pay their bills.
Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, the number of working people claiming housing benefit in Derby has increased by a staggering 55 per cent.
Working people are now on average £1600 a year worse off as wages have fallen while prices have soared. Many people in work can’t get the hours they need while low-paid and insecure work is forcing more people to rely on housing benefit.
We also face a massive housing shortage in this country yet this government has presided over the lowest level of home building since the 1920s. David Cameron's failure to tackle this shortage means the cost of housing is rising beyond the reach of ordinary working people.
It can’t be right that ordinary people who do the right thing and go to work have to rely on housing benefit. The Tory-led government is either unwilling or unable to do anything about this and David Cameron seems content to let the British taxpayer pick up the bill.
Labour intends to take immediate action to deal with the cost-of-living crisis by freezing gas and electricity bills until 2017 if we win the election. And we’ll make work pay by introducing a lower 10p starting rate of tax, raising the national minimum wage and ending the abuse of zero-hours contracts.
But you can't deal with the cost-of-living crisis without building more homes. That's why Labour has committed to getting at least 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. We’ll also reform the private rented sector by banning rip-off letting agent fees for tenants and introducing long-term stable tenancies with predictable rents.
The increased number of working people claiming housing benefit shows you can’t trust the Tories or their Lib Dem collaborators to solve the cost-of-living crisis. Only Labour has the policies and the determination to stand up and make a real difference.
Since David Cameron became Prime Minister, the number of working people claiming housing benefit in Derby has increased by a staggering 55 per cent.
Working people are now on average £1600 a year worse off as wages have fallen while prices have soared. Many people in work can’t get the hours they need while low-paid and insecure work is forcing more people to rely on housing benefit.
We also face a massive housing shortage in this country yet this government has presided over the lowest level of home building since the 1920s. David Cameron's failure to tackle this shortage means the cost of housing is rising beyond the reach of ordinary working people.
It can’t be right that ordinary people who do the right thing and go to work have to rely on housing benefit. The Tory-led government is either unwilling or unable to do anything about this and David Cameron seems content to let the British taxpayer pick up the bill.
Labour intends to take immediate action to deal with the cost-of-living crisis by freezing gas and electricity bills until 2017 if we win the election. And we’ll make work pay by introducing a lower 10p starting rate of tax, raising the national minimum wage and ending the abuse of zero-hours contracts.
But you can't deal with the cost-of-living crisis without building more homes. That's why Labour has committed to getting at least 200,000 homes built a year by 2020. We’ll also reform the private rented sector by banning rip-off letting agent fees for tenants and introducing long-term stable tenancies with predictable rents.
The increased number of working people claiming housing benefit shows you can’t trust the Tories or their Lib Dem collaborators to solve the cost-of-living crisis. Only Labour has the policies and the determination to stand up and make a real difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
