Labour new Generation for change

Boris Johnson refused to apology towards the Irish community in Britain.

2012-02-18T02:21:00.004Z

Mayorof London Boris Johnson has refused to apology to the Irish community inBritain for negative comments made in relation to a London St Patrick’s Dayevent.

In acontroversial interview with the New Statesman magazine this week, the Mayor ofLondon said: “I'll tell you what makes me angry…spending £20,000 on a dinner atthe Dorchester (hotel) for Sinn Féin.”

TheMayor was referring to the annual St Patrick's Day Gala Dinner, a black tieevent that was cancelled by the Mayor’s office in 2009 to save money.

Itwas later resurrected by leading Irish business figure Sean Fitzpatrick of theVGC group having been promoted for six years by the previous mayor KenLivingstone.

OnMonday, the Mayor’s office was pressed on whether an apology would be offeredin light of the remarks.

Buta spokesperson for the mayor responded by saying that “they have nothing to add(to previous statements) and “it was about the use of public resources”.

Aspokesman for the mayor’s office had previously said: "The Mayor does notbelieve that he was elected to organise exclusive and expensive dinners at theDorchester hotel.”

Vernon Coaker, Shadow Secretary for the North said:"Irish Londoners have made a huge contributionto the Peace Process in Northern Ireland and to building positive relationsbetween the UK and Ireland. The St Patrick's Day celebrations and all the workthat Ken Livingstone did as Mayor played an important role in that. BorisJohnson's comments are ill-judged, inaccurate and offensive."

Pat Doherty fromSinn Féin told The Irish Post: “BorisJohnson's comments show ignorance in relation to the Irish community in Britainand the political developments between Britain and Ireland.”

London Assembly Labour Candidate and vice-chair ofthe Labour Party Irish Society, ChristineQuigley added: “Boris should get hisfacts straight. The annual St Patrick’s Day event he refers to was aself-financing community event attended by a wide range of Irish actors,politicians from many parties, community figures and celebrities. It did notcost the taxpayer £20,000 and it was not a Sinn Féin event.”

While Sean Fitzpatrick, organiser of London’s StPatrick’s Day ball, said: “I think it isill-conceived to make such a comment and totally untrue.”

The Irish Embassy in London said :that “it would not be helpful,” to commenton the issue.

But a national newspaper in Ireland described BorisJohnson as “out of touch” in its editorial on Saturday.

Ina general press statement Mr Johnson’s office said the mayor “appreciates andadmires the Irish like every other community in this wonderful cosmopolitancapital.”

However,there will be no apology for the ridiculing remarks.

TheMayor’s comments have angered politicians, business figures, actors, restaurateursand trade unionists, who all signed a letter published in the Guardiannewspaper last Friday.

Amongthem were Chef Richard Corrigan and actor Adrian Dunbar.

Arecent Office for National Statistics estimate revealed that around 170,000(2.2 per cent) of Londoners define themselves as Irish.

MrJohnson's remarks come less than three months ahead of the city's Mayoralelection on May 3.

Chris Huhne and Ex wife in court for dodging a speeding ticket

2012-02-16T21:20:00.000Z

ChrisHuhne has made his firs appearance in court for allegedly dodging a speeding ticket.The Liberal Democrat resigned as energy and climate change secretary amidclaims that he asked his then wife Vicky Pryce to lie by saying she was behindthe wheel at the time.

The59 year old millionaire MP for Eastleigh and Pryce, 59, are both charged withperverting the course of justice after he was allegedly caught by a speedingcamera on March 12, 2003.

Followinga bitter divorce after Huhne dumped his wife to be with press aide Carina Trimmingham, Pryce clamed he asked “someone” to take the penalty on his behalf to avoidlosing his licence.

Huhneand Pryce sat apart from each other inside the dock at Westminster MagistratesCourt. The former couple failed to acknowledge each other, making no eyecontact and staring straight ahead during proceedings.

SeniorDistrict judge Howard Riddle bailed them to appear at Southwark Crown Court fora preliminary hearing on Friday March 2nd 2012.

Huhne is said to be the first cabinet ministerin living memory to be charged with a criminal offence.

Heis the third to be forced to resign since the coalition Government formed in2010, following in the footsteps of Liam Fox and David Laws.

Camden Council Launches Legal Challenge to HS2

2012-02-16T21:18:00.000Z

CamdenCouncil on Thursday signalled that start of legal action against thegovernment, joining the rural anti HS2 campaigners seeking a judicial reviewthe first section of the £33bn project’s route from London to Birmingham willdemolish much an estate housing many hundreds of people near Euston Station.

Whilemuch protest has focused on the scheme’s effect on the Chilterns in marginalTory – held constituencies, more than two thirds of the 323 homes earmarked fordemotion along the entire route are within the first half – mile in centralLondon, mostly social housing on the Regent’s Park estate. Camden Believes afurther 264 homes near the proposed line are at risk.

The redevelopment and expansion of Euston willaffect businesses in adjoining Streets. Plan show Drummond Street, site of thefirst Pataki’s store in the 1950s and a historic home of British curry. Will be partially knocked down and restaurateurs in therenowned stretch of curry houses say they face a huge loss of trade.

Camden council on Thursday served aformal "letter before claim" on the transport secretary, JustineGreening, identifying legal flaws in the government's decision to proceed withHS2.

Councillor Sarah Hayward, who hasalready petitioned Greening directly, said she was bitterly disappointed by thegovernment's response to their concerns about the "catastrophicmistake" of HS2. She said: "We are talking about people's homes andbusinesses. The government's approach is flawed and we will fight this decisionbrick by brick if we have to."

Camden says the government has givenno guarantees of upfront funds to mitigate the loss of housing, businesses,parkland and community facilities.

Frank Dobson, the Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras, said: "Thenew footprint of Euston isn't just a little extension, but the size of a new StPancras International again. We've got no guarantees whatever for the peoplewho live there about rehousing people locally, or security, or rent. Theright-to-buy leaseholders are the worst off: they certainly won't be able tobuy somewhere equivalent."

Work to deepen cuttings dug forRobert Stephenson's original Victorian railway will also affect the moreaffluent areas around Regent's Park and Camden Lock. "Even just during theprocess there's going to be the most devastating amount of noise and nuisanceand disruption for pedestrians and traffic," he said.

Stan Passmore, 85, has been livingin his local authority flat overlooking the railway since 1961. The veteran ofthe Royal Navy's Arctic convoys to Russia in the Second World War said:"If people knew what was going to happen they could come to terms with it,make plans. But I've got neighbours suffering from clinical depression, cryingat the thought of being turfed out. The whole business of moving terrifiesthem. You can't explain what moving means to a young person. This place is fullof memories – my [deceased] wife, my children."

Azad Ali's family have lived in theneighbouring block for 35 years – since he was five years old. Threegenerations now live there: his parents, who bought their flat, are pensionersnow, while his children go to the same schools as he did. Even if they wereadequately compensated – unlikely, according to Dobson – he says it is besidethe point. "No one wants to move. It's a close-knit community. They hadall that hoo-haa about the Chilterns over people who are going to lose theirviews. Here it's homes and livelihoods."

The Department for Transport said:"Rebuilding Euston will inevitably cause significant disruption but we arecommitted to working closely with Camden and the GLA [Greater London Authority]with the intention of agreeing a joint strategy for the Euston area andproviding new social housing to replace any that is compulsorily purchased. Thiswill also include engagement with local people, businesses and communityrepresentatives."Earlier this week the HS2 Action Alliance, an umbrellaorganisation for 70 environmental and residents' action groups nationwide,served notice it would be seeking a judicial review, claiming that HS2 wouldnot comply with EU environmental protection directives. Last week the 51mgroup, an alliance of 18 mainly Conservative councils led by Buckinghamshirecounty council, announced similar legal action.

Should the HS2 project secureexpected parliamentary approval next year, high-speed trains are scheduled tostart running in 2026 between London and Birmingham, with extensions toManchester and Leeds in 2032. The trains will almost halve journey timesbetween major cities, but supporters say the critical point is that a new lineis essential to meet future passenger demand.

Camden has held a succession ofpublic meetings which residents have attended – but, said Ali, "the peoplefrom HS2 never turn up". If the legal action doesn't get their attention,he said, they will have to do something more dramatic at Euston. "We needto chain Frank Dobson to the railings."

Ed Balls column in the Daily Mirror

2012-02-16T01:48:00.000Z

Lastyear George Osborne tried to claim that Britain was a “safe haven”, even as hiseconomics errors were choking recovery. Daily Mirror readers weren’t fooled. Now,after months of rising unemployment and strangling growth, even credit agenciesare starting to ring alarm about the British economy.

Families, pensioners , young people and business already know things are tough – well beforethe international financial market watchers put Britain on “negative outlook “.yesterday. Thousand of jobs are being lost each month, a record number of youngpeople are out of work and our economy has gone into reverse.

TheTory led government is giving banks a tax cut this year but hitting families hardwith tax rise and cuts to tax credits.

YetCameron and Osborne said all the pain was needed to cut the deficit.

Butwe now know their to balance the books by 2015 won’t be met. Osborne is set toborrow £158 billion more than planned- the price of his failed economic planand a growing dole queue.

Thelast thing Ministers clung to was the views of the credit rating agencies –which the Chancellor repeatedly boasted had given a “vote of confidence “in hispolicies. Keeping their approval seemed to be the most important thing, eventough these agencies got it so wrong before – giving a top rating to theAmerican bank Lehman Brothers just before it went bust.

Nowthey have fired a warning shot at George Osborne – blaming the weaker economicgrowth we have seen on this government’s watch. After the global crash , everynation has to take tough decisions on tax , spending and pay to reduce thedeficit.

But,as Labour always warned, trying to go too far and too fast would backfire.

Wesaid it would choke recovery, put more people on the dole claiming benefit andso make it harder to get the deficit down. That’s exactly what has happened andeven the rating agencies are stating to realise this.

ButCameron and Osborne won’t admit failure. Today we’ll see the heavy price we arepaying for their complacency, when we learn how many people are still out ofwork.

Labourwon’t just stand by.

Wewould put a tax on bank bonuses to fund 100.000 jobs for young people, We’d cutVAT to put money back in people’s pockets and get our economy moving again.

Andwe‘d give tax breaks to small firms taking on extra workers.

Ourfive- point plan for jobs and growth is a fairer and better way to get thedeficit down. It ‘s times this out of touch Tory led government realised theirpolicies aren’t working.

Nightclub Part own by David Cameron wanted to open its doors to children.

2012-02-15T22:15:00.000Z

According to Politicalsrapbook, A Night club – part ownedby David Cameron and linked to binge drinking attempted to open its doors tochildren under the age of 16. After they highlighted the brazen hypocrisy ofthe prime minister’s speech on alcohol, research by political scrapbook has undercovered under covered Official documents which show his company attempting toopen the doors of a central London premises to children.

David Cameron was a director and held shares worth£40,000 in the Tiger Tiger bar chain when the following application was refused by WestminsterCity Council in May 2005.

NHS patients ‘will pay under health bill’

2012-02-15T22:12:00.003Z

Accordingto the telegraph. Allyson Pollock, professor of public health at Bart’s and theLocal School of Medicine and Dentistry, said the Health and Social Care Billhad “a hidden purpose “which amounted to privatising health service in Britain.

Writingin the Lancet, she argued that ministers were intent on creating” a system thatpermits alternative funding sources for services currently provided free aspart of the NHS.

Shesaid the “heart” of the Bill currently debated in the Lords, was to “ to introducea mixed financing system and to abolish the model of tax- financed universalhealth care on which the NHS is based”.

ProfPollock has consistently argued that the Bill will abolish the duty of theHealth Secretary to provide a universal healthcare system free at the point ofuse.

Itwill potentially enable groups of GPs, who will be allowed to make profits fromtheir practices, to exclude costly, patients with numerous illnesses, shemaintains.

Patientswill hence increasingly be required to pay top down fees for treatment aboveand beyond what the NHS provides, or rely on private healthcare insurances ,she says.

Theletter, headed ‘A flawed NHS Bill with a hidden purpose’, has been given a fullpage in today’s in today’s lancet. it editor in chief, Dr Richard Horton, isstrongly opposed to the Health and Social Care Bill. The letter was co authoredby David Price, also of Bart’s, and two Lawyers.

Boris Johnson failure on Transport for London

2012-02-13T22:23:00.000Z

Anothermorning of tube delays on 5 tube lines this morning Labour London AssemblyTransport spokesperson, Vale Shawcross said; “ This morning’s tube delays and suspensions on the Bakerloo ,Piccadilly , Victoria, jubilee and Metropolitan line are completelyunacceptable. No wonder millions of Londoners who are facing daily delays andclosures while paying sky high fares are increasingly demanding Boris Johnsongets a grip of London’s transport system.”

TFLhave reported that there were severe delays on the following lines thismorning:

· Jubilee Line– Part Suspended/ severe delays after overrunning engineering works.

· Metropolitan Line- Part suspended / severe delays afteroverrunning engineering works.

· Piccadilly Line – severe delays after faulty train.

· Bakerloo Line– Severe delays after signal failure.

· Victoria Line -Severe delays after signal failure

Boris Johnson offensive comment toward the London Irish community

2012-02-13T22:16:00.001Z

BorisJohnson told the New statement “I’ll tellyou what me angry – lefty crap”, he thunders in response. Like?” well, likespending £20,000 on a dinner at the Dorchester for Sin Fein!” in a interview in the new statement – with Jemima Khan

Key Points

· This in face the Annual St Patrick Day GalaDinner

· The annual St Patrick Day dinner was intuitedat the request of the of the Irish community and sponsored by the Irish Post,and a range of business sponsors particularity in the construction industry.

· It was organised on a basis of no net cost tothe Public purse. Each year in not only covered costs from sponsorship andticket sales but made a donation to an Irish community charity in London andalso towards the costs of the St Patrick’s Day parade and festival.

· All the main Irish political parties northand south were in invited and the Irish ambassador, representatives from many Irishparties attended.

· Prominent attendees at the annual St Patrick’sDay gala Dinner included Dermot O ‘Leary, Bob Geldof, Pauline MacLynn (FromFather Ted) and Ronnie Drew of the Dubliners.

· The Sponsorship of the dinner expressed thesupport from Irish and Irish diaspora business for the ration of thecontribution of the Irish community to London, and was attended byrepresentatives sections of the London Irish community.

· Despite it paying for itself, Boris Johnson withdrewsupport from the dinner when he was elected.

Labour’s Shadow Secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Vernon Coakersaid: “Irish Londonershave made a contribution to the peace process in Northern Ireland, and tobuilding positive relations between the UK and Ireland. The St Patrick’s Day celebrationsand all the work Ken Livingstone did as Mayor played an important role in that.Boris Johnson ‘s comments are ill- judged, inaccurate and offensive.”

Ed Miliband Speech in Sheffield

2012-02-10T02:10:00.000Z

Ed Miliband,Leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the Sheffield Political EconomyResearch institute.

It is apleasure to give this inaugural lecture and open SPERI, the new SheffieldPolitical Economy Research Institute.

The instituterecalls the project of eighteenth and nineteenth century thinking, the era ofDavid Hume , of Adam Smith, of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

A way of thinkingwhich sought to understand politics and economics, the role of state and marketingin an integrated way.

And, as I’llargue, a tradition which is in desperate need of rediscovery today.

There hasnever been a better time to open a centre which thinks about the challengesposed to our economy and our politics by the financial crisis.

As a society,we must respond to the deep lessons of the crisis and find new answers,including by leaning from historical and international experience , and this institutewill form an important part of that.

It is particularityimportant that this centre is opening in Sheffield, with its story of manufacturingstrength and the example you are setting at the advanced Manufacturing ResearchCentre with business and research going hand in hand.

I want tostart tonight with a story.

Early on inmy leadership i did an interview on the Today Programme with John Humphrys.

For the sakeof clarity, this into to be confused with the interview where he appeared tocall me ugly.

That was adifferent interview.

And, relativelyspeaking, a walk in the park

This one wasabout a year ago soon after I had written an article about the ‘squeezed Middle.’

He though itwas a weakness that the term seemed to refer to a broad majority of thepopulation, so we had a bit of an argument.

To be honest,i don’t think my tea thought the interview was a total triumph.

But surprise surprise,a year later the ‘squeezed middle entered the Oxford English Dictionary as theworld of the year for 2011.

Which ispretty good when you consider it was up against ‘the Arab Spring’ and ‘bungabunga.

The reason itell this anecdote is because if speaks to the condition of Britain , theproject of this institute , and the purpose of the Labour Party.

My argumentis that to command consent and to be sustained, the political economy of thecountry must deliver for the working people in this country.

Tonight, iwant to make the case that failure to do that has since the war led to radical transitionin the political economy of our country.

The 1945welfare state settlement was built in response to the failure of the 1930s.

The 1979market settlement was a response to the failures of the 1970s.

What youmight call 1997 settlement was response to the failures of part of thatsettlement when it came to the public realm.

And now inperiod after the financial crisis, we face such a challenge once again.

The failuresthat the led up to the financial crisis of 2007 and the with which we are stillliving today demand a new settlement.

The kind ofcapitalism we have seen for the last thirty old years has simply stoppeddelivering for the vas majority of working people in this country- the famous squeezedmiddle.

But thelesson from previous transitions is that this alone is not enough to usher in anew settlement.

The three conditions for change are:

First, the breakdown of consent for the previous settlement.

Second, the ideas which can form the basis of a new settlement.

And third, the political coalition to make it happen.

So I’m clear that the only way we are going to make the change the squeezedmiddle need is by being honest about the failures, and ambitious about thesolutions.

That, after all, is what the Labour Party was founded to do.

Labour’s mission has always been to represent the interests, fulfil theaspirations, and embody the values of working people.

When John Humphrys asked me what I meant by the squeezed middle, I should havesaid this:

The squeezed middle are working people.
People bound together, now as in the past, by a set of values.

The value of working hard.

Whether it is in a factory, a mine, on a shop floor, or a barracks.

Whether it is on the railways, at a supermarket checkout, or at a call centre.

The value of making an effort, of taking responsibility for yourself and yourcommunity.

A hope that work should earn you the chance to give your kids a better start inlife than you had.

And the simple belief that you should not have to battle vested interests whichuse their power to rig the system, that everyone deserves a fair shot.

To be honest, I’m not sure John Humphrys would have let me get to the end ofall that.

But in many ways, the story of British politics since the war has been thestory of the changing aspirations and interests of working people, and of howthe main political parties competed to show they understood and could deliveron them.

Let me start with the 1945 settlement.

Why did it happen? Because of the catastrophic failures of the previous decadeto meet the basic human needs of millions.

Because of the growing sense that the evils of unemployment, poverty and wantwere not acts of nature but the result of political decisions.

Because of an intellectual revolution based on the economic ideas of JohnMaynard Keynes, the social reform of William Beveridge and the understanding ofsociety of TH Marshall.

And because of the political demands of millions of servicemen and women whohad returned to Britain, full of the optimism that the energy and planningwhich won the war could now be applied to winning the peace.

