A look back at my year and the year in politics

Below is a little round up of what I have been up to over the past year as well as some of my views on major political events.


Snow, my accident and the NHS


The year started off as it finished with the most snow we have seen in many a year.  With half witted headlines like this:

It did make life difficult for us all and made getting about difficult, especially as many councils were woefully in prepared and did not have the grit reserves required to keep the snow clear.

The snow also resulted in me having a bad accident on my bike.  Cross a bridge a skidded on some ice and landed on my right elbow breaking my arm in 4 places.  After being rushed off to hospital I was operated on and had pins inserted into my arm, so it now looks something like this:

Unfortunately during the operation my lung collapsed and I ended up in a high dependency unit leading to a 5 day stay in hospital.  My arm will never be the same again, although hopefully will be a bit more comfortable once part of it is removed next month, a year after the accident.

This was my first real experience of a hospital, and found York District Hospital to be professional from the ambulance to the post-op physio.  It is clear they all work under a lot of pressure and those who criticise clearly have little understanding of the many demands on staff time.  I sincerely hope that the improvements Labour have made to the NHS over the past 13 years are now not going to be unravelled by the ConDem root and branch re-organization.  I do however have grave concerns as I laid out in previous blog entries this year on the NHS.

My injury along with the continuing pains I have from a pinched nerve in my neck have pretty much put an end to my cycling, and 16 years I have finally purchased a car again.  I would rather have not, but there is no public transport where I live, so was left with little choice.

From Green to Labour

In May I voted Labour for the first time since 2001 as I had confidence in Gordon Brown's economic skills, and greatly feared what my result from a Tory or ConDem government, which unfortunately I am now placed to say 'I told you so' to all those who voted Lib Dem.

Gordon Brown had help re-build my confidence in Labour after the appalling actions of Blair.  He wasn't perfect and unfortunately didn't come across well in the media, but I feel in years to come Brown will be acknowledged to have made the right moves when it came to the economy.  Where as like Antony Eden and Suez, Blair will only be remembered for Iraq.

I won't go into the details again as to why I left the Green Party, as they are outlined in my original post.  There are still many things I agree with them on, and respect many of the activists, particularly those in Green Left.   The only areas I fundamentally disagree with them is mainly around Science and the Food Industry, particularly their opposition to GM.  But if I am to be honest, my main reason for joining the Greens was because they were anti-war, and although I of course believe in climate change and reducing consumption I feel these are not the only major issues to be focusing on and that the majority of the public just do not buy the Green manifesto and feel my time and effort is better spent working to get Labour back in power at the earliest opportunity, rather than working against them.

When I joined Labour in May along with tens of thousand of other new members we were immediately faced with a leadership election.  I supported the Ed Miliband campaign and was very pleased to see him elected.  I feel Ed was the fresh start we needed.  Only getting Labour elected will help put a stop to the devastating changes faces the country's public services, and urge every to get involved and join the party.

Heslington


I remain a Parish Councillor in Heslington, now in my fourth year and plan to stand again next May.  I will be putting most of my time into helping David Levene take the Heslington council seat from Labour, which I believe is an achievable target.  Visit his site at http://www.yorklabour.org.uk/people/davidlevene.php

Heslington now has a new website, which I maintain.  Thank you to Matthew Clements for designing and hosting the site.

The Cuts and the Con Dem government


Even in my wildest imagination did I expect the horrific vandalism planned for the public services by the Tories.  From near privatisation of the NHS, to free schools, to extreme funding cuts, to universities resulting in trebling of tuition fees to hundreds of thousands of public sector redundancies.  This is a shameful attack on the public sector which has more to do with right wing ideology than dealing with the deficit, and it is shameful that the Lib Dems are propping up this Tory Government.

I urge everyone to become active in their trade unions and local anti-cuts groups, as we cannot stand by and our public services get trashed by the government.

I am involved in York Stop the Cuts and am also a delegate to York Trades Union Council and will be spending the next few years campaigning against these cuts and help build for the national demonstration in London on March 26th, which is likely to be the biggest protest against the government since the Iraq war.


Other activism


I still remain committed to other campaigns including Republic, which in a year of the royal wedding will be leading calls for an elected head of state, please consider joining at http://www.republic.org.uk/Get%20Involved/Join%20Republic/form.php

This year sort Israel blocking the Viva Palestina convoy at the beginning of the year and later carrying out a massacre on the Mavi Mamara in international waters in May.  The Palestine Solidarity Campaign continues to campaign to end the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and I would urge you all to join the campaign at http://palestinecampaign.org/Index5b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=78&l2_id=102

Twitter


I really enjoy engaging with other Labour activists on Twitter.  You can catch up with me at http://twitter.com/#!/mr_andy_c

To look forward


Health permitting I hope to be fully engaged in 2011 campaigning for Labour and against the cuts.  The future of the country is at stake and we cannot sit by and let the Con Dems wreck it.

Irish Daily Star tells it like it is

ConDem solution to unemployment is to get them wombling

The latest proposal from the office of Iain Duncan Smith is to send the unemployed out to do tasks such as litter picking once they have been unemployed for 12 months.  Or as the Telegraph puts it 'Work-shy will be 'pushed' into working for free by welfare revolution'.  This headline sums up the ConDem approach, it is pandering