They included my Dad who spent part of the war in the British Navy.

The parting words of his commanding officer were ‘Goodbye Miliband. Remember:Don’t Vote Labour’

But he did.

And so did millions of others.

It’s easy to forget now, but the 1945 settlement represented a completerevolution in the understanding of what a government can and should takeresponsibility for.

The aspirations of working people were for a basic level of provision – adecent home and secure job - and Clement Attlee’s Labour government set aboutresponding to these hopes.

Hundreds of thousands of new council houses were purpose built for families,with new schools going up alongside them.

The new role for government meant full employment and comprehensive socialinsurance.

And the crowning achievement was the creation of the NHS.

The day after the NHS came into operation, many working people went to thedoctor or the dentist for the first time in their lives.

One receptionist working on that day remembered the queues stretching out ofthe surgery doors, down the street, and disappearing into the high street.

Whether in housing, schools, welfare, health, jobs or the cost of living,working people would no longer be left to cope alone.

The model of political economy of the period, based on the state providing abasic platform of services and assuring full employment and low inflation,formed a new consensus between the parties.

A consensus that lasted for more than two decades.

Both parties knew how central the aspirations of working people were toelection victory.

Although the idea of what that meant was more familiar to some than others.

In the 1959 election, Harold Macmillan reportedly said to an aide:

“During this campaign, I have heard a great deal of talk about the ‘middleclasses.’ Can you find out who they are and what they want, and we will see ifwe can give it to them.”

But of course, by the late seventies, the confident spirit of 1945 seemed tohave run its course.

The magical combination of full employment, stable prices, rising livingstandards and social mobility was no longer available.

What good were wage rises of 15, 20 or 30 percent if prices were going upfaster?

The system was unable to meet the aspirations of working people.

And the inability of government to reconcile competing aspirations, includingthose of trade unions, convinced people that a break was needed.

The new right had an explanation for what was going wrong, inspired by peoplelike Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Whereas the 1945 settlement had meant that the government provided a minimumplatform of provision for all, Mrs Thatcher promised something very different.

The new bargain was that if the government got out of the way, the market woulddeliver prosperity and opportunity.

After financial deregulation, it was easier to get credit.

You could buy your council house from the council.

And you could even buy shares in newly-privatised companies like BritishAirways, British Telecom, and British Gas.

The Labour Party certainly seemed, for a time at least, at sea with these newaspirations.

It took us too long to stop opposing council house sales.

When Madonna sung about being a material girl or Rodney and Del Boy came upwith another scheme to get rich quick, they were inhabiting a world that seemedalien to Labour.

But by the early nineties, working people began to ask new questions.

At this moment, people were not questioning the economic fundamentals of thesettlement, in particular the dominance of financial services in our economy,and the idea that greater overall prosperity would benefit all.

But they were asking other profound questions.

Why should kids be taught in prefabs, in classes which are so big?

Why did you have to wait so long to get an operation?

It is hard to remember now, but many people were asking whether the NHS couldsurvive at all.

People were also asking, with more women going to work, how could our economyprovide quality time to spend with the family?

The ideological impulses of the time were captured in the so-called Third Way,seeking to reconcile economic efficiency and social justice.

And New Labour was the political project that spoke to this change.

And big change was produced.

Change I am proud of.

We rebuilt the NHS in ways that few would have believed possible.

We embarked on the biggest school building programme in generations.

We offered maternity and paternity leave to make it easier to spend more timewith the family.

We introduced the minimum wage and tax credits, so that going to work each daybrought in more money each month.

And we also undertook more redistribution than any government, including 1945.

But the new settlement was incomplete.

After the banks crashed, and the boom years turned into the toughest times forworking people in a generation, a whole set of challenges were exposed.

The first is that working people are being squeezed between stagnant incomesand rising costs.

For thirty-odd years, the bargain had been clear:
Let the economy grow, and everyone, including the low paid, would get richer.

And it worked for a time, partly because of greater productivity, and partlybecause of changes like more and more women coming into the workplace.

But working peoples’ rise in incomes and living standards over those years wasalso supported by particular factors – the rise of credit, cheap imports fromAsia and tax credits.

But by 2007, it was clear that these factors were not enough to sustain risingliving standards for working families.

The basic promise of the 1979 era, that those at the middle would benefit aswell as those at the top, began to unravel.

For the five years before the last recession, the economy grew by 11%, but thewages of everyone earning less than average incomes stayed the same.

And on current forecasts, the average worker will be earning the same in threeyears’ time as they were ten years ago.

The rising tide has not lifted all boats.

The result is an unprecedented squeeze to incomes.

And at the same time, costs are rising, partly as a result of vested intereststhat are worsening the squeeze.

Fares are going up on some train routes by 20 per cent in the next two years.

Energy bills seem to go higher and higher.

Each year, more families have to choose between paying the rent and heatingtheir home.

Nearly one in five households here in Sheffield are fuel poor.

And if things carry on as they are, in three years the average household in thecountry will be too.

For too many families the only way they felt able to sustain their livingstandards was through greater personal debt.

The second unprecedented aspect of the squeeze is that working people haveshouldered more risk and are less secure today than they have been for ageneration.

Wages aren’t linked to inflation, people, including those in the middle, haveno certainty that their job will still be there tomorrow.

And at the same time most people who earn less than the average wage have nopension.

Nearly half say they can’t afford to save £10 a month.

Then there are those who are already out of work in the current economicclimate.

More people woke up this morning to another day without a job to go to than atany time since 1994.

For every vacancy in the country, there are six jobseekers.

For every vacancy in Sheffield, there are nearly ten.

The third big challenge is intergenerational.

The basic promise of Britain, the idea that we could be optimistic about ourcountry’s future and expect our children to lead better lives than we did, isbeing betrayed.

As people in this audience know, young people are leaving home with debts whichtheir parents never faced, because of the cost of tuition fees.

It is harder to get onto the housing ladder.

The average age of someone trying to buy a home for the first time without helpfrom their parents is 37 and is pushing upwards.

And we see threats to the environment that young people will inherit.

And at the same time, many working people are squeezed when it comes to payingfor care for their elderly relatives.

Most aren’t earning enough to be able to pay for private care, but aren’tearning so little that they qualify for free or subsidised care.

And if they cut back on work to look after them, it will hurt their ownincomes.

They are squeezed by the system too.

So in contrast to a decade ago when there was optimism about uninterruptedprosperity, today the squeezed middle knows the system is not working for them.

The fundamental idea that if you work hard you will get on is being undermined.

At the same time, there appear to be rewards for failure at the top, with topexecutives’ salaries going up even as their companies’ share prices go down.

The reality is that by the time of the last election, no party answered the newchallenges of the squeezed middle.

No party offered them sufficient hope.

No party understood that the very settlement that was supposed to help themiddle, was in fact the cause of the squeeze to their living standards.

We lost. And no party won.

Perhaps my party didn’t see what was required because after thirteen years inpower, we just couldn’t face up to the challenges to some of the assumptions ofthe era.

And the Tories certainly did not see what was required.

Those who just wanted to conserve the status quo had a blind spot when it cameto seeing the need for a radical break with the past.

They just clung to a faith in free markets.

And that leaves us where we are today.

Consent for the old system has broken down.

Anyone looking around at society today can see that our previous model ofcapitalism is not working.

When you look at the Occupy Protests, we all know that many people who wouldnot go and camp outside St Pauls, share the anger of those who do.

Anger at rewards for failure in the banks and the squeeze on the 99%.

But as I have argued, anger at the old system’s flaws is not enough to producechange.

It needs the ideas and the political movement to transform discontent with theold settlement into consent for a new one.

As far as the ideas are concerned, I hope and expect SPERI will make itscontribution.

I can think of no more urgent project for our country.

Stage by stage, we are taking on this project in Opposition.

Identifying the issue itself, and beginning to set out solutions.

This is the subject of our ongoing policy review, but let me today give somebrief pointers to Labour’s agenda.

We know the limits of the previous settlement: just getting the government outof the way won’t work.

We know the economic climate will be far tougher: there will be less money tospend.

And we know that in any case, if Labour wins the next election, it will not begood enough to simply rely on spending money to patch up the failures of theeconomy we inherit.

A more fundamental change is needed.

From the ashes of the kind of irresponsible capitalism which led to the crash,we need to build a new kind of capitalism, a responsible capitalism.

A capitalism based on long-term productive behaviour with a fairer distributionof rewards based on a new set of principles:

Long-termism not short-termism.

A fairer sharing of rewards not growing inequality.

An understanding that successful firms are those that invest in their peoplerather than neglecting them

And that the environment is not an enemy of economic progress but essential forit.

In short, an economy that better works in the interests of working people.

So what does this mean in practice?

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.

We need 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 morecompetitive world with an active industrial policy.

That’s why we are looking at plans for a British Investment Bank so smallbusinesses can invest and grow.

That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking theirresponsibilities to bring on the next generation.

As a first step, we say no major government contract should be awarded unlesscompanies offer apprenticeships.
We must tackle the historic British problem of short termism in our corporatelife.

And it is why we have to end the situation where we have rewards for failure atthe top, harming both the company and its workforce.

That’s why Labour has suggested a number of reforms, including an employee onevery remuneration committee.

We need real change.

If you will excuse me a bit of politics, the current Government is never goingto provide it.

George Osborne says that action to tackle big bonuses is ‘anti-business’.

It is not.

It is pro-business to demand responsibility at the top and an end to thesomething-for-nothing culture which has damaged our economy in the financialcrisis at every level, wrecked businesses and left everyone else squeezed.

By defending an unreformed bonus culture, this Government confuses theinterests of the economy as a whole with the interests of an irresponsible few.

We need banks to be lending to small business rather than handing out bigbonuses.

Some argue that it is no business of the public what bonuses banks pay.

I fundamentally disagree.

Because even banks which are not publicly owned, implicitly benefit from ataxpayer guarantee, to the tune of billions of pounds.

That is why we need change in the bonus culture across all our banks.

And we need responsibility from top to bottom across our society.

Across the economy we need executives to recognise that exceptional rewardsshould only be for exceptional performance.

Tackling excessive executive pay and bonuses is not an end in itself but anecessary first step towards a bigger change in our economy in which people getfair rewards for their contribution at every level of society.

Secondly, standing up for the squeezed middle today also means challenging thepowerful vested interests which are squeezing working people in this countryfor every penny they can.

It means standing up to the banks, the train operating companies, and theelectricity firms with simple measures to cap fare increases, lower electricityprices, and guaranteeing the cheapest power for the most vulnerable.

We have a Government which doesn’t even notice when the market isn’t workingfor working people.

In fact they are making the squeeze worse, with an economic policy that hasseen growth flatline and tax credits withdrawn.

Third, standing up for the squeezed middle also means always making sure thereis a fair tax system and a fair benefits system.

That means everyone paying what they are supposed to, including those at thevery top.

It means cutting the 50p tax rate is the wrong priority

And it is why, for example, I have spoken out about offshore tax havens.

And on welfare, I believe in a welfare state based on contribution as well asneed.

We need a better welfare state when it comes to issues like childcare andsocial care.

But we cannot deliver it, unless we continue to reform the welfare state so itdelivers high employment and demands responsibility from all.

These are just the start of the changes we need for a new settlement.

Let me say this in conclusion.

The challenge for politics in times like this is to decide whether it is goingto leave these problems to stagnate as it did in the thirties, or have thecourage to address them head on.

We can hear the creaking of the foundations of the previous settlement.

The families seeing their wages squeezed for a decade know things have tochange.

The small business looking for finance know things have to change.

The young person looking for work know things need to change.

All of us looking at the way thing are, know things have to change.

Sometimes people look at this and feel a sense of pessimism and questionwhether there is anything that can be done.

But the lesson of history is different.

Nobody would have believed in the 1930s that things would change.

From the Left, change did happen.

In the 1970s, people believed Britain would not change.

And from the Right, change did happen.

And again in 1997 we saw change to address the concerns of working people.

So in our recent history, new settlements have come forward in the face ofprofound scepticism about the ability of politics to deliver change.

I am in politics because I believe in its power to change working people’slives for the better.

As a society, it is our task now to turn all our energy and resourcefulnesstowards a reformed, responsible capitalism,

It is our task to build a new model of political economy, one which deliversprosperity and fairness for the working people of Britain once again.

I look forward to working with this institute to make it happen.

Police investigate former Lib Dem Council Candidate

2012-02-08T22:20:00.001Z

Aformer Liberal Democrat council candidate is under investigation by policeafter political scrapbook exposed a series of vicious Islamophobic comments onhis facebook page. The probes into the so called “Redcar racist”, Dave Stone,come after a concerted effort by Nick Clegg’s Office and Party HQ to ignore theissue.

Scrapbookrevealed Mr Stones’ comments last month, when he was campaigning in a byelection for Redcar and Cleveland council – previously safe Liberal Democratseat which he then lost to Labour.He posted comments calling for a “pork restaurant” and “topless bar” should bebuilt next to a mosque, as well as smears suggesting Muslims objected to thesale of remembrance poppies.

Thescandal was exacerbated by the party’s attitude towards it, with accusations ofa cover up as senior party leaders refused to act by suspending Stones. Eitherlocal MP Ian Swales, Nick Clegg or Party HQ would responded questions, despitea leaked email showing they were aware ofthe remarks.

Caroline Flint Speech to the Aldersgate Group

2012-02-07T22:13:00.000Z

Andrew, thankyou for that induction and for the invitation to be with you this morning.

When i tookover the brief as Shadow of sate for Energy & Climate Change, i ware of thecontradiction that, on the one hard, the BBC’s Frozen Planet was gaining recordviewing figures of nearly 8 million.

On the other,public attitudes showed that just one month later, the number of people whorated the environment as important was just 4%

My gutinstincts told me that central to my brief were prices, jobs and security.

Prices – because we must have an energy marketthat delivers fair, competitive prices and works in the public interest.

Jobs - because as the UK seeks new growthand jobs, energy generation and energy efficiency have the potential totransform our economy.

Security –because the first responsibility of every Government is to keep the lighton.

That’s theonly way we’ll build a consensus for tackling climate change.

We arefortunate in the UK that one of the legacies of Labour’s period in Office wasbroad acceptance of the need to tackle climate change.

Theacceptance by the present Government of Labour’s climate change targets set outin the 2008 Climate Change Act, led me to believe that Labour had created a new-crossparty. That clarity of direction underpins the attractiveness of the UK togreen investment.

Today, thequestion marks over the Government’s green credentials have proliferated andraise genuine scepticism over whether the Government is sincere in its supportfor that consensus and open for green business.

Labour is notalone is expressing concern at rising unemployment; 1 million young people without work; or the lack of growth in our economy.

Thoseconcerns find echoes in the business community. The Lloyds Business Barometerfor December showed 75% of businesses believing the UK was headed for anotherrecession ; only one in the five businesses expect to recruit additional staffand trading prospects have fallen across all regions and sectors.

Yet a new eraof economic transformation is upon us – one that will create growth andinvestment opportunities, but only if Government can grasp the nettle.

Labourbelieves that the UK must have an active industrial strategy to seize theopportunities green economic growth can create a new energy industrialrevolution beckons, and our country must embrace it without delay.

The startingpoint is the question of climate change and the corresponding drive to reduceemissions.

Is this athreat to business or an opportunity?

Two well –rehearsed arguments are in contention for the ear of business and Government.

On the onside are those who argue that Government – led action on climate change is athreat to growth – an unnecessary burden on business – a lead weight around thearound the neck of UK plc. That view says that economic growth is not possibleif we tackle climate change.

The likes ofthe present Chancellor not only believe that the green agenda is bad forbusiness , bad for jobs and bad for growth, but actively revel in theircontempt for environment protection. According to this view, environmental policiesare a luxury that can only ever be afforded when time are good.

It is anargument, i believe we should firmly reject.

On the otherside, there is the view that all economic growth threatens to deplete the worldof resources; that the need to protect the planet means that advanced societiesshould break with their addiction to the motor car,, end holidays aboard ; andfocus on quality of life rather than material consumption. The West, theybelieve should accept a lower standard of living in the interests of theplanet.

Both the“extreme eco view “and the Tory right share on central premise that economicgrowth and environmental sustainability are inherently irreconcilable.

One forsakesthe environmental policies; the other forsakes the growth.

I reject botharguments.

History showsus that only economic growth spreads wealth and prosperity and with it themeans to reduce poverty and civilise societies.

There is apath between untrammelled growth at all costs; and a zero growth world. We cangrow our economy and benefit the planet; we can provide for our citizens andmeet their aspirations without running our planet. It is not a zero sum game.

Investing inthe green economy is not just a route out of recession, but a necessary andurgent adaptation to the economy and society we will need in the decades ahead.

In is notsomething that can wait for our economy to emerge into those broad, sunlituplands. An optional addition afforded only once prosperous time have returned.

Thetransition to a low carbon economy must begin now, during the toughest of time;preparing the road for recovery.

This is not ajourney of economic altruism- but a battle for economic survival.

We are on thesucp of a new industrial revolution, which is shaking up the old world order.UK can be followers or leaders in the revolution.

The longer wedelay action, the costlier mitigating and adapting to climate change willbecome . And the economic opportunities will slip through our fingers.

Our societydid not reach this point without centuries of economic convulsion. Convulsionsthat created economic advance by hamessing technological change.

Successfuleconomies are those that adapt to technologies quickest, build the newindustrial base for era and plan the transition to avoid huge economic shocks.

Countriesthat first introduced rail networks in the 19^th century made thefastest industrial progress. Linking their manufacturing bases with theirsources of power; their goods with the ports.

The Germanpost- war rebuilding created a new industrial base. Their production embracedcars, machines, electrical equipment, furniture – investment in manufacturingindustries that underpinned their economic growth for decades; and continues todo so today.

The companiesand countries that seized on the emerging communications technologies of 20^thcentury, sae their economies gain advantage. Frances Cairncross in her 1997book The Death of Distance that the telephone, invented in 1876, was crossingthe Atlantic by the 1930s, so by 1956 J Paul Getty could run his Californianoil empire from hotel room in Europe.

Morerecently, the information superhighway; broadband and mobile technologies, thegrandchildren of the electronic computer first invented in the 1940s, aretransforming the way our economies are societies function.

Such is thepower of this revelation that Apple is now the world’s most valuable companyovertaking oil giant Exxon Mobil; Google sits at about 12^th and theFacebook IPO would place it in the 30 most valuable companies.

The next bigtransition in economic term is the move from high carbon power to low carbon.

We need todevelop plans on the grid enhancements , high- speed rail network , carboncapture and storage pipelines , distributed generation technologies ,integrated recycling plants, energy, efficiency improvements and electricvehicle charging networks that are the platforms for green growth of theeconomy as a whole.

These will underpinnational prosperity in the 21st century in exactly the way the motorwaynetworks underpinned prosperity in the 20th century and the railways in the 19th . the lessons of history tell us that the early adopters win.

In any case, what’s happened to the solar industry inthis country has implications for investment in the green economy as a whole.
How can the Government encourage investors to support the renewable heatincentive, the green deal or any other green policies in the future, when agrowing sector, built on a flagship policy that had cross-party support, wascut off at the knees with just six weeks’ notice?
Where investors expect clarity and certainty, this Government created confusionand uncertainty.

Which brings me to the third reason why the UK is falling behind.

The failure of their economic policies is having a knock-on effect for ourability to make the transition to a low carbon economy.

Commentators often say that the construction sector is a barometer of thehealth of the economy; and new build is where new standards, new skills andinnovation come into play.

Yet Government policy has brought housing starts to the lowest levels onrecord; the Government has had a stop start approach to public sector schoolsand road projects; and unemployment and squeezed living standards have reduceddemand so people are not investing in home improvements.

Just one measure – a cut in VAT to 5% on home renovation and energy efficiency,would provide an immediate fillip to all of those individual endeavours thatgreen homes.

Labour recognised that when public money is in short supply, the GreenInvestment Bank could leverage private investment and drive economic growth.But plans for the Green Investment Bank are in limbo.

Because the government is set to borrow £158bn more than they planned a yearago, the date at which we will have the much heralded Green Investment Bank,with full borrowing powers, has slipped to 2016 at the earliest.

The Government claim that the Green Investment Bank is part of a strategy forgrowth but that looks pretty thin if by the time it is able to deliver any realinvestment, growth has already returned to the economy.

So while cities around the country are bidding for the Green Investment Bank tobe located within their areas, if it can’t borrow for the next five years, theymight find it’s a rather quieter bank than they first expected.

The longer we put off action, the costlier mitigating and adapting to climatechange will become. And the economic prizes will have been surrendered to moreadventurous nations.

Of course, there are risks in pioneering new technologies and developing newindustries.

But sooner or later, we will have to make a transition to a low-carbon economy.

The UK Government has a legal obligation to cut our carbon emissions by 80% by2050, and that requires a programme of action.

So the real question is not whether we make a shift from a high to low carboneconomy, but when, and how we do it.

And whether we do it in a way, and a time, that maximises the benefits to oureconomy.

There will only be a small window of opportunity to assert leadership in theyears ahead.
The world won’t wait for us.

And the transition to a green economy, is as much about making existingindustries greener, through energy efficiency, technological innovation andimproving industrial processes, as it is about investing in new sources ofclean energy.

Because the vast majority, if not all, economic activity in Britain, and acrossthe world, will have to reduce its environmental impact significantly. Theevidence suggests that those companies that do so, will gain economicadvantages and reduce their energy overheads.

So what are the hallmarks of an active industrial strategy to bring about theenergy industrial revolution?

There are five parts:

One: unlocking private investment, by delivering on Electricity Market Reformand Government acting decisively and consistently.

Two: better public procurement.

Three: a strategy for skills for a low-carbon economy.

Four: a rebalanced economy, supporting growth in our regions and encouragingmanufacturing.

And five: engaging the public and communities.

The first component of an active industrial strategy is unlocking privateinvestment.

In 2010, the private sector in the UK generated a surplus of £110 billion.

But the total amount of investment in the UK in clean energy – by both thepublic and private sector – was just £2 billion.

Around a quarter of our existing electricity generation capacity will gooffline in the next decade.

Replacing those power stations is a once in a generation opportunity to secureour supply and deliver a cleaner, more diverse and more sustainable electricitymix.

But it will require unprecedented levels of investment – perhaps as much as£200 billion in the next decade.

To get that investment we need clarity and confidence in the future of lowcarbon technologies.

And only Government can provide the credible long-term policy signals and thecomprehensive policy framework that the private sector seeks.

That’s why the proposals in the Electricity Market Reform white paper, and inthe legislation we expect later in the year, are so crucial.

But outside the proposals for EMR, we also need the Government to actdecisively and consistently.

With carbon capture and storage, we have a competitive advantage and we’re onthe verge of developing a hugely valuable, exportable technology.

But that advantage won’t last forever.

Other countries in Europe are seeking to develop this technology.

Demonstration projects in Canada and Australia are already underway.

So we need to move quickly.

Investors need confidence.

They need to know that the £1 billion funding the Government promised is stillthere.

They need to know that the Government will conclude its competition in time toqualify for EU funding.

Most of all, they just need the Government to get on and decide which of theproposals known to them has best prospects of success, so we can begindeveloping this technology, without any further delay.

The second component of an active industrial strategy for green growth isbetter public procurement.

I can’t come to you today and promise that the next Labour Government will beable to drive investment by drawing on public funds.

Because we won’t.

In the current financial situation, no government can promise that.

But we can be smarter about the money we do spend.

Every year we spend nearly £20 billion on housing benefit.

Housing benefit is paid towards 40 per cent of private rented tenancies.

And yet homes in the private rented sector are the least energy efficient.

There are about 680,000 rented properties in England with the worst energyefficiency ratings of F and G.

The state should not be subsidising substandard housing, or lining the pocketsof those irresponsible landlords, who fail to make sure their homes are warmand properly insulated.

By introducing a landlords’ register, as Labour has argued for and as manylandlords support, you could ensure that housing benefit was only paid inrespect of properties that met a decent standard of warmth and energyefficiency.

It would mean landlords have to improve their properties.

But it would also create a supply chain for installers delivering the measuresand small businesses manufacturing them.

And it could save tenants as much as £488 a year off their energy bills.

That’s just one way we can improve public procurement to support green growthand get better value for the money we already spend.

And why it’s sad to see Michael Gove threatening to undermine the greenbuilding standard for schools.

The third part of an active industrial strategy is skills.

Take nuclear power as an example.

There is a continued role for nuclear power in the UK as part of a moresustainable and balanced future energy mix.

But we haven’t built a nuclear power station in this country since 1995.

If we’re planning on building more, we need people to do it.

Those people need skills and training.

And if the plan is to build them in the next decade, those people are alreadyin the education system.

So we need a skills strategy in place now which reaches them – and provides allthe other skills that a low-carbon economy needs.

The fourth component of an active industrial strategy is rebalancing oureconomy: supporting growth in our regions and in the manufacturing industry.

We don’t just want to be a country that installs products from overseas.

We want to manufacture them too.

Wind power is a good example. It’s crucial to increase our renewable energygeneration and cut our carbon emissions.

It’s our second largest source of renewable energy and we’re the world’s eighthlargest producer.

But UK wind farms import 80% of equipment and services from overseas.

We have to do more to develop our own supply chain, supporting manufacturing inthis country, rather than just in Germany and Denmark.

The second way we can rebalance our economy through an active industrialstrategy is by identifying parts of the country to become the hubs for our newgreen industries.

The Government’s answer is to let the market decide.

But there are obvious places which have existing infrastructure, industries andskills that can be adapted in the transition to a low carbon economy.

Many of them are old manufacturing centres and industrial heartlands in regionslike Yorkshire and the Humber, the North-East and Scotland.

As well as regions like the South-West and Wales for newer technologies such asmarine power.

The economies in these areas are in need of revitalisation.

An active industrial strategy would identify these areas, drive green growth inthem and encourage clustering, so we share expertise, drive innovation andstimulate new businesses.

Clustering our new green industries would also be the strategic way to deliverthe most cost-effective roll out of the 200 miles of transmission connectionsNational Grid are planning on building over the next 8 years,

The fifth, and final part, of an active industrial strategy is engaging thepublic and communities.

Household energy consumption is responsible for nearly a third of total carbonemissions.

The public can’t be passive spectators as we move to a low-carbon economy –they need to be active participants.

The proportion of the public who perceive climate change and otherenvironmental issues as important, is not just low, but falling.

So we have to deal with the world as we find it, not as we wish it to be.

We have to engage the public to make their homes more energy efficienct.

The Government claim the Green Deal will be a “game-changer”.

But unless we use the Green Investment Bank to make interest rates affordable,people simply won’t take it up. The right incentives need to be in place.

We have to engage smallbusinesses too, because the current plans for the Green Deal and the EnergyCompany Obligation mean it’ll be dominated by the big six energy firms – ratherthan the small businesses, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises wewant to see taking part.

We have to support the public to take-up micro-generation, so they becomeenergy producers as well as energy consumers.

The Government has to end the constant meddling and uncertainty with Feed-inTariffs and put them on a sustainable footing.

And we have to have empower communities and local authorities.

The energy companies literally can’t give away insulation. With only monthsuntil the scheme finishes, the Community Energy Saving Programme has onlydelivered 7.2% of the savings it was meant to.

The Government needs to empower councils and community groups and let them geton with improving energy efficiency and generating their own power.

That’s one of the reasons I’m so strongly opposed to the Government’s cuts tothe Feed-in Tariff, which will exclude community groups and social housing fromhaving solar.

Since my appointment, I’ve visited insulation firms in the Midlands, I’ve metsolar firms from Glasgow to Hastings, and been to power plants too.

I won’t even begin to list the meetings I’ve had.

There’s more, I know, to see, but I’m genuinely excited about the possibilitiesfor our country.

And the thing that’s struck me more than anything else is that Britain is notshort of the capital, skills or technology to make the transition to alow-carbon economy.

But this Government is short of the political vision.

And as a result, we’re in danger of missing a golden opportunity not just toreboot our economy, but to build a more resilient, and responsible economy forthe future.

Built not just on sustained, but sustainable growth.

But we need an active industrial strategy, focused on growth, skilled jobcreation and a revival of Britain's manufacturing sector, which can be bothclean and green.

As we rethink and review our policies, this is an opportunity for Labour, andmore importantly, for our country.

And it’s one I’m determined to seize.

George Osborne Number 11 refurbishment cost 30K

2012-02-07T14:13:00.000Z

Calling in the Yestersday Daily Mirror. George Osborne used £30.000 of taxpayer’s cash torefurbished 17 rooms in Downing Street. The Millionaire Chancellor redecoratedofficial rooms in number 11 and his grace and favour flat next door.

Afreedom information request revealed that improvement cost £32.651 in total inthe years from April 2010.

Thiscompared to £10,140 spent in the previous 12 months.

Ed Miliband Speech on Banking

2012-02-05T16:45:00.000Z

Ed Miliband Leader of the Oppositionand leader of the Labour Party , Said in a speech at the Thomson ReutersBuilding:

This has beena turbulent week of the British banking industry.

On Sunday,Stephen Hester gave back his bonus, and on Tuesday, the forfeiture committeerevoked Fred Goodwin’s Knighthood.

But thesemoments do really not change anything in themselves.

This is aboutmore than one man, on bonus, or one knighthood.

These aresymbols – and symptoms – of public discontent with a system that is not workingas it should.

For oureconomy

And for oursociety.

That is whythese moments do not and should not signal the end of the debate.

Because,three years on from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the debate is really on justbeginning.

We need abanking system that serves a more responsible capitalism, working for themajority of people and enabling us to pay our way in the world.

Everyone canagree that the kind of tug of war we have seen in the past fortnight overbonuses is bad for the reputation of the banking sector.

Nobody inthis country – neither the banks’ most staunch defenders nor their mostoutspoken critics – believe that a public argument between executives ,shareholders, politicians and the public is the best way for our sector to setpay.

London is oneof the world’s great financial centres and Britain banking sector is one of ourmost important employers.

It is in allour interests to find a better way forward.

But if thingsare carry on as they are, i believe the same row over pay and bonuses willerupt again.

So how do wemake sure that does not happen again?

We need tolearn the most important lesson of the week: we cannot have a banking sector sodivorced from the rest of the economy and the rest of society.

We succeed orfail together.

It is not aboutthe politics of envy.

It is about aculture of responsibility.

We need whatyou might call’ one nation banking’.

We needbanking serving every region, every sector, every business, every family inthis country.

And we needbanks turn in a way people believe are consistent with their vales – the valesof Britain

It somethingi have been talking about for months: responsibility – from the benefits officeto the boardroom.

But tounderstand ho we get there, banking and finance is going through exceptional times.

Everywhereyou look, pillars of the conventional wisdom which have stood solidly frothirty – odd year are crashing to the ground.

Until2007, it was hard to imagine that: light touch financial regulation would be sothoroughly discredited; financial instruments designed to make each bank saferwould make the banking system as a whole riskier, we would be facing interestrates lower than we have seen for decades without lending rising as a result,bank bonuses could be in the billions even as banks’ share price fell ; all thebanks in this country would be backed by an implicit government guarantee; andtwo of the biggest would be largely owned by the government.

We all knowthis happened because something has gone deeply wrong.

My party has acceptedresponsaibitlty, along with governments round the world, for not doing more preventsthe crisis with regulation.

We now mustask questions about the future of banking which have not been asked for ageneration.

The bankingsector can choose either to continue down the path which led us to big bonuses ,bust s, and bailouts.

Or it cantake a different path.

Today, i wantto talk about the different path.

Banking hasto change.

Throughout mostof our parents and grandparents ‘lives, banking was not prone to wild swingingin value.

It directedlending towards businesses and entrepreneurs efficiently and soberly.

And the ideaof a vote in the House of Commons to affect the pay of an individual bankerwould been as outlandish as the idea of a vote to censure the pay of an individualdoctor or lawyer.

Thirty yearsago, the word’ banker’ was often used as a compliment to suggest solidity andreassurance.

Since then, however,the sector morphed from something our parents and grandparents would have recognisedinto something else, with the rise and increasing dominance of investmentbanks.

We can’t turnback the clock.

This mustn’tbe about recreating a by gone era of banking.

But if therules and norms of banking have changed before, they can change again.

And they mustchange.

After thecrisis and the bailout, we are left in a situation which nobody would have wanted.

Where thanksto the crisis, ten per cent of this county’s tax receipts fell away between2007 and 2008 alone.

Banks haveaccepted they bear he burden of responsibility for helping to cause the crisis.

The consequencesof their reckless irresponsibility in that era are felt every time a library alibrary closes.

Every time aschool can’t afford a new book.

And everytime a policeman or policewoman is taken off the beat.

Those consequencesare being felt by everyone in society.

The bankingsector needs to understand this.

People whodid not cause the financial crisis are paying the price.

And many feelthat those who did cause the financial crisis are not.

When most people see theirincomes stagnate, their bills go up, their public services cut, and their jobsincreasingly become insecure, pay and bonuses at banks seem to carry on as ifthe crisis never happened.

The public services we rely on to educate our kids, look after us when we areill, or help us afford a lawyer if we’re in trouble, cannot go back to normalany time soon.

So when people see the pay of those who caused the crisis continuing to be soabnormal, they are understandably angry.

This is a call for banking to recognise that continuing on its current pathwill lead to further isolation from society, greater public anger, more yearsin which each payday is a newspaper headline.

This is a call on banking to recognise that it should take the path of change.

To recognise that it is not isolated from the economy or society.

To recognise that we succeed or fail together.

We have a proud history of banking in this country.

Banking has performed an invaluable service to the economy from Midland Bank'srole restructuring the cotton industry in the 1930s, to Barclays' role infinancing high tech start-ups in Cambridge in the seventies and eighties,

And since the crisis, we have seen some welcome steps.

Notably, the Independent Banking Commission’s recommendations about the ringfencing of retail and investment banking.

And more recently, the way HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds, RBS and Standard Charteredhave put up £2.5 billion for a business growth fund focused on British firms.

But there is still a long way to go before we achieve one nation banking.

Public discontent is, if anything, on the rise - as the long lasting impact ofthe crisis in living standards becomes clear.

For all the reform of the way bonuses are paid, they remain on a scale beyondthe imagination of the vast majority of the population.

Although the Government has welcomed the Vickers proposals, theirimplementation remains a distant prospect.

And most importantly, business frustration with the banks they rely on is ashigh as ever.

Still, too often, they see the bank, not as a partner in a shared project, butas a problem to be overcome.

I saw this only on Monday in Scotland when a wind turbine manufacturer complainedthat while he had employed 20 people in his factory it could have been 30 ifonly he had got the loan he needed from a leading British bank.

Similar stories can be heard from thousands of other businesses around thecountry.

Banks must not be isolated from the rest of the economy.

Banks must lend to small businesses so we can get the growth and jobs we needfor the future.

That is how Britain will compete in the world.

As things stand, that is still not happening enough.

Lending was down £10.8 billion last year.

There are two reasons why not enough capital currently reaches the small andmedium sized enterprises in this country which are crying out for it.

The first is that it’s always hardest to get credit when the economy is in adownturn, even though that’s when small and medium-sized firms need finance themost.

And the second is that it is cheaper for banks to lend to big companies thansmall ones. Particularly when credit is already being rationed, lending tosmall firms is often deemed not worthwhile for banks.

The market on its own does not work for small businesses.

All the most successful economies around the world recognise this: from Asiancapitalist states like Singapore, through active industrial states likeGermany, to supposedly free market states like the USA.

And they make sure that the state helps finance to reach the small and mediumsized enterprises which need it.

This isn't about picking winners.

It is about the state getting the market moving, like our most successfulcompetitors have been doing since the fifties.

It’s no coincidence that in Britain we haven’t done as much to develop aMittelstand like Germany.

Or fast-growing young companies like Apple and Intel - both of which got growthfunding from the US government’s Small Business Investment Company programme.

When it comes to competing internationally, our small and medium sizedcompanies are fighting with one hand tied behind their back.

One nation banking means the private sector and the state need to work togetherin partnership to get the system working for small business.

It means we will need a much more diverse and competitive banking system whichis more rooted in our communities.

And it means looking at the case for a British Investment Bank which wouldprovide government backing for entrepreneurs when the market fails.

How we achieve these goals is at the core of our business policy review.

But one nation banking is not just about banks serving the economy.
It also means that banks cannot be isolated from the rest of society either.
They cannot expect their decisions to be immune from public debate.
There will always be some who see public criticism of private decisions, likeexcessive bonus payments, as illegitimate.
It is an argument I want to tackle head-on.

I believe it is right to address these issues.

Firstly, for economic reasons.

The economy relies on banks to lend to small businesses.

If banks show greater restraint on pay, there will be more money left over forthem to lend to businesses.

This is a point forcibly made by the Governor of the Bank of England.

And in the aftermath of a crisis worsened by excessive leverage, if they showrestraint on pay, there will be more money left over too for them to repairtheir balance sheets.

The second reason is because banks have been taking one-way bets which haveaffected us all as taxpayers.

Banks which were too big to fail were able to take positions in the knowledgethat if they profited they could keep the gains, but if they didn’t, thetaxpayer would absorb the losses.

I believe in rewards for entrepreneurs and wealth creators.

Exceptional rewards for exceptional performance.

But even banks in this country which are not publicly owned still enjoy animplicit taxpayer guarantee whose value is estimated as at least £10 billion.

That means that many of the bets they make are one-way bets, backed by animplicit taxpayer-funded safety net.

Thirdly, we need change is because banks have a responsibility to society.

Because at the core of one nation banking is the idea that as a country, wesucceed or fail together.

We are not isolated individuals, and however affluent we are, whatever theworld we inhabit, we owe responsibilities to each other.

So what does that mean in practice?

What are the steps that banks need to take if they to reflect better the valuesof the British people - the values of their customers.

It starts with transparency.

That means that banks should publish the details of all their large bonuses.

Pay packages at the top should be simpler, so that we can easily understand whois paid what, and shareholders can hold them to account more easily.

We have called on the Government to implement rules we legislated for to makebanks reveal how many employees are earning over one million pounds, so thatshareholders can hold them to account.

It is absurd for David Cameron to claim this simple effective measure is tooonerous for banks and will make British banks uncompetitive.

It is the very least the public has a right to expect and demand.

The next priority is to improve accountability at the top.

That means accountability to employees so that companies put some of theirordinary workers – maybe a teller normally at high street bank window - on thecommittee which sets executives’ top pay.

If you can’t look a member of your own staff in the eye when you receive a hugebonus, you should not get it.

We need to simplify the current rules on pay packages so that say thatexecutives get just one salary and just one bonus.

When banks are majority owned by the taxpayer, the Government must exercisesome shareholder oversight on top pay.

All I ask is that the Government should practice what it preaches to othershareholders and take some responsibility for the pay and bonuses ofpublicly-owned banks.

But – after transparency and accountability – must come the recognition thatexecutives have a responsibility to wider society.

Of course, there is an international market in banking. But there is also anational imperative: that everybody, from top to bottom, reflects our values ofresponsibility.

The kind of responsibility shown by the chairman of RBS, Sir Philip Hampton,who recognised that taking his bonus at a time when families are feeling thepinch was wrong.

The kind of responsibility which others in the banking sector could learn frommanufacturing in this country: when the crisis hit, managers took pay cuts tosave jobs and retain talent for the long-term.

Responsibility means ending the culture of excessive bonuses.

This bonus culture has ultimately been corrosive.

It has enriched individual bankers, but weakened the banking sector as a wholeby encouraging a form of risk which crossed the line into sheer recklessness.

Exceptional rewards for exceptional performance means million pound bonusesshould not be handed out to people for just doing their job.

It means that performance-related pay should be related to your performance.

It should be earned, not expected.

A reward for exceeding expectations, not meeting them.

I am not talking about the couple of thousand of pounds that employees,including bank tellers, might receive.

I am talking about the couple of millions of pounds which too many people seemto receive as a rule, not as an exception.

The first step towards tackling this problem is recognising it.

Some will argue that the best remedy is the discipline of the free market.

But this argument was proven wrong the day the sector collapsed and had to berescued by the taxpayer.

Anyone who looks at recent history will find it hard to believe that thediscipline of the market will prevent runaway bonuses.

The answer is to change the rules and change the culture.

That is what the House of Commons will debate on Tuesday.

We will say that that too many are getting bonuses which are too big, toooften.

All companies must show responsibility, but banks have a particularresponsibility because they are either directly or indirectly supported by thetaxpayer.

We will give MPs the chance to vote on having another bank bonus tax to get100,000 of our young people back to work.

But we will also ask MPs to vote on ending a bonus culture based on one-waybets rather than genuine reward for exceptional performance.

It will not be legislation and it will not be binding.

But it will be another step towards hearing the voices of millions of people upand down this country who do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay withoutseeking any extra reward on top, let alone one worth millions.

Because the alternative to this path of one nation banking is a banking andfinance sector which continues on its current path.

The path which it has been on for the last decade or so.

The path which leads to a gradual separation from the rest of society.

We are once again at risk of becoming a country separated economically,geographically, and socially.

We are once again at risk of becoming two nations in this country.

That is not the kind of society in which I want to raise my children.

And it is not the kind of society in which the vast majority of people in thiscountry – including bankers - want to raise theirs.

It is over 160 years since Benjamin Disraeli wrote his novel, Sybil, in whichhe warned of:

“Two nations, between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are asignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellersin different zones or inhabitants of different planets.”

For the banking community and the rest of us, that is how it has felt thisweek.

That is not good for Britain and it is not good for banks.

We need a healthy and successful banking sector, creating jobs and wealth,helping the real economy and connecting to the rest of society.

Responsible capitalism can only be built with a successful banking sector. Ibelieve we can achieve this by changing the rules of the system and the cultureof our banks.

That is how we will have a fairer society and an economy which pays its way inthe world.

That is how we will create one nation banking.

Senior GP in David Cameron constituency Nobody support the NHS changes

2012-02-01T23:21:00.001Z

Callingin the newstateman a Senior GP in David Cameron's own constituency tells NewStatesman "things are going to fail, hospitals will close".

Inan exchange over the government’s controversial health reforms at Prime Minister’sQuestions last Wednesday, David Cameron cited “a supportive GP who hailsDoncaster Ed Miliband constituency.

SophieElmhirst travels to David Cameron’s own Whitey constituency in West Oxfordshire,where a senior of a Local GP practices tells her:

“I would say very few GP are happy with the (the NHS reform) at ... not a question of supporting it, it’s a question of going a long with it.”

Inmy practice, nobody supports the changes...people think there should be moreclinical involvement in commissioning. But i don’t think many people think thatGPs are the right people to commission. They need input it- but if we wanted tobe managers we would have trained to be managers not doctors.”

The GPadds:

Most GPs are incredibly worried about conflict o interest. How can you be a patient’s advocate and look after the money? A lot of people think the whole thing’s designed to fail so they can bring private providers in. It’s the one big bit of the economy that hasn’t got private money in it.”

Of the effects opatients from the health service overhaul, the Whitney GP says:

The public have just got no idea what hitting them ... things are going to fail, hospitals will close, because the money’s not going to be there. Thing will get taken over. And if you’re going to have to have to make a profit out of it, you’re not going to have the same service.

Inthe same report, Elmhurst speaks to Dr Paul Robin, the chief executive of Berkshire,Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Local Medical Council. Which covers DavidCameron’s Whitney constituency. Speaking about health and social care bill,currently working its it way through the House of Lords, Robin, a retired GP,says:

It’s a major change which is quite experimental at a time when the NHS is trying hard to save money. The timing doesn’t seem to be good. Among GPs there’s a huge spectrum of enthusiasm from those that think commissioning will work to those who think that think that think it’s another fad in the NHS and will soon pass.”

There is a large bulk in middle justwatching events, and waiting to see what happens. The are slightly perturbed –they didn’t go into medicine to do that sort of thing commissioning and it’s a distractionfrom actually seeing patients.”

ManyGPs are fed up with continual NHS restructuring ...The actual jobs...takes backseat for many years while the structuring is taking place. It’s a very wastefulprocess.”

Robin issues a personalmessage to the prime minister:

Produce an environment where people within the NHS can concentrate on what really matters which is patient care rather than structural reorganisation. Because continual change is draining and wasteful. They describe it as modernisation. I think they should stop using that political euphemism.

Ed Miliband Speech in Glasgow

2012-01-30T22:26:00.001Z

Thank youJohann

And thank youMargaret and Anas for everything you’re doing.

Let me startdirectly by talking about the developments on the issue of RBS bonuses.

StephenHester has done the right thing.

I welcome hisdecision not to take his bonus

But i amsorry we have a Prime Minister so out of touch with British people that he didnot act to stop it earlier. He failed to be a responsible shareholder.

It tookLabour’s threat of a parliamentary vote for the right thing to happen.

Nobody willthink the events of the last few days are a good way to set pay in our banks.

But we canonly avoid this kind of story repeating itself if there is a decisive shift inrules and behaviour.

We need aproper debate now about executive pay and responabilite capitalism.

My challengeto the Government is to show they understand they got it wrong on RBS and canact differently in the future.

First, the bonusesmerry go round looks set to continue for a while. They cannot stop bonuses inthe private sector bans but they can introduce a bank bonus tax.

They shoulddo so.

Second, theymust now act to change the rules on executive pay so that an ordinary employee sitson every single remuneration committee of every public company.

If theexecutives cannot look the ordinary workers in the eye and justify the salariesbeing paid, then they shouldn’t be paying them.

Third, weshould change the rules on corporate governance so that bonuses are not forjust doing jobs but for exceptional performance.

And introducerules which say one salary, one bonus.

Theses arethree immediate steps the Government must take.

But there isa challenge that goes beyond this Government.

What the RBSissue has shown is the gap between the lives and behaviour of a few at the topand the deep commitment to fairness and responsibility among Britain’s workingfamilies.

It is thisgap which has led directly to today’s events.

The gapbetween the squeezed middle and the very top.

Successfuleconomies depend on public consent.

People arenot against rewards for outstanding success or risk.

But they wantto live in a country where here is fairness when it comes to the fruits ofsuccess and fairness when it comes to the need for sacrifice.

This isn’thappening and hasn’t been happening for a long time.

So I’m notsaying we got this right in Government.

But if onegood thing is to come out of the RBS fiasco, it must be this.

We mustrelearn the lesson that we have forgotten:

We are notisolated individuals.

Howeveraffluent we are, whatever the world we inhabit, we owe responsibilities to eachother.

That is thecountry i stand for.

This is thecountry my Labour Party will fight for.

But tacklingthis wider inequality, this injustice, unfairness is the mission for politics.

Today i wantto make that case.

The case fora fair, just and equal United Kingham, with Scotland part of it.

Not a casebased on fear of separatism.

But a casebased on hope.

Hope for amore equal, more just more progressive future for Scotland and the United Kingham.

I come herewith humility about the scale of challenge for Labour- nine months after welost the Scottish elections.

And i comehere to stand shoulder to shoulder with you Johann, our new Leader of ScottishLabour.

You havealready shown you understand the scale of the challenge for our party, and thatyou have the determination to make the positive case for the United Kingham.

My parentscame to our island as refugees from Nazi terror.

My Fatherjoined the British Navy

He did histraining aboard HMS Valorous, on the Firth of Forth.

A Belgian, hefought Fassicism with people from every part of the United Kingham.

As i was growingup, he didn’t talk to me about corning to England, then moving to Scotland.

He talkedabout coming to Britain; the country that gave him and my mother shelter.

My story isrepeated a million times across the United Kingham.

My storyshows that this country has been a refuge to many and a cause to fight for.

And therefore,if the of Scotland decide to separate, as they can, it would not affectScotland alone.

It willaffect all of us in the four nations of this country.

That is why iam here today.

So as this campaignbegins, we need to understand the stakes.

Some people,including the First Minister, will tell you it is a battle between him and thePrime Minister, between the Government of Scotland and the Government of theUnited Kingham.

So let me sayclearly:

It is rightthat the people of Scotland, not just Alex Salmond.

It is rightfor the decision in this referendum is made in Scotland.

But as Johannhas said. It is right that it based on one fair question and one clear answer/

Every timeyou hear nationalist politician talk about the process of referendum, it isbecause they want to avoid talking about the substance of separation.

Today, i want to concentrate on the substanceof the argument.

About onepart of positive case for the United Kingdom.

In the past,Labour has warned about the dangers of separatism and we will continue to pointto the evidence.

There arevital questions around the possible costs and benefits of a separate Scotlandthat deserve to be explored.

But i supportScotland as part of the United Kingham, not because i think Scotland is tooport or too weak to break away.

But for aprofoundly different reason:

Because ibelieve that Scotland as part of the United Kingham is better for the workingpeople of Scotland , and better for the working people of the United Kingham asa whole.

Let’s startby asking the question that Labour at its best has always asked about thiscountry : what are the injustices facing working people and how do we overcomethem ?

What is themost urgent priority for the people of Scotland?

We are livingthrough some of the toughest time in recent history.

Unemploymentat its highest in 18 years.

Rising foodand energy prices.

And more thanthat:

We know inour heads and in our hearts that there are deep problems about the way oureconomy has been run.

When i meetworking families who have been struggling, year after year just to earn enoughto get by and put food on the table, I know we need to change things.

When i meetpeople have the will to work who keep getting turn down because they are upagainst hundreds of others, I know we need to change things.

When i meetparents who worry profoundly about their sons or daughters’ prospects in thisworld, i know we need to change things.

So when ilook around, i see a country crying out for change.

Inequality.

Injustice.

And thetalent betrayed.

These are theproblems facing people in every part of the United Kingdom –England, Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland.

And so whatis the most urgent task facing us today?

Putting up aborder across the A1 and M74?

Or the taskof creating a more equal, just and fair society?

I say let’sconfront the real divide in Britain

Not betweenScotland and the rest of the United Kingham.

But betweenthe haves and the have-nots.

So i am nothere to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingham.

I am herewith the same call of Labour Leaders down the ages, to say that we need to makethe United Kingdom a fairer, more just place to live.

And we can dothat the best, together.

I believe itfirstly because it is the lesson of history.

Our story, asa party and as a country, is not what we achieved separately but what weachieved together.

The story ofthe Scotsman, the Englishman is not just the start of a good joke.

It is thehistory of social justice in this country.

It was a Scotsman,Keir Hardie, who founded Labour party a hundred and twelve years ago.

An Englishman,Clement Attlee, who led the most successful Labour Government in history.

And a Welshman,Nye Bevan, who pioneered that Government’s greatest legacy, our National HealthService.

These are theachievements of our nation working together.

And that’snot all.

Before wepassed the Provision of School Meals Act together, children from Lands End toJohn O’ Groats would go hungry just because their family was poor.

Before webuilt the NHS together, if you fell ill, you would only be treated if you couldpay for it.

Before wepassed the Equal Pay Act together, a woman could do exactly the same job as theman sitting next to her and still only be paid half his salary.

And before weestablished the minimum wage together, someone could work every day intill theirmuscles ached and till be paid less than £1 an hour.

These progressiveachievements do not belong to one nation of the United Kingdom. They areBritish achievements.

Our historyis that we have made this country fairer , together.

And thechallenges of today demand that we once respond together.

And thechallenges of today demand that we once again respond together.

We live inthe shadow of the banking crisis.

The youngperson joining the dole queue behind a million others.

The smallbusiness which wants to grow but can’t but can’t get the loan.

And thefather who lies awake at night worrying about how to pay the bills.

That is whati mean when i say that we need to build a more responsible capitalism.

It is a bigchallenge, and one i believe we can only overcome together.

Why?

Not only becausetogether we are stronger. Sharing the risks and rewards in an uncertain world.

But becausewe are not separate economies, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

We are oneconomy.

The banksserving Glasgow are the same as the ones serving Gloucester.

The shops onyour high streets are the same as the shops on my high Street.

And decisionsmade by British companies like BAE will affect their employees in Govan as muchas their employees in Barrow.

We can makeour economy work for the majority; we can make capitalism more responsible.

But i tellyou this:

We can onlydo it together.

We mustreform our financial services, its rules, it culture, its institutions.

But if wechange he rules separately , banks would move whatever the rules were weakest.

We needstronger rules together, not weaker rules apart.

We can changeour economy so that there are more and better jobs by encouraging businesses tothink long- term, in tears not quarters.

But we canonly do it together.

Because oureconomies are as connected as they are: more people in Scotland are employed bylarge companies based in the rest of the UK than in Scotland.

So reform inone country and not in another would simply mean companies moving a few milesnorth or south to where rules are easiest for them.

Rather thanadvancing fairness together.

Because oureconomies are as connected as they are: more people in Scotland are employed bylarge companies based in the rest of the UK than in Scotland.

So reform inone country and not in another would simply mean companies moving a few milesnorth or south to where rules are easiest for them.

Rather thanadvancing fairness together, the risk is a race to the bottom on bankregulation , on wages, and conditions at work.

Take anothergreat progressive change of our time, climate change.

That’s why isay that the best way to make this country fairer is to do it together , as onecountry.

Mr Salmond,you can’t build fairness in Scotland by giving up on fairness in the UnitedKingdom.

And I don’t believeeither, that people in Scotland want to give up on fairness in the rest of theUnited Kingham.

And i don’tbelieve either, that people in Scotland want to give up on fairness in the restof the United Kingham.

For the basicreason that we care about each other.

Alex Salmond claimsto want to set a progressive example.

Let me tellhim , there is nothing progressive about a brand of politics which is based ondividing people with the same needs , living on this same small island.

There is nothingprogressive about a vision which saying a pensioner in Liverpool is no concernof his, a child growing up in poverty in East London is no concern of his, adisabled person in Midlands is no concern of his.

That isn’t aprogressive vision.

That isshutting the door on the problems of your fellow citizens.

I believe heis wrong.

By sharedvalues and common interests.

Not an islanddived by borders on the basis of nationalities or nationalisms.

But one broughttogether with the strength drawn from multiple identities.

Bound togetherthe common lies.

Nearly halfof all Scots have English relatives.

When aScotsman who works in the shipyards of Govan meets an Englishman who works onthe docks in Merseyside, he doesn’t see a foreigner, he see a fellowcountryman.

The pensionerfrom Aberdeen or Ayr has more in common with the pensioner in Bristol or Boltonthan with a pensioner in France or Belgium.

When the Olympicsare on, nobody in the pubs in Newcastle will cheer any less loudly for ChrisHoy, wearing the Union flag, just because he was born in Edinburgh.

Because over hundredsof years, we have written a story of four nations forgining a country together.

Of defendingthat country against fascism.

And offighting to make it fairer for working people.

Today , thatstruggle for social justice.

That fight,together, is what we need more than ever.

So AlexSalmond want to tell you a very particular story.

In thisstory, England is conservative, while Scotland is a progressive beacon.

Of course,the Scottish people have always stood out for their strongest ideals of socialjustice,

Shown by the history of educational opportunity for all,

Shown by the campaign down the years for the right to work.

And the opposition to the poll tax.

But my case is that these ideals for Scotland can best be realised in theUnited Kingdom.

And that the progressive ideals of the people of Scotland are more ambitiousthan Alex Salmond would claim.

He ran in 2011 on the slogan ‘be part of better.’

I passionately believe people do want to be part of better – a better UnitedKingdom.

So let’s reform our banks together.

Let’s create prosperity together.

Let’s tackle inequality together.

Let’s build a sustainable country together.

Let’s pass on the right opportunities for the next generation together.

I stand here today as a challenger against a Government in Westminster which iswrong on the economy, and has no vision for the United Kingdom.

And as a challenger against a Government in Holyrood with a plan for separationwhich will not help the working people of Scotland.

A challenger, determined to fight to make this whole country fairer.

Because I am proud of what our nations have achieved together.

And because I know that our best, our fairest, our most just days lie ahead ofus, together.

Police Officer numbers fall to lowest

2012-01-26T21:34:00.003Z

Theenumber of police officers in England and Wales has fallen to it lowest levelfor a decade, official figures show due to the Conservative led GovernmentPolice budget 20% cut.

There were 135,838 police officers in September2011- 60,012 (4.2%) fewer than the 141.850 of a year earlier.

Only oneof the 43 forces, Surrey Police, increased officer numbers over that period.Thefigures also show numbers have been cut further in England and Wales than inScotland and Northern Ireland.

The figures reveal:

· In Scotland, the number of police officers in September 2011 stood at17,265 - 106 (0.6 %) fewer officers

· In Northern Ireland, in January of this year, there were 7,157 police officers,44 (0.6 %) fewer officers than the previous year

· Police civilian staff numbers in England and Wales in September 2011stood at 69,407, down 8,820, or 11.3%, over the 12 months

· But the number of special constables, who are volunteers, went up by morethan 2,500 (15.5%) to 19,366

· The figures show the number of officers fell by more than 3,000 fromlast March alone

· The biggest percentage reduction in officers was in Derbyshire, whichsaw a 7.5% fall - 156 officers - followed by Nottinghamshire, which fell by6.9% - 165 officers - and Devon and Cornwall, which fell by 6.1% or 213officers

The figures come as Gloucestershire Police Chief Constable Tony Melvillewarned of the dangers of further cuts to his force's budget, saying it was on a"metaphorical cliff edge".

would be 16,000 fewer officers by 2015 than there were in 2010, as aresult of budget cuts.

If their forecasts are correct, there are 10,000 more jobs to go.

Chief constables can't make police officers redundant, so they aremaking savings by scaling back recruitment and, in some areas, forciblyretiring officers who have completed 30 years' service.

Cuts to civilian police staff, who can be forced to leave, are abouthalfway through - with almost 9,000 posts gone.

Chief Constable Tony Melville's stark warning that his Gloucestershireforce was heading for a "cliff edge" indicates how stretched someforces have become.

But there is no sign - so far - that crime is going up as a result, andministers continue to insist that there's still scope for more savings.

Chief Constable Peter Fahy, the Association of Chief Police Officers'lead for workforce development, said it was "not surprising" to see afall in the numbers of officers as most police forces had seen significantcuts.

"This is a very difficult time for most police forces with staffleaving and the challenge of managing redundancy and change programmes,"he said.

"Workforce morale is understandably affected by the pay freeze,proposed increment freeze and increase in pension contributions."

Mr Fahy went on to say the effectiveness of policing could not bemeasured by the number of officers alone, but by reductions in crime andincreases in public confidence.

"We will shortly enter the most difficult financial year forpolicing in living memory but forces have the plans to cope with what will be amost challenging time," he said.

On the positive side, he said, many forces had started recruiting again,or would continue to do so in the next financial year.

But he said this would not compensate for "what will still be along-term reduction in numbers".

The government is cutting central government funding to police inEngland and Wales by 20% over five years, as a result of the 2010 SpendingReview.

Yvette Cooper, Labour Shadow Home Secretary: These shocking figures show thebiggest fall in police numbers in over a decade at the same time as we are seeingthe biggest increase in personal crime. The Home Secretary needs to take urgentheed of the serious warning from the Gloucester Chief Constable that the policeare facing a "cliff edge" due to the sheer scale of these policecuts.

“David Cameron and Theresa May are letting down communities and turning theirbacks on the police. They should be battling to cut crime, but they are justcutting the police instead.

“Police numbers have fallen to the lowest for a decade, with 8,000 fewerofficers since the election and 6,000 since last year alone. At the same timepersonal crime including theft and violence has gone up by 11 per cent - thebiggest increase in a decade.

“The Home Secretary's 20 per cent cuts go much further than the 12 per centrecommended by the independent inspectorate and supported by Labour.

“The Home Secretary must now admit her claim that frontline services would besafe has been proved wrong and out of touch.

“The Gloucestershire Chief Constable has today said the scale of budget cutsmeans his force faces a ‘perfect storm’ with the majority of police stationsalready closed and neighbourhood policing now in jeopardy.

“And new evidence shows that rather than delivering more police on the beat,the scale of cuts is forcing more police officers to work in ‘back and middleoffice’ areas like covering police cells.

“The Prime Minister's decision to cut policing too far and too fast when manycrimes are increasing is putting communities at risk. MPs of all parties shouldvote against the scale of the Government’s cuts to their local police force inParliament on February 8.”

Harriet Harman Speech to Oxford Media Convention

2012-01-25T22:40:00.001Z

I’m pleasedto be here today- meeting up those of you i haven’t met before and with may ofyou who i have known for years – but in my new capacity as Shadow Culture Secretary.

At the age of61 it’s exciting to be part of Ed Miliband new generation. Not so much the facebookgeneration as the face lift generation.

We meet inhistoric times:

Never beforehave the creation industries been so important to help take us through these difficulteconomic times.

And neverbefore has the media been under such scrutiny because of the phone hackingscandal.

And all ofthis against the backdrop of astionship developments in technology.

One of thethings that we are most proud of from our time in government is the support wegave to culture, the creative industries and sport.

From freeentry museums and galleries, to boosting the film industry with tax credits ,to winning the Olympics.

Laboursupported something supported something that is hugely important to people’slives , something we are good at in this country and something that has amassive importance in the future.

If ourpolitics is to reflect the aspirations and concerns of young people , thenculture , media and sport must be at it heart, in my constituency of Camberwelland Peckham as everyone else – it isimpossible to overstate how centralculture , media , sport is in the live of young people. They are all consumers –and great many of them want their future to be working in your industries.

You, in thecreative industries have punched above your weight economically and as well thecentre of our cultural agenda you must be at the heart of our education ;economic and business agenda.

That is whythe DCMS must be never be seen as the ministry of fun. It is fun – but it’sbread as well as roses. DCMS policy must not stand alone but be completely integratedwith Education , Business and the Treasury.

I amdetermined to do that next month , I’ve brought together a summit with ourshadow Chancellor , Ed Balls, our shadow Business Secretary, chuka Umunna , andour Shadow Schools Secretary, Stephen Twigg.

We want towork with you to develop a comprehensive plan for jobs and growth in thecreative industries and knowing Ed Balls it’s bound to end being a 5 pointplan.

We will be lookinga number of areas that many of you have raised including:

Access to finance – making the city realise that creative industries are a good investment.
Making sure that the next generation have the right education have the right education and Skills – to foster the designers, the technicians, and the animator of the future.
Giving proper support for our exports – when the Prime Minister leads a high level business delegation overseas – i want to see the creative industries right in there.
Protection against copyright theft and getting the correct balance for intellectual property rights.

Britaincreates some of the best and most sought after content in the world . We’re theworld leader in exporting television formats, second’s biggest export of musicand games industry is one of the largest in Europe. These industries bringgreat pleasure to million of people here in the UK but they are also an enginefor jobs and growth across the economy. That’s what we were trying to supportwith our Digital Economy Act. It is vital that new business models are allowedto flourish as technology advances but we must also support the creators andowners of copy right to have a right for their work not to be stolen. The ironyis that many of the kids who are down loading free music want to make a livingout of creating too. We need to protect their right to a future in theindustry. It tough for young people entering the industry today. The force ofthe of the internet ripping through age old business models means manyindustries are still searching for new ways to generate revenue.

That’s fourpoints – the fifth one is still up for grabs

What has beenwell reflected throughout today’s debates is that there are huge issues acrossthe landscape from newspapers to broadcasters. And we’ve heard today from BBCChair Patten.

It’simpossible to describe – without sounding gushing- the centrality of the BBC inthe life of this country. We think we bring up our own children- but auntiethere alongside us as we do it. The BBC news is most trusted not just here –but around the world. The Sheer scale of the BBC the world’s biggestbroadcasting organisation means that it is able to be and is a massive centreof gravity of our creative industries. Under it wings there flourish an ecosystem of trainee and independent production companies. The BBC doesn’t belongto the Government of the day, it belongs to the people which is why they trustit more than any Government and why approach as shadow sec of state is to be anardent and outspoken supporter of the BBC.

Many ofusually come to this conference aren’t here today because they’re in the HighCourt at the leveson Enquiry.

The phonehacking scandal went to the heart of the politics, police and the press and onething is clear- things will have to change.

Though therewas nothing new about public figures complaining about the press, what changedthings and where public anger erupted was that it was not just celebrities- therich and powerful who had been targeted – but ordinary people ho had sufferedterrible tragedy.

It wasbecause of the revelations about what had been done to the Dowler family thatEd Miliband spoke out against News international and called for a judge ledinquiry. He was right to do that- it was brave and it led to the Governmentsetting up the Leveson inquiry.

Leveson hasbeen a painful process as everything has been played out in public. However ithas been powerful and cathartic and it should leave no – one in any doubt thatit cannot be business as usual.

There is muchheat and justifiable emotion in he demand for change. Burt there is animportant need too, for response from politicians and the press balanced.

It is aparadox. The public worry that the relationship between the press and politicianshas been far too close. The press worry that politicians will use this scandalto exact revenge on the press and settle old scores for the friction which isinevitable when the press hold government and politicians to accounts.

It’s fair tosay that overt 30 years in parliament. I’ve don’t ever remember being describedas a “darling of the press. Harriet Harerpson – hapless –“she who hates men”and those some of the nicer things that have been said.

And I’ve spentenough time in government recognise that government is dangerous if not held toaccount by the press.

And indeed,at the at of my professional life, i fought the cause of press freedom – atLiberty. And because of my work there holding the government to account- i was persecutedfor contempt by the then Attorney General who launched a prosecution against mein what became the landmark case of Home Office v Harman.

Those who uswho are politicians in a democracy would be the first to understand that polticscannot operate in a democracy with out a free press.

In my newrole as Shadow Culture Secretary, i want to be very clear Labour’s startingpoint will be a commitment to defend the freedom of the press.

Because thepress are now in the dock, it looks like special pleading from a vestedinterest when they make the case for the press freedom.

So that’s whyit all the more important that politicians must insist on the freedom of thepress.

But the pressmust acknowledge outrage that was felt by people around the country . Andeditors must understand that the status quo is not an option. It will just notbe good enough to let the dust settle and go back to business as usual.

There nowneeds to be a thoughtful, clear – eyed sober debate that focuses on shaping thefuture for the British press.

There appearsto be an emerging consensus around some key principles. That a new system must be:

Independent – independent of political interference but also of serving editors. There needs to be advice and expertise- we can’t have people making their own homework.
It must be citizen centric – it must be accessible and straightforward for people. Seeking redress should not work just for the rich and powerful.
It must apply to all newspapers – there can be no opting out.

These are allclearly sensible principles but we need to see how they could be made to work.And the key question is who is in the best position to do that.

Instead ofdoing this the usual way- Government and Opposition each coming up with our ownproposals and then Leveson coming forward with his – I propose somethingdifferent.

I think itwould help Leveson if newspaper editors got together and come forward with asolution and challenge them to do that. We have had a good airing of concernsand scoping of the issues but it is time for editors to lay their cards on thetable and come up with a solution that guarantee these principles. It cannotjust be rhetoric . i would like to see them fame the solution rather than haveone imposed upon them.

And withregards to the Press Complaints Commission. I know there are attempts to reviveit. But I feel strongly that we’ve gone beyond that and it is time for a freshstart.

On the question of media power and cross media ownership, it is important thatwe have plurality in our media because it allows for competition and preventsobstacles to new entrants in the market which is bad for the consumer.

This is whatthe plurality framework is for.

But, by the end of the fiasco around the Murdoch/BSkyB takeover bid, it wasclear to everyone that change is needed:

To make clear that the judgments are made independently and not politically
To make sense of the application of the "fit and proper person" test
To make sure that we look across the media - not just at the newspapers – orany one siloed sector in a converging world - in a vacuum
To make sure that, even without an "event" such as a takeover bid,there is the power to stop a monopoly developing

In the end, our plurality laws were intended to ensure that no one persongained unwelcome control over our media and accumulated too much power in ourpublic affairs. In July, Parliament, at the instigation of a small number ofMPs, and backed by Ed Miliband and others returned to this original intent. Wemust now complete that work and Ofcom and the Culture, Media and Sport selectcommittee will have an important role in leading the debate on this.

Finally, can I turn to the press and the police? The police are prohibited fromtaking money from the press for stories - and the press are not allowed to paythem. But clearly that has been happening and no doubt Leveson will bringforward proposals to address that. We have to be sure that the policeinvestigate without fear or favour.

We, in Labour, embrace the cultural vitality of our media sector. The richnessit provides our nation and the opportunities it offers our people. And itsappeal to modernity.

A vibrant and flourishing creative and cultural life is a symbol a of modern,progressive society. From Harold Wilson’s “white hot heat of the technologicalrevolution” to, dare I say it, Tony Blair’s “Cool Britannia”, we’ve striven tochampion an advanced media sector.

It’s a real privilege to be holding the responsibility of this brief at such animportant moment, and I look forward to working with you.

Government wasted millions on the Work Programme

2012-01-24T22:36:00.000Z

TheConservative led government has squandered millions of pounds on “risky” backto work scheme, a report said today.

The Studyclaims the Work and Pension Secretary Ian Duncan smith over estimated how manypeople will find work through his Work Programme. And it says the Governmenthas spent £63 million on cancelling contracts only to sign the same firms upfor the new scheme.

The £5billion programme was set up last year to help get three million off the dole.But the National AuditOfficesays it will help only 26% of long term jobseekers, not 40% as hoped

TheReport

Labour MP Margaret Hodge, chairman ofthe Public Accounts Committee, said:“This report highlights the risks withthe work programme.

Stephen Timms MP, Labour’s ShadowEmployment Minister said:This is a scathing report. Last week welearnt unemployment hit a 17 year high, and today we learn the National Audit Officehas got serious concerns about the Government’s flagship Work programme.

The Work programme has been so badlyintroduced that it has already wasted £62 million on cancelling past contractand the IT needed to stop fraud isn’t even ready yet. The NAO believes theseflaws may lead to the hardest to help being cast aside and 85 charity providershave already dropped out.

The Government’s welfare to workprogrammes are clearly not doing the job and the welfare bill is going throughthe roof. George Osborne is set to borrow £158 billion more than planned- morethan £ 6,500 for every household in the country. Not borrowing to support theeconomy b difficult times, but a huge new bill for failure.

Ken Livingstone pledges world Class rail service for London

2012-01-23T22:21:00.002Z

Ken Livingstone pledged to improve thecapital’s suburban rail system with more frequent services, safer and morewelcoming stations, and higher standards of service and fares that are consistentwith the tube and London Overground. If elected London Mayor.

He will make the case of government tohandover management and funding of these services to the Mayor , and will the reorganisethe franchises in order to raise standards for the almost half of centralLondon commuters who rely on rail services. Since 2008 taking office BorisJohnson has sat idly by. Ignoring suburban rail services, whilst Londoners railpassengers have experienced declining services and raising fares.

In contrast, Ken Livingstone is pledging aneight point rail action.

1. MORE TRAINS - all stations will receivea frequency of service of at least four trains per hour through the week.

2. CLEANER STATIONS - all stations deepcleaned and meeting a standard of cleanliness that is equivalent to thatcurrently maintained by the Overground.

3. BETTER STAFFING – improving passengersafety by ensuring that stations are staffed at all times that services arerunning and that staff are visible and available to customers, offering themassistance on a proactive basis whenever possible.

4. SAFER STATIONS – all stations will beequipped with help points on every platform to enable customers to requestinformation or assistance if they need it.

5. MORE CUSTOMERINFORMATION –all stations will be equipped with state of the art visual and aural customer informationsystems on platforms and in entrance area/ ticket halls that provide customerswith real time information on the train services provided.

6. IMPOVED CYCLE PARKING– all stations will have cycle parking facilitiesthat match TFL quantitative and quantitative standard in this area , so that itis easier for commuters to travel the last mile home by bike.

7. GREATER ACCESSIBLITY – Making it easier forpassengers with mobility problems to use the train with more step – free accessat stations.

8. RAIL FARES CUT – fares that areconsistent with Tube fares, ensuring that no suburban rail passengers are worseoff and many benefit from Ken Fares Deal policy of a 7 % fares cut, saving the averageLondoner £1000 over the next four years.

Ken LivingstoneLabour Mayoral Candidate said: “Under the Tory mayor,London’s long – suffering rail passengers have been ignored as fares have risenand services have declined. ‘Enoughis enough. Using the precedent I set in 2007 with the London Overground service,I’ll make the case for London government to run London rail services. Thiswould see TFL take over management of suburban rail services and ensure thatthe capital has a rail system which puts ordinary Londoners first, rather thanthe profits of rail companies.

‘Under the plans that I’m setting out London’scommuters can expect a more frequent and reliable service, safer, cleaner, moreaccessible stations and increased information available. ‘There will beconsiderable savings from the change in contracts. As a result, we can ensurethat all necessary improvements can be made without additional cost topassengers. Indeed not only can I guarantee that not a single fare will rise asa result of the merger, but many passengers will be better when rail fares arebrought into line with my lower fares policy for the Tube".

Boris Johnson is out of touch calling Londoners workshy and lazy

2012-01-23T16:33:00.003Z

BorisJohnson’s attack on Londoners in the Sun on Fridaymorning, Ken Livingstone the Labour Candidate said “Tory Boris Johnson is calling Londoners workshy and Lazy when in factthey’re the hardest working people in the world. He’s completely out of touchwith reality.

“Boris Johnson has twojobs, earning him £400.000 a year combined, so it is little wonder is out oftouch about how hard it is for many to find work in a city with some of thehighest unemployment in Britain.

“The Tory mayor seems oblivious to the realproblems young Londoners face. He should be working around the clock to createnew jobs for young Londoners, but instead he has been silent as hisconservative government has cut EMA and raised tuition fees, scrapping Futurejob fund that was helping the workshy back into work.”

Government rejects metals theft Private Bill

2012-01-22T21:46:00.003Z

The government rejectedproposed legislation last Friday aimed at combating metal theft, which coststhe UK economy upwards of 770 millions pounds a year, but said saw the need forlegal Changes to combat the crime.

GrahamJones, an opposition member of parliament , had drafted legislation banningscrap yards from making cosh payment for metal and required them to take proofof identification and an address from any potential sellers.

Withoutgovernment support, however, Jone’s proposals stood little chance of becominglaw and last Friday were rejected in parliament after ministers declared their objectionat a second reading.

“we have a spilt in the government betweenHome Office Ministers who want action and ideologues in BIS ( Department forBusiness , innovation and skills ) who think that stopping the thefts of warmemorials is show ‘damaging red tape’ Said Jones.

“We will now not likely see legislationbefore the oylimpics, possibly not until 2013.”

Metalstheft in the UK doubled last year as thieves took advantage of high metalsprices, according to Energy Networks Association (ENA), which presents telecomsprovider BT and Network Rail and was in support of the bill.

David Hanson Labour’s Shadow, Labour’s Shadow Office Home Minister Said : At a time when metal theft shows signsof getting out of control – this government refuses to act and has opposedlegislation to tackle this dangerous crime.”

The decision to block LabourMP Graham ‘important Bill proves that the Government is unwilling to take theurgent action required to deal with metal theft.

We have called on theGovernment to change the law to tackle metal theft at a time when we are seeingdesecration of war memorials, when households face repeated power cuts ,commuters face increasing delays and churches and public buildings are beingdamaged. The theft of electric wires is even putting lives at risk.

Faced with crime on thisscale , the government is being far too slow to act. The decision to opposethis bill proves that the Home Office is all too happy to turn a blind eye tothis creasingly serious crime.”

Ed Miliband Speech on responsible capitalism at Which

2012-01-20T02:20:00.000Z

Ed Miliband,Leader of the opposition and Leader of the Labour Party, said at a visit toWhich:

“From bankscharges to train costs, from energy companies to low cost airlines andpensions, The Government can act.

You’ll havenoticed that it not just me talking about irresponsible capitalism.

“We had aspeech earlier this week from the Deputy Prime Minister and today we have a speechfrom the Prime Minister.

I welcome thefact that other leaders are coming onto the ground that i set out in my Labour Conferencespeech about the need to tackle predatory capitalism.

But what isay to David Cameron is :

Let’s judgeyou on your deeds and not your words.

If he isserious about tackling irresponsible capitalism he needs to clamp down on thefact that train companies are ripping people off.

If he isserious about irresponsible capitalism he needs to take action to break up therigging energy market.

If he isserious about tackling irresponsible capitalism he needs to take action to stopthose exorbitant bank charges.

That’s theproof that he is really serious about this agenda.

And if hetake action, we’ll support him.

But if hedoesn’t take action, we’ll call him on it.

Because ifrankly don’t believe that this Prime Minister is serious about this agenda.

Why? heattacked me last year when i talked about irresponsible capitalism and I’mafraid it never going to work if your basic view is that government should justget out of the way.

What you needis a government willing to take action – willing to stand up to the vestedinterests.

I stronglybelieve that this agenda is incredibly important to people at this time whenpeople are hard pressed. We are determined as a party to show that we willstand up for the squeezed middle.

We as aLabour Party are determined to be champions of the consumer.

We aredetermined to stand-up against the vested interests that are imposing asurcharge culture on people.

Ed Milibandalso highlighted the Government’s lack of action on executive pay and bankbonuses. He said:

"I think that you’ve got to judge politicians on their deeds, not theirwords, on this issue.

"Look at everything that the government have done so far: not making iteasier for train companies to overcharge customers, not acting on the energymarket, and not acting on the bonus culture in our banks. We’ve got anotherexample of that today with Stephen Hester’s potential bonus from the Royal Bankof Scotland.

"All those things suggest that this is a government not acting in a wayits rhetoric would suggest.

"I’m up for any politician talking about these issues. But let’s judgeeveryone on their action, not on their rhetoric.

"That is the test for David Cameron today. Not whether he can talk thetalk on responsible capitalism, but if he walks the walk.

"What action is he going to take on behalf of hard pressed consumers, onbehalf of the squeezed middle who want action from him, not words.

Home Secretary Theresa May’s “failure” to get a grip of the UK Border Agency

2012-01-19T21:27:00.000Z

HomeSecretary Theresa May’s “failure” to get a grip of the UK Border Agency hasbeen slammed by MPs Following last year’s immigration scandal.

TheCommon Home Affairs select committee found a “ shocking “ lack of supervisionled to controls being relaxed too frequently , letting in thousands ofimmigrants unchecked.

Aroot and branch reform of the way in which the Home Office and the UK BorderAgency work is needed to make the agency fit for purpose, the Commons HomeAffairs select Committee said.

Itlaunched its investigation after the head of the UK border force brodie Clarkhis 40 year career in the Home Office last year amid the row over lax bordersecurity. He admitted using guidance designed for health and safety emergenciesto suspend fingerprinting checks at the UK ports with out any ministerialauthorisation. But he insisted he was “no rogue officer” and launchedconstructive dismissal case in which he could net £135,000.

Thecommittee said it was “very concerned “about the overuse of guidance issuedfive years ago relating to the Home Office Warnings index, a watch list ofsuspected terrorists.

MPssaid they were “ shocked “ that the guidance had been invoked at least 50 timesbetween May and July 2011,a further seven times between August and October 2011and almost 100 times at Calais alone.

Keith Vaz thecommittee’s chairman, added: “Border checks carried out at airportsand ports in the UK are the final line of defence against those who should beprevented entry.

Theapparent low levels of supervision at the UK border Agency are highlytroubling.

“Theoveruse of the Howi guidelines and the fact that no one appears to have beenaware of what was happening demonstrates a lack of oversight and a failure ofcommunication.”

Chris Bryant, Labour’sShadow immigration Minister said: “This report is daming. Ministersfailed to over see their own pilot of reduced border checks resulting in asignificant fall in those stopped and returned, then kept all official papersfrom Parliament to make it impossible for the communities to get to the truth.

“it reveals that seniorofficials were aware for sometimes of the suspension of border checks , yet the so called pilotwas left to carry on with no oversight from the immigration Minister or theHome Secretary.

“it shows that the HomeSecretary has refused to provide vital official paper to the Select Committee,without which it is a difficult for anyone to know the full truth. If TheresaMay has nothing to hide, why is she hiding documents?

It also shows that therewas a complete Break down of proper communication between Ministers, the HomeOffice and the UKA.

Cameron U turn on Air Aviation

2012-01-18T22:27:00.000Z

The government is to hold a formalconsultation on UK aviation – including controversial plans for a new airportin the Thames Estuary.

The study, tobe carried out in March, will look at options for maintaining the UK’S aviationhub status”. Downing Street Said no decisions had been made – London MayorBoris Johnson backs the Thames airport idea.

David Cameronhas ruled out expanding Heathrow but his deputy Nick Clegg is said to beopposed to the estuary idea.

Campaigners say the site, which is renownedfor its populations of wintering birds and is an important breeding ground foravocets and marsh harriers in summer, must be protected.

Inhis Autumn Statement, Chancellor George Osborne did not rule out a new hub andthis was seen by many as a sign that the government was warming to the scheme.

DavidCameron is said to be supportive of Mr Johnson's alternative to expandingHeathrow in west London but will await the outcome of the consultation. The LibDems oppose airport expansion in the South East.

Labour Shadow TransportSecretary Maria Eagle said:”TheGovernment is in a complete mess on aviation, Having ruled out a third runwayat Heathrow before the election, the Prime Minister has until now refused toeven consider alternative options that would address the capacity issues facingthe industry particularly in the South East . if it is true David Cameron isnow willing to consider a new London airport then it would be an incredible u-turn from his pre election position.

“Instead of making uptheir aviation policy as they go along through briefings to the press,ministers should finally accept Labour’s offer of cross – party talks to set along term strategy for the industry. All possible options to address futureaviation capacity should be considered , not just the possibility of a newairport. Tough new targets on reducing emissions from aviation and the impacton the local environment must be central to any outcome.”

Mary Creagh Labour’sShadow Environment Secretary: “ if reports prove that the Governmentseriously at the possibility of building a major new Thames Estuary airportthen it raises real questions about the motivation behind George Osborne’sannouncement of the impact of the Habitat Regulations.

“ as Maria Eagle has made it clear ,any decision on new airport capacity must follow the fullest possibleassessment of the impact on the local environment.

Ken LivingstoneLabour’s Mayoral Candidate said: "Londoners wishBoris Johnson's was as obsessed with making the Tube run on time and keepingfares low as he is with building a Thames estuary airport.

Ed Balls 2012 Fabian Society Annual Conference Speech

2012-01-17T22:35:00.001Z

EdBalls 2012 Fabian Society Annual Conference Speech

Thankyou for suresh and Andrew and to all of you for coming along today and givingup your Saturday.

Andlet me start by – after over 20 years of attending the Fabian annual Januaryconference – what a great honour it is to be invited to give the openingspeech.

Ifirst spoke at this conference in January 1993 – when i was a junior leaderwriter at the Financial Times.

Itwas a different conference then- not the huge it has become – with perhaps 100or so people gathered at Ruskin College, Oxford, including among them theleader of the Labour party, John Smith.

Thatconference was held the January after election defeat in 1992- an electionwhich the labour opposition had failed to pass either of the two necessarypolitical economy test for electoral success:

- Neither having a real alternative tothe straitjacket of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Which could meet theaspirations of anxious voters on growth and jobs;

- Nor a credible approach to tax and spendingwhich could win public trust.

Tenmonths on from that defeat, as we met in Oxford , sterling had recently crashedout of a troubled ERM , the idea of the single currency as the solution for theEurope was gaining momentum in Brussels , and here in Britain Labour’smodernisers’ were trying to persuade John Smith ‘ safety first; would not beenough.

Andmy contribution at that Conference?

Tospeak about my Fabian pamphlet, published a week or so before , which argued:

- That Labour could only win theargument for a radical alternative on growth and jobs if we had economic credibility,

- That neither ERM nor the singlecurrency could provide that credibility;

- And that the right approach for Labourand Britain was to make the Bank of England independent – a prettycontroversial idea at the time.

Iremember showing the pamphlet draft to my FT colleagues Martin Wolf and JohnPlender, who both said: right approach, very brave- but the Labour Party willnever forgive you.

THE GLOBLE ECONOMICSHADOW.

That1993 Faban Conference was held in the shadow of seminal events:

- German unification in Europe

- Black Wednesday in Britain

- a fourth election defeat.

Andtoday conference- again to debate The Economic Alternative- is , without doubt, being held in the shadow of much greater and more defining events:

- polical deadlock and an abject failureof economic leadership in the Euro zone area, Britain and US Congress;

- Following on from the biggest globalfinancial crisis of the last century.

Atoxic combination of grossly irresponsible bank lending, poor governance and aweak regulation round the world which in its aftermath pose – as i have arguedconsistently over the last eighteen months – a threat to the world economy asgrave as the which we faced in the depression of the 1930s.

Sothis is my start point today’s Conference.

IfBritain and the world avoid the mistakes of that 1930s lost decade and the 2008global crisis , then we badly needs political leadership in Britain , Europeand the world to meet two great challenges:

TheGrowth Challenge – to stop aftermath of the financial crisis turning into yearsof slow growth, high unemployment and rising debts- leaving a permanent dent inour prosperity;

and

TheReform Challenge- long term reform to make sure such a financial crisis on thisscale can never happen again and to build a stronger and fairer economic modelfor the future- what Ed Miliband has called a more responsible capitalism –which can, even in tougher time, meet our aspiration for social justice andstrong public services.

LABOUR’S POLITICALSHADOW

Butof course, there is another shadow which cast it self across this Conferencetoday- a political shadow which presents a particular challenge to Labour.

Ibelieve we are right to resist the ideological and a historical Tory analysiswhich tries to pin the blame for s global crisis on Labour’s approach to publicspending- when it is clear that the global financial crisis bankrupted banksand publish up deficits in high spending and low spending counties alike.

Butit is a fact that this financial crisis did happen on Labour’s watch- and thatLabour lost the subsequent General Election.

Wehave never denied that a plan is need to get the deficit down, and that itwould mean tough decisions on tax and public spending. Before the election, iset a £ 1 billion of cuts to education.

But as aparty and a leadership, i said the i will believe now that Labour should havebeen clearer before the election that if we had been re- elected there wouldhave been spending cuts as well as tax rises.

And i haveno illusions that there is a big task to turn round Labour’s economiccredibility and show – even as George Osborne’s plans deliver unemploymentrising, growth stagnating and longer reform stalling- that Labour can betrusted again.

It is notenough simply to be right in our diagnosis of the Coalition’s failures andunfairness.

And it isnot clear enough to set out a clear alternative – on growth. As we have withour five point plan for jobs; or on long term reform for our economy , as EdMiliband did this week and Chuka , Rachel and John Denham have too.

Thechallenges we face is both to set out a radical and credible alternative ; towin public trust for that alternative vision.

KEYNESIAN OTHODOXY

Ireferred to that January 1993 Fabian Conference.

Eighteenmonths later, in September 1994, just a few weeks after Tony Blair was electedLabour leader, and against the backdrop of stubbornly high youth unemployment,rising inflation and squeezed living standards, the Labour Party held aconference at the National Film theatre on the economy and Labour alternative.

Asit happens , that conference was the occasion of the infamous ‘ post neoclassical endogenous growth theory ‘moments- which for those you don know whatit means, says that the rules of the game that the government based on the pastwhen today we face such different economic and political challenges.

Butthe unspoken purpose of that 1994 conference – and it emphasis on Bank ofEngland reform and fiscal discipline- was to address Labour’s economiccredibility deficit , and dispel the ideal that the party was addicted to theshort term, quick fix, vested interest- appeasing solution to every problem.

Iwent back to this week to look at the reporting of that conference- and inparticular a preview piece in the independent on Sunday with an anonymousbriefing from a ‘senior party insider’.

Thearticle started by saying Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will “ceremoniously ditchLabour traditional tax, spending and borrow image this week, in a fundamentalre- positioning his party’s economic Strategy.

Allunder the headline.. Labour Ditches Keynes.

Assomeone who only recently studied ‘New Keynesian’ economic at Harvard , with DemocratKeynesians like Larry Summers and Republican Keynesians like Greg Mankiw, imust admit i was pretty appalled to see the greatest economist of the centurytraduced like that.

Butthe fact was that in the monetarists versus Keynesian economic debates of the1970s and 80s, the label Keynesian’ had become – certainly in Conservativecircles- a dirty word: profligate , irresponsible , statist, inflation –loving, not to be trusted.

Acaricature that clearly could not be allowed to be a Labour caricature if wewere to go on and win the 1997 election.

Andwhat has been so striking to me over the past year listening to right of centrepoliticians and commentators – in Britain, America and Europe too- is how muchausterity debate has been used to try reprise those old ideological divides.

Warnabout the risks of deflationary fiscal policy- and that makes you a ‘deficitdenier’.

Keyneshimself must be turning in his gave.

For,as he had been fully documented in Lord skidelsky’s biography, the real Keynes wasno profligate tax – and – spender. He would have had no time for some of hisdisciples.

Hisattitude to irresponsible wage barging in the 1920s was a unforgiving asMargaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

Centralbank independence? I think Keynes would have backed it – though not if hiscontemporary Montagu Norman was the Governor.

Andas for the irresponsible and inflationary profligacy of the 1970s Tony Barberboom? He would have abhorred it.

KEYNES AND THE GROWTHCHALLENGE.

But– and this was his great insight – Keynes also knew that economies couldoccasionally get struck in a deflationary rut.

Althoughhe called his famous book in 1936 the General Theory’, it actually was not ageneral theory at all.

Itwas a description of what can happen in the unusual and special circumstancesafter a big financial crash – for him in 1929, for us 2008 –when the ‘ animalspirits ‘ of companies and consumers are so depressed that private spendingstagnates.

Wheninterest rates are so low that they can’t cut any further.

Whengovernments crudely cutting spending risks making deficits worse.

Ofcourse , there will be naive ‘Keynesians who will be think it is always aspecial case- time to let rip and just tax, spend and borrow’ in hope that willdeliver full employment – people who think we always in 1930s style depressionand more borrowing is always the solution to unemployment.

Andthat is what gave Keynesianism a bad name in the 1930s.

Itis why Labour leader Jim Callaghan was right to tell the Labour PartyConference in 1976 that you cant just spend your way to full employment.

But,as i argued well over a year ago in my Bloomberg speech , the reason why thereal Keynes is so relevant today is that the global economy has been slidinginto the rare and dangerous’speical case ‘ that Keynes identified in the 1930sand Japan suffered in the 1990s.

Youeither learn the lessions of history or repeat the mistake of history.

Withgrowth stagnating around the world, every country pressing ahead with deep cutsrisks being a catastrophic mistake.

Whichis why Ed Miliband and i have argued for a global plan for growth, with clearmedium- terms plans to get deficits down, but stimulus to avoid slump too.

Letus be honest: the Eurozone crisis is a catastrophe building week by week. Andthe pre Christmas summit was a disaster for Europe and the Euro and for Britaintoo.

Europe’sleader failed to back decisive action by the European Central Bank; they didnot address thee issue of the current fiscal straitjacket; and they still haveno plan for jobs and growth- hence the downgrades of the past 24 hours.

Anddid our Prime Minister bang the table and demand action?

No,he just walked out and undermined our national interests as he did so.

Giventhe huge risks that the Eurozone crisis poses for Britain, we desperately needa Prime Minister and Chancellor who can lead in Europe.

Butthey can’t – and not just because their party won’t let them.

Becauseto do so means also admitting that they have got things wrong here in Britaintoo.

GeorgeOsborne and David Cameron took it as read that deep and immediate spending cutsand tax rises would least serve the goal of deficit reduction- no matter howmuch Labour warned that going too far , too fast would be bad for borrowing aswell as well as for jobs and growth.

TheChancellor claimed that public trenchment would boost private sectorconfidence, investment and jobs creation. He called it ‘expansionary fiscalcontraction’.

Butthis has turned out to be false prospectus – a repeat of the discreditedTreasury View of the 1920s fragile consumer and business confidence has beencrushed by the inflationary hike in VAT, the threatened withdrawal of publicsectors demand , the reality of failing income and the fear of unemployment..

Andnow the Government claim growth is stagnating because of the chilling effect ofthe government Eurozone crisis. - When our exports have actually been overperforming compared with expectations, and it is weak domestic demand that hasdriven growth in the UK down, borrowing up and depressed long term interestrates on government bonds.

Conservativeministers scoff at our five point plan for jobs and growth, saying Labourproposal is to borrow even more. Bu it is Chancellor George Osborne is being forced to borrow billion more - £156billion more than he planned.

Notborrowing to support the economy through difficult times and help get peopleback in to work, but wasteful extra borrowing to pay for failure – price ofslow growth , rising unemployment and a bigger benefits bill.

Becauseevery time George Osborne revises down his growth forecast , he has to rvisedown tax revenues and increase benefit bills too.

Eventhe IMF has said that if our economy undershoots expectations and risks aperied of stagnation, then the UK should slow down the pace of spending cutsand tax rises to get the economy growing again.

Justthink : last autumn , many 16 year olds who would otherwise have stayed on atschool have lost their education Maintenance Allowances, and – following theabandonment of the Future Job Fund- many have gone straight back onto the dole,adding to the more than 1million young people now unemployed in our country.

Onthe surface of thing, cutting EMA s and the Future Jobs Fund saved money andreduced borrowing.

Butat what cost? How much more will it cost our society and our economy to leavethose young people long term unemployed and unproductive; they and theirchildren receiving benefits rather than paying taxes and contributing to the nationalwealth?

Ifwe do not invest in jobs now and growth, if we let a year of economic flatlining become a decade of stagnation, what price will our country pay in thelong term?

Thatis why to meet the Growth Challenge and get the deficit down we are right, aswe have set out in a five point plan for jobs, to call for temporary tax cutsand investment in jobs and growth – to stop a decade of slow growth and higherdebts becoming a self fulfilling prophecy.

Actionnow for growth jobs and reform which does not conflict with the need for acredible medium term plan on the deficit, but which reinforces it.

KEYNES AND THE REFORMCHALLENGE

Butchanging times also demand new and long- term reforms to re-shape our economyfor the future.

AsEd Miliband argued earlier this week, we will need long term reforms for oureconomy to boost growth and deliver social justice in straitened times.

Andhere again, the worlds of Keynes writing in the General Theory in 1936 areinstructive: “speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream ofenterprise “he wrote.

“Butthe position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirl – pool ofspeculation. When the capital development of a country become a by – product ofthe activities of a casino, the jobs is likely to be ill- done.

Keyneswas right then and now- we cannot simply let markets , in which speculatorsspend their time chasing one another’s tails, dictate important investmentdecisions and set the benchmark for what is fair and unfair.

Unregulatedcapitalism is not only unstable; it is inherently short – termist too.

Sojust as the current coalition are wrong to reject the insight of Keynes basedon his experience of the 1930s, we must , as Ed Miliband said , learn thelessons of the past three decades and meet the reforms challenges;

- Tougher financial regulation and newcapital standards with financial stability at the heart of economicpolicymaking and banking reform to make sure that the needs of small businessare addressed, including examining the case of a National Investment Bank.

- Stronger corporate governance to makesure decisions are taken in the long term interests of wealth creation andjobs, not the short – term interests of traders, speculators and their chums;

- Government action to back business andensure markets work for the long term , including tough completion rules, taxincentives for long term investment , research and development and skills;

- And a youth jobs guarantee with toughrights and responsibilities – and an expection that every young person wouldtake up work or training.

GROWTH, REFORM ANDDEDICIT REDUCTION

Thisis the Economic Alternative:

- to meet the Growth Challenge: shortterm action now to support jobs, growth and get deficits down;

- to meet Reform Challenge: long termreform to tackle short termism and instability and support long terminvestment, growth and fairness.

Butto make that alternative work and be credible, it must be underpinned by aclear commitment to balance but tough spending and budget discipline now andinto the medium – term.

Thequestion for Labour has never been about ‘whether’ to get the deficit down but‘how’ and ‘when’, who carries the greatest burden, and what kind of country weleave behind for our children.

Andwhile we would not have started from here – a fairer and more balanced approachto deficit reduction would not have choked off recovery and thrown borrowingplans off track – we are where we are.

As EdMiliband and I have said for months this government’s failure means the nextLabour government will inherit a substantial deficit that we will have to dealwith.

Afterjust 18 months, the government’s autumn statement admitted that it will notbalance the books by 2015 – the promise that was the cornerst one of the coalition.

AndGeorge Osborne has had to admit that he will now have to borrow more than theplan Alistair Darling set out before the election – because of the slow growthand higher unemployment his reckless plan has delivered.

Thisrepresents a big challenge for Labour, as Ed Miliband made clear earlier thisweek. As I said at Labour’s annual conference, we will set out before the nextelection tough fiscal rules that the next Labour government will have to stickto – to get our country’s current budget back to balance and national debt on adownward path.

In ourmanifesto we will commit to do the responsible thing and use any windfall gainfrom the sale of the government’s stakes in RBS and Lloyds to repay thenational debt – not for a giveaway.

And,however difficult this is for me, for some of my colleagues and for our widersupporters, we cannot make any commitments now that the next Labour governmentwill reverse tax r ises or spending cuts. And we will not.

Becausewe don’t know how bad things will be on jobs, growth and the deficit. But we doknow that the next Labour government will have to sort out the deficit wherethis government failed and deliver social justice in tougher times.

And aswe make the argument that cutting spending and raising taxes too far and toofast risks making the economy and the deficit worse not better, it is rightthat we set out where we do support cuts and where we would be making the toughbut necessary decisions.

Ineducation, as I have said, £1 billion of cuts – but not the biggest cuts toschools since the 1950s. In policing, 12 per cent cuts to budgets – but not 20per cent cuts which will hit the frontline hard and see 16,000 officers lost.In defence, £5 billion of cuts – but not a strategic defence review that raisesmore questions than answers.

Andbecause as progressives we believe in the role of the state and public servicesto do good, it is vital that we are even tougher on waste than our politicalopponents – whether that is the £2 billion being wasted on a recklessreorganisation of the NHS, billions being lost in tax avoidance or the waste ofmass unemployment.

Timeswill be tough – we will have no choice but to make difficult choices.

Let megive you one example.

Payrestraint in the public sector in this parliament would have been necessarywhoever was in government.

ButGeorge Osborne’s economic mistakes mean more difficult decisions on tax,spending and pay. It is now inevitable that public sector pay restraint willhave to continue for longer in this parliament.

Labourcannot duck that reality. And we won’t. Jobs must be our priority before higherpay.

Thatsaid, there are important issues on incomes, pay and pensions that GeorgeOsborne must get right.

We willcontinue to press for fair pay and fair p ensions reform while defending thevital role the national pay review bodies play in delivering discipline, reformand fairness.

Webelieve the 3p in the pound rise in pension contributions should never havebeen imposed without negotiation.

And itis wrong and unfair to penalize those on low and middle incomes by cutting taxcredits, hitting women harder than men and families with children hardest ofall.

But paydiscipline in the public and private sector needs to be accompanied byfairness.

That iswhy the government should also ask the pay review bodies to deliver the 1 percent average settlement cap in a fair way – being tougher to those at the topin order to offer more protection to those at the bottom.

Payalso needs to be fair in the private sector, where there have also been toughdecisions – with real pay in the private sector falling around 3 % in the lastyear. But for those at the top boardroom salaries in FTSE 100 com panies haveincreased by 50% in the past 12 months.

That iswhy Ed Miliband has rightly called for reforms to ensure that rewards at thetop better reflect the success people achieve and the contribution they havemake to our economy. David Cameron has now started to talk the talk on thisissue, but he now needs to take the action we have been calling for.

THEPOLITICAL CHALLENGEFOR LABOUR

Let me finish by returning to the politics.

Becauseit would be naïve for anybody to think that the government’s deepening economicfailure will automatically translate over the coming months into success forLabour.

And thequestion the public will of course ask is: who can we trust?

Credibilityis based on trust and trust is based on honesty.

Andlet’s be clear: the Tories won’t own up either to the scale of the challenge orthe failure of their plans.

Theyclaim Britain is a safe haven… when our low long-term interest rates are not asign of enhanced credibility but a reflection of stagnant growth in oureconomy, as it was in Japan in the 1990s.

Andthey claim we’re all in it together… when middle and lower income families,women and young people are hardest hit, and the pain is only now beginning.

So withdetermination and vigour – loud and direct – we must expose day by day the hugegulf between what Coalition ministers say and the truth.

But wemust be honest with the British people that under Labour there will have to becuts, and that – on spending, pay and pensions – there will be disappointmentsand difficult decisions from which we will not flinch.

Buthonesty does not mean going along with a failed Conservative plan because it iseasier in the short-term. We tried that when Labour supported the disastrousdecision to join the ERM and stuck with a failing policy right up untilSeptember 1992.

I haveheard much advice over the past y ear from people who admit that combiningstimulus now to get the economy moving with a tough but balanced medium-termdeficit plan may be good economics – but who argue that it is bad politicsbecause it is ‘out of tune’ with the public mood.

Butthat is not honest politics either.

Now isnot the time to stand aside, bite our collective lip while this government andEuro area governments make historic and terrible mistakes.

I dobelieve that we have both a duty to make the right argument on growth and jobs– even if this has put us outside the consensus for a time.

And Ido believe this is an argument we can win.

Now isthe time to hold our nerve.

To makethe case for The Economic Alternative.

Tospeak up for the people we seek to represent and the values that we stand for.

And todo so in a typically Fabian way – steady, step by step, determined, credibleand radical in our vision for a better and fairer future for Britain.

Thankyou.

Chuka Umunna speech to the High Pay Commission and Institute for Public Policy Research

2012-01-17T22:33:00.001Z

Chuka Umunna MP, Labour’sShadow Business Secretary, in a speech to the HighPay Commission and Institute for Public Policy Research, said:

Thank you for that introduction Michael and to the ICAEW for hosting thisevent.

And thank you too to the High Pay Commission and the Institute of Public PolicyResearch for inviting me to speak.

All three organisations have made major contributions to informing andstimulating the national debate on this issue which has dominated the newsagenda since the year started, the High Pay Commission in particular.

The headlines and clipped news reports do not do justice to this issue so todaymy aim is:

- to explain why excessive pay and rewards for failure matter from the point ofview of our businesses, those who own them and society at large; and,
- to get to the heart of the problem and outline the solutions as we see themin Her Majesty’s Opposition.

The economy is the issue of this parliament not simply because of the lack ofgrowth and the highest rate of unemployment for 17 years which people areexperiencing in the here and now. But also because of the long term structuraltrends in an economy which has failed to deliver incomes to keep pace withrising living costs, a pattern repeated in other developed economies.

What do I mean by this? Not enough of the reward from rising productivity hasfound its way into the wage packets of average earners with the result thatmiddle income earners have actually seen their wages stagnate from 2003, whilsthigh earners have seen their wages soar. Consequently many people have come tofeel that, in the good times the economy did not really work for them, while inthe bad times they were being made to carry much of the risk.

So it is time for some hard reflection on the nature and direction of oureconomy and the changes we need to make:

- changes to get growth going again in the short term, which is why we have putforward an immediate stimulus package in the form of our 5point plan for growth and jobs;
- changes to ensure that future prosperity benefits everyone;
- changes to ensure we can pay our way in the world and take full advantage ofthe new opportunities that new markets bring – which is why we need to build aNew Economy based on a reformed capitalism.

The FT have just started a series of articles under the title Capitalism inCrisis. I wouldn’t go as far as those dangerous lefties. Capitalism has beenand remains a powerful engine of human progress. But in recent speeches and,again, over the weekend I argued that what we need is a New Economy based on abetter, more responsible and more productive capitalism than our currentnational variety.

That New Economy must be built on a partnership between productive business andactive government: the entrepreneurial impulse in us all encouraged andsupported; closed circles broken up and opened to everyone. And, as Ed Milibandsaid in his speech on Tuesday, we must think how we build a New Economy that deliversfairness for Britain at a time when there is less money to spend.

In many ways, the issues around executive pay are a good place to start.Excessive pay and rewards for failure are symptomatic of what is wrong with theway our economy has been operating over the last 30 years – of how wealth iscreated, how opportunities are shared, how success is rewarded, and how poweris exercised in our companies. It is something Ed Miliband has been talkingabout for many, many months now.

There are some who say it is no business of government - no business ofpoliticians - to be commenting on these matters. We have no right to interferein the affairs of privately owned companies is their refrain. I could notdisagree more strongly with that statement.

At the heart of my politics is the belief that we are all mutually dependent.This notion is deeply embedded in the values of the Labour Party. Bettertogether. Stronger together.

So to argue that politicians and society at large, should not take an interestin these matters, is to feed the idea that society is here and business is overin the corner there which is dangerous.

Why? Because business and society are not separate islands - they are mutuallydependent. Business needs a strong society, providing it with human resource,talent and custom. A strong society needs everything that productive businesscan offer: the jobs, the growth, the innovation, the opportunities, the wealthcreating potential. That is why we should take an interest in the pay issue.

And while it is right that those who work hard, generate wealth and create jobsfor our country are rewarded, where failure is rewarded or people awardthemselves huge pay rises that bear no relation to performance or what theircompanies can bear, trust is severely undermined. As Ken Costa, the formerChair of Lazard International said last October:

“Put bluntly, ultimately businesses cannot work, banks cannot lend, economiescannot function and societies cannot flourish without mutual trust and respect,or without fundamental honesty and integrity.”

That is why the contributions that the ICEAW have made are so welcome - you arethe important keepers of the accountancy flame, your mission to ensure that“people can do business with confidence”. And here you are helping to ensurethat people can have confidence in business. That has to be right.

As Sir Roger Carr, the current Chair of the CBI, said on taking up his postlast year, business needs to show that it is “a force for good.” This is why itwas so ridiculous for the Prime Minister and others to infer or suggest that EdMiliband was being anti-business for raising these issues in his Labour Partyconference speech last year – it is very much in the interests of business toresolve these problems and it is rather ironic that the PM is now talking aboutthe need for reform in much the same terms as Ed.

The discussion should start by asking what we pay people for? We pay people todo a job and, where they do so successfully, people do not object to them enjoyingthe fruits of their success. As for bonuses – my colleague the formerChancellor Alistair Darling put it well last Sunday when he said a bonus issurely “something special, something unusual, something that you give for thatlittle bit extra, not a matter of routine and entitlement.”

Having a skill that is in short supply but high demand is likely to be wellrewarded in the marketplace. And as the size of some markets has increased – tobecome continental and in some cases genuinely global – so have rewards tothose at the top have risen.

Of course it is not easy to chart a successful course for a major corporation,where the contours of the market place can change rapidly, where newcompetitors are around every corner, and where new technologies can make anentire business model obsolete overnight. It takes special skill andextraordinary commitment. So no one is against success that rewards this meritand application. Success should be rewarded.

But increasingly, what we have seen is something else. Reward that is notlinked to success or performance: a self-perpetuating spiral of remunerationfor those in the golden circle. Handsome rewards for failure. Rewards that seemquite unbelievable to the vast majority of people in this country; rewards fromanother planet.

And while there are more egregious examples that have gained notoriety, this isnot about individuals. The growing gap between increases in pay and increasesin company performance is systemic. In the last decade the value of FTSE 350companies increased by eight per cent, while the average total earning ofexecutives in those companies increased by one hundred and eight per cent.

As rewards at the top have become disproportionate to company performance, sorewards for executives have become disconnected from the rest of the workforce.They are no longer just the best paid employees. Increasingly, they arebecoming a class apart.

And let us be absolutely clear who we are talking about – we are not talkingabout the budding entrepreneur, the small business owner struggling in toughtimes; this does not apply across all business. We are talking about therelatively small number of people running our largest businesses and working inour more prominent financial institutions. We are talking about FTSE 100 bosseswho were paid 14 times the median pay of a worker in 1980, and who are now paid75 times the median pay of a worker.

I should also point out that this is not a recent phenomenon, but a trend overthe last three decades. In the three decades to 1979, executive pay grew 0.8%on average. In the last ten years, growth in the pay of FTSE 100 executives hasbeen closer to 20% a year. It has now reached a point where, as RichardLambert, former Director General of the CBI said last November, it is “damagingthe interests of British business in political, economic and reputationalterms”.

Why is this ballooning pay such a problem? For three reasons: it is a bad forthe companies themselves; it is bad for our economy overall; and, yes, it isbad for our society.

For the companies themselves, the issue is a classic problem of agency.
Since the 1980s there was a move to create an entrepreneurial culture amongstexecutives at the top of our large corporations but it didn’t quite work. I’llexplain why.

The owners of the company – the shareholders – entrust executives withsubstantial powers to make far reaching decisions about the running of thecompany. Oversight is difficult, because those involved in the day to daymanagement have plenty of discretion and a large information advantage. How canshareholders ensure their agents, the directors – the executive directors inparticular - act consistently in those shareholders best interests? Thesolution was to try to align the incentives – through bonuses, shares, shareoptions, incentive plans and the like, using different mechanisms and overdifferent time frames.

But the fact is that it is hard to create a true entrepreneurial culture amongexecutives at the top of a large corporation. Upside incentives can be madesimilar, but the structure of downside risk is completely different for anentrepreneur who has everything on the line. Entrepreneurs have most of theirown money on the line when they make decisions; executive directors of large companiesdo not.

The result has been that the value of incentive packages for executives hasrisen out of all proportion to improvements in company performance. If it everworked, it seems that there are now declining returns. In the first decade ofthis century FTSE 350 firms increased their pre-tax profits by 50% and theirearnings per share by 73%, while year end share prices fell by 5%. Over thesame period, bonuses for executives in these companies have risen by 187%, longterm incentive plans by 254%. This demonstrates what psychologists have alreadyfound – that the relationship between financial incentives and performance isfar from simple, and is not even reliably positive.

At the same time, the heavy focus on the alignment of high powered incentivesrisks crowding out other, more rounded but equally powerful intrinsicmotivations of executives that are just as relevant to the company’s success –the satisfaction of doing a good job, the pride in leading and growing a greatcompany, of winning in the market place, of having the respect of peers, ofcreating a legacy of sustained and sustainable success.

We are not opposed to performance related pay but it does make you wonder: if acompany is so concerned that an executive paid only their salary won’t bemotivated to work hard in the best interests of the company, then maybe theyhave the wrong person in the job?

At its worst you end up with perverse incentive structures which encourage thewrong kind of decision making, as the failures in many financial institutionsin the wake of the 2008/9 financial crash so clearly illustrated.

And this approach to executive reward creates negative consequences in otherparts of the business. Overemphasising the importance of the contribution ofthose of those at the top can undermine the motivations of others in thebusiness. As the High Pay Commission has shown, there is a growing body ofresearch that confirms that just as relative rewards matter as a basis forsocial comparison among executives, so they matter to other employees too. Theymatter for employee engagement, and their sense of identification with companygoals. Feelings of unfairness in pay reduce the willingness to cooperate, canreduce effort and weaken commitment. Unsurprisingly, greater pay inequality ina firm has been found to be associated with lower firm performance.

So excessive pay and rewards for failure are undoubtedly bad for business.

The second reason this is a problem is because it is bad for our economy. I’velost count of the number of companies I’ve visited who say to me that theycan’t find the engineering graduates they need to hire. Where are they? Letsface it - many of them are following the money. In the decade to 2007, 60% ofthe increase in the income share of the top 10 per cent went to financeworkers. This talent drain, with rewards disproportionate to success, hasdistorted the market and makes the challenge of rebalancing the economy – byregion as well as by sector – so much harder.

Likewise, entrepreneurs, those running our small businesses are the lifebloodof our economy, providing approximately two thirds of private sector jobs andalmost half of private sector turnover. We need people to take risks and set upthese businesses - why would they do so if they can earn excessive wealth inthe boardroom and the City?

And the third reason this matters is because it is bad for our society.Executive pay has helped promote inequality and there is a huge body ofresearch to show that this has a detrimental impact on society. At thisjuncture many people refer to the “Spirit Level”, the book by Richard Wilkinsonand Kate Pickett.

Today, I’ll refer you to comments of the former Chief Economist at the IMF,Raghuram Rajan – the IMF is of course George Osborne’s institution ofchoice when it comes to quoting people! He has argued that high levels ofinequality contributed to the financial crisis. In his recent book, FaultLines, Rajan explains how high levels of wage inflation at the top and wagestagnation for the rest of the population led to a growth in easy credit.

So I have talked about what we pay people for, how a small group are being paidfar in excess of what they deserve, and the adverse impact this is having onour businesses, our economy and our society. What would we - the Opposition -do to change all this?

The High Pay Commission has put forward a tranche of recommendations toincrease transparency, accountability and fairness. The recommendations enjoysupport in the business community and are in line with measures implemented inthe U.S., Germany and other countries to address these issues. We support themtoo.

In the main, the Commission suggests seeking to effect the changes through theUK Corporate Governance Code in the first instance, followed by legislation ifthe amendments to the Code do not bring about the change needed. This is theright approach. Legislation should be the last resort, used only if there isnot sufficient compliance with the Code within a reasonable period of time.
On the proposals themselves: first, transparency – over the level of reward andover the approval of reward packages. In trying to align executive incentives,reward packages have become increasingly complex, making it difficult forshareholders to understand exactly what is being paid.

This problem is intensifying. Increasing numbers of directors are beingrewarded through ever more complex service agreements. Individual rewardpackages are more generous and ‘performance’ targets seem to be getting easierto hit.

To enhance transparency, the High Pay Commission recommends that:

• Executive pay should comprise a basic salary, with only one additionalperformance related element where necessary;
• The publication of pay packages of the ten highest paid employees outside theboardroom; and,
• The reporting of pay packages in a standardised form, including a singlefigure showing total remuneration.

We endorse these proposals. They will give shareholders access to simple,standardised information on which they can make reasoned judgements. While wewait and wait for this Conservative led-government to match words with deeds,there is no reason why business cannot begin taking action now.

In addition, the Commission proposes that investment and pension fund managersbe required to disclose how they vote on all issues, including on remuneration.This transparency would allow pensioners and investors to see where theirmonies are being used to finance big pay deals. It is their money, after all.

This increase in transparency would also increase accountability, and is justone of a number of changes needed to do so.

To examine the dynamics of a remuneration committee is to observe a case studyof what happens when responsibility is diffused, backgrounds of participantsare homogenous, and loyalties can overlap. Participants are drawn mostly from anarrow class of, mostly male, current or former executives. The voice ofemployees is silent and shareholders vote in an advisory capacity onremuneration reports after the event. You don’t need to be a rocket scientistto detect a problem with this old way of doing business.

The way non-executive directors are appointed and the backgrounds from whichthey are drawn – they are often ex-executives themselves – is not conducive tothe appointment of people who are prepared to shake it up and introduce newways of thinking. That is why we endorse the Commission’s recommendations tohave employee representation on remuneration committees and to open up therecruitment of non-execs to a wider pool.

But I want to look at where we should go further. In the UK, the nominationcommittee of the Board - which is responsible for hunting out people to serveon boards - is made up of other Board members. Candidates are nominated bythose Board members at the company’s AGM and, in most cases, are elected as amatter of course.

We should consider moving towards a system which other countries have adoptedwhere the nomination committee is not composed of board members but is composedof the four or five biggest shareholders in the company along with thenon-executive chair of the board – that same committee, composed ofshareholders, also recommends the structure and amount of remuneration. Thiswould create far stronger lines of accountability to those who ultimately ownthe business and would promote the shareholder activism and engagement which iskey.

In addition the role of remuneration consultants must be looked at, as theCommission says in its report. In his 2006 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders,Warren Buffet referred to a remuneration consultancy called “Ratchet, Ratchetand Bingo”; “The name may be phony,” he said, “but the action it conveys isnot”, highlighting his view that such consultancies inflate executive pay.There are widespread concerns that these consultancies are ratcheting up payhere too.

Indeed, it is my view that, unchecked, their effect could be similar to that ofunscrupulous football players’ agents – inflating salaries sometimes way beyondtalent or contribution and often working against the long term interests of thecompanies themselves.

Part of the problem is that – in their advisory role to remuneration committees– the consultants owe their duties to the Board and not to shareholders. Thisneeds to be looked at, along with the risk of conflict where consultants areadvising both executive management and non-executive directors on remuneration.That is why it is right that companies should publish the extent of their useof remuneration consultants.

I am aware of the voluntary guidelines to prevent remuneration consultantscross-selling services but, given the risk of conflict, consideration should begiven to taking a more strict approach. Lawyers giving legal advice in the samecontext are not subject to some voluntary code but to binding rules thatprevent the provision of advice where there is a potential for conflict ofinterests, unless strong, viable and properly policed Chinese Walls areerected. Why should the same not apply here?

Finally, on fairness, the disconnection of executive reward from the pay ofother employees is at the heart of loss of trust. This needs to be rebuilt.That is why we endorse the Commission’s call for companies to publish theratios between the highest paid employees and the median.

It is also another reason for having an employee on the remuneration committeeof the Board, something the Prime Minister has failed to commit to implement –as Ed said on Tuesday, it would mean top executives would have to look anordinary member of staff in the eye before they award these pay packages.

To continue to inform this important debate, we endorse the High PayCommission’s call for a permanent body to monitor high pay, along the lines ofthe Low Pay Commission Labour established.

All of these measures are designed to empower shareholders – to give them thetools to be able to take action, and to increase the accountability ofdirectors to them.

David Cameron has sought to do this by making shareholder votes on remunerationbinding. We will examine this proposal when Vince Cable, my opposite number,provides further detail later this month.

However, there are a number of problems with what he has suggested. First, itis backward looking. As CBI Head John Cridland has said, this would be likeshutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Secondly, there are large practical difficulties with the proposal as itsretrospective impact would create legal problems in trying to unpick contractsalready agreed – I say this from my own experience, having practiced as aspecialist employment law solicitor for the best part of a decade.

And thirdly, without a matching requirement of transparency – the provision ofclear and simple information – shareholders may not be any the wiser about whatthey are voting on, and may even be less inclined to vote.

So it is not enough for David Cameron to say he wants shareholders to be givena vote on these issues. We have seen and heard this kind of thing from himbefore - talking a good game but fiddling at the margins.

I believe in shareholders’ democracy but democracy is about more than voting.If we are to empower shareholders, they need information provided throughgreater transparency of boardroom pay – as well as the means to mobilise andbecome more active in the running of their companies.

And this takes us to the heart of the issue – the need to encourage greateractivism amongst shareholders. We cannot ignore the long term trends that areworking against this. Since the early 1990s, foreign ownership of total UKequity has increased from less than 15% to around 40% in 2008. The averagelength of time investors hold their shares has fallen from 5 years in the 1960sto less than 8 months by 2007, with an enormous increase in high frequencytrading.

These trends make it harder, but all is not lost – there are grounds foroptimism. Voting by shareholders in FTSE 350 companies has now risen to arespectable 68%. There is clearly an appetite for more shareholder power and wehave to nurture the use of it. It can be built upon by putting more – and moreeffective – tools in the hands of shareholders in the way I have described.

And all this needs to be underpinned by a renewed and explicit focus onrelative reward based on merit – the fairness that inspires employee loyalty toa company, and the fairness that renews public trust in business.

The current business environment is as tough as it has ever been. Labour hasset out a plan for jobs and growth to get the economy moving again, get peopleback into work, and to reduce the deficit.

But we also must address the underlying challenges in our economy that havepersisted over many years, and which the financial crisis brought in to sharprelief. Excessive executive pay is one of them.

That is why I am glad that this debate is going on and proud of the role thatEd has played in leading it. Let’s make it count. Let us begin preparing theground for the better days that lie ahead. Let us build a better economy forBritain.

Thank you.

NHS reforms: New Evidence of Tory plans to privatise NHS by stealth

2012-01-16T22:52:00.001Z

HealthChiefs have ordered doctors to pick out services for privatisation.

TheGovernment has sent letter to all primary care trust demanding they identify atleast three services that can be handed to the private sector.

Labour saythe move is further evidence of Tory plan to privatise the NHS by Stealth andDavid Cameron of breaking his pledge to keep the NHS in public ownership.

The letterfrom Dame Barbara Hakin, commissioning chief at the Department of Health ,saying primary care trust should work with new GP commissioning group on waysthey can extend” choice of provider”.

ShadowHealth Secretary Andy Burnham will today lead a common debate to try to haltthe Tory reforms.

Speakingabout the letter was sent to the trusts in July last year, Mr Burnham said “Wehave learnt from bitter experience not to trust the Prime Minister‘s NHSpledges.

“Just twomonth after promising that there would be no privatisation of the health service,his Government outrageously orders the privatisation of three local services.”

Wales Secretary Cheryl Gillian faces criticism on selling home near the hs2 route.

2012-01-16T22:49:00.000Z

CherylGillian face criticism yesterday for selling a home close to the planned HighSpeed 2 route two months before the Government gave the project the go- head.

TheWales Secretary sold the 17^th century terraced house in Amersham, Buckinghamshire,in November for a £320.000.

Theproperty is situated about 500 yards from the route of the London to Birminghamsection of HS2, which was given the green light last week by transportsecretary Justine Greening.

CherylGillian has previously threaten to resign over HS2, which is bitterly opposedby many of her Chesham and Amshersham constituent who complain that it willblight the area.

Shesaid last week that “good progress “” had made in mitigating the effects of thenew line with tunnels.

Sebberry, an independent councillor for the near by town of Great Missenden , toldthe Sunday Telegraph “ We now have an MPwho sits in the cabinet that has approved a policy that will blight many homesin her own consistency and yet she no longer owns a property here.

“That will make localpeople – many who were in tears over the HS2 decision—very angry”.

ShadowCabinet Office minister Jon Trickett wrote to Prime Minister DavidCameron urging him to investigate whether there had been any breach of theministerial code, which forbids any conflict between public duty and privateinterests.

"If the reports in the national newspapers are accurate, itis very likely that Cheryl Gillan has breached the ministerial code," hesaid.

"If true this is ashocking abuse of her ministerial position and shows complete disregard for theconstituents she has abandoned as well as the responsibilities and duties thatcome with her ministerial post.

"Gillan has cut andrun. She has taken an option that simply wasn't available to her constituentsand her actions have damaged not just her own reputation and credibility butthat of the government."

Labour will Deliver Fairness when there’s less money around. And only Labour Can

2012-01-10T21:30:00.000Z

EdMiliband, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party, said todayin a speech to London citizens at the OXO Tower:

Thank you for that inspiring introduction Richard, andthank you for everything you do to showcase the great things young people doacross 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 thebetter, from the City Safe initiative to campaigning for the Living Wage.

Thanks to you, the cleaners at the Queen Mary Universityare earning a Living Wage.

And they’re not the only ones.

From KPMG to the Olympic Delivery Authority – working menand women are now being paid enough to cover the essentials of life.

Citizens UK don’t just read about the problems insociety, you get organised and lead change.

You know that with a bit of optimism, coordination, andpersistence, we change the world around us, Fight at a time.

Are you values, and they are mine as well.

If people will hear me talking about values and say:

‘Welcome to the real world: values cost money, but rightnow the government just doesn’t have money to spend.”

A lot of people say:

These tough times. It’s easy to talk about fairness, buthow are you going to achieve 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 tospend.

But however the times are, l believe a simple truth:

Politics can always make a difference.

The Labour Party stands for fairness and fightinginjustice.

Those commitments are more important now than ever.

But my argument starts by recognising that tough timeswill continue.

The government wanted to eliminate the deficit before thenext election.

That was the foundation on which their entire programmewas built.

But they didn’t understand that you can only eliminatethe deficit if the economy is growing.

So they failed.

Last November was a defining moment.

George Osborne admitted that his plan to eliminate thedeficit in one Parliament had crumbled.

He wanted to get us to borrow more.

Much more.

Over five years, £158 billion more than he promised.

Not borrowing to get people back into work, but payingthem to be out of work.

That ‘s the price of George Osborne failure.

Of course he’s got excuses.

He’ll blame the Eurozone.

But it’s not as if h 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 cutting spending and raising taxesto far and too fast would make it harder to get that deficit down.

The Government’s failure in eighteen months has proved tocome.

The failure of George Osborne’s economic policy creates adifferent landscape for the 2015 General Election whoever wins it.

Whoever is the next Prime Minister will still have adeficit to reduce, and will not have money to spend.

Whoever governs after 2015 will have to find moresavings.

It means that the Blair and approach will not be enough.

Ask the parent who drop their kids off everyday at theschool we transformed.

Asked the patients being treated in the new hospitals webuilt.

Ask the people who see more police on the streets.

We should all be proud of that.

But we could only do it because the economy was growing.

Each time New Labour won an election, it won at a timewhen business was prospering.

When entrepreneurs could set up new firms and beconfidents of a return.

When companies knew that there were markets for theirgoods, and consumers ready to spend.

That growing economy mean that there were tax revenues toinvest in our infrastructure, to help hardworking families, and to protect themost 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 uswish we did not have to make.

So we must rethink how we achieve fairness for Britain ina time when there is less money to spend.

There are some who say that fairness is a luxury we affordin tough times.

That it is inevitable that this country must become:

More unfair.

More unequal.

More unjust.

That fairness is something good times , and nothing more.

I believe that is profoundly wrong.

When there is less money to spend, the choice arestarker.

So our values matter even more.

And if you don’t believe me, talk to the low paid workingfamilies who losing the most , thank to this government’s priorities.

Talk to the school lever, joining a queue of one millionyoung people looking for work.

It’s Labour responsibility to find a new approach fortough times.

So we will be a different party from the one we were inthe past.

A Changed Labour Party.

The ideas which won three elections between 1997 and 2005won’t be the ideas which will win the election in 2015.

And not just out of necessity, because there’s moneyaround.

But because we have to recognise some of the things wedidn’t achieve.

The last LabourGovernment saw many jobs created.

But too many people found themselves stuck in low skilled,low wage jobs which offered neither satisfaction, or tune to spend with therefamily.

New Labour’s answer, tax credits, made a real difference.

But they weren’t enough.

Sometimes in government it felt like, in stead ofbuilding a new economy were spending money to patch up the failures of theeconomy we inherited.

Fairness wasn’t hard – wired into our economy andsociety.

That, as well as the deficit, means labour needs a newapproach.

We have already set out what we would do to get theeconomy growing again immediately.

We would tax bank bonuses and use the money to get youngpeople back to work.

In short, where the Government is stripping demand out ofthe economy, we would go less far and less fast.

We call for these things not because we aren’t interestedin dealing with deficit.

We call for them because we are.

The sooner growth and jobs return the easier it is toreduce the deficit we face.

The action to get growth moving must be combined withbalanced cuts.

And to get Britain’s budget back into balance and thenational debt back on a downward path, we will set out tough new fiscal rules.

But as i said earlier, the deficit will persist well intothe next parliament, well beyond 2015.

So today i want to focus on that horizon.

I want to explain the principles which will guide LabourParty under my leadership.

I want to set out a new approach.

To demonstrate once and for all that Labour is a partyfor all times, not only a party for good times.

So in the future, how we deliver when there is much lessmoney available is going to have to be difference approach taken by Labour inthe past.

That means three new ways of delivering fairness indifficult times.

First, reforming our economy so we have a long termwealth creation with rewards fairly shared.

Second, acting against vested interests that squeeze theliving standards of families.

And third, making a choices that favour the hard workingmajority.

And third, making choices that favour the hard-working majority.

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 onunstable foundations.

With excessive rewards at the top and everybody else seeing their incomessqueezed.

The New Labour approach focused on how government could act to address theconsequences 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 miningor manufacturing but who now faces an insecure, low-paying job.

The young engineering graduate who is told she is better off designingderivatives than helping British firms design the aeroplanes of tomorrow.

And the workers wondering why their living standards are squeezed and theircompany is struggling, when the people at the top seem to be getting evergreater rewards.

So what is Labour’s new approach to addressing these problems when there isless 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 morecompetitive world.

To nurture a growing, thriving economy which creates better jobs, new companiesand innovative industries.

That means we have to end the situation where British employers want theircompanies 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 smallbusinesses can invest and grow.

It means we have to end the situation where an industry knows it is in itslong-term interest to invest in the skills of its workforce, but each firmdoesn’t act because it isn’t in their short-term interest.

That’s why we will need new leadership from industry, undertaking theirresponsibilities 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 whooffer apprenticeships.

It means we have to end the situation where the chief executive wants to makedecisions which will benefit his company in five years, when some of hisshareholders are only interested in results in the next two months.

That’s why Ed Balls will shortly be announcing our review of short-termism inBritish corporate life, like quarterly reporting.

All of this is an agenda for responsible business that our business leadersalready champion.

It is the one they urge me to address as I go around the country talking withentrepreneurs, visiting factories.

It’s not anti-business it’s pro-business.

Government also has a particular responsibility when times are tough to ensurethat 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 tolook an ordinary member of staff in the eye before they award themselves a payrise.

We are determined to reform our welfare system too, so that it rewards thosewho do the right thing.

That’s why I’ve said that those on the waiting list for council accommodationshould move up that list if they are contributing to their communities, beinggood neighbours, and seeking work.

We need an economy that builds long-term wealth creation, fairly shared.

But we also need to act on the vested interests that squeeze the livingstandards 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 aretreated 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’tbe afraid to intervene.

No company that is engaging in predatory behaviour should be too big tochallenge.

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 arenow a fifth of the average salary in this country.

So much that some parents are giving up jobs because they can’t afford a childminder 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 offares, 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, notjust 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 familyhas had the central heating on.

But it’s expensive.

And we all know that particularly with the rising costs of energy, there are agrowing number of people, many of them elderly, who find it difficult toafford.

We introduced the Winter Fuel Allowance for all pensioners, and we gavespecific 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 thereis very little money to spend?

The Government has already cut the Winter Fuel Allowance so that it providesless 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 wayour 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 overpayingfor 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 ofconsumers.

But we will ensure you give pensioners over seventy-five the lowest tariff onoffer.

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 inthese tough times.

So we need action against these vested interests.

But these new straitened times also mean that the next Labour government willhave to have a clear sense of priorities.

In the past, the proceeds of a growing economy gave the last Labour governmentgreater 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 betweentaxation and spending, and about where our priorities are.

But in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means findingthe 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 moreaffordable, we also have to be clear that means not giving the banks thecorporation tax cut this Government has planned.

Bringing the cap on university fees down to £6,000 would make a real dent inthe awful levels of student debt this Government is going to impose onfamilies.

Let me give you another example.

Everyone is now joining us talking about the squeezed middle and the nextgeneration.

But it’s not enough just to talk about them.

If you want to make taxes fairer for those on middle and low incomes, yourpriority 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 clearabout our priorities – that is how we can deliver fairness even when there isless 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’toverwhelmed 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 overthemselves to say that they too are burning with passion to take on “cronycapitalism”.

A Prime Minister who six months ago was gagging to scrap the 50p tax rate nowtells 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 onundeserved 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, Isay:

Bring it on.

Because my message today is not simply that Labour can deliver fairness whenthere is less money around.

But that only Labour can.

Because the core belief of this Prime Minister is that we can solve theproblems Britain faces by government getting out of the way.

His answer to the problems thrown up by the economic crisis, is simply more ofthe same.

My answer is different.

Different to this Prime Minister.

And different too to the previous Labour Government.

My Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says thatgovernment 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’sless money around.

And in the end, once the savings have been made and the deficit has beenreduced, 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, growingeconomy.

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.

London unemployment is worst under the tories

2011-12-15T23:25:00.000Z

Latest monthly data showunemployment in London has soared to 9.9% up 0.3% from the previous quarter. A part from the North East London isthe region which has suffered the most, with unemployment rising by 0.9% from ayear. it also has the second highest rate of unemployment of any region , againapart from the North East.

Thereare now 423,000 people unemployed in London, 45,000 more than when thegovernment came into office. The job crisis is affecting both inner an outLondon. Newham has the highest unemploymentrate 14.4% but the following consistencies all have double- digit job lessrates: Hackney, Haringey , Tower Hamlets as well Barking & Dagenham , Brent,Enfield and Waltham Forest.

TheMayor of London Boris Johnson said nothing about this growing crisis.

YesterdayKen Livingstone said;” 9.9 per cent of Londoners are now out of work , a shocking figure thatmeans only that north east of England has a higher unemployment rate.

“Thegovernment seems oblivious to the problem in London and Boris Johnson, seemsembarrassed to mention it, when we needsome concrete action and some justified anger on behalf of Londoners. TheConservative Mayor has done nothing to offset these negative trends. In fact heseems more keen on covering up for his fellow Tories in government.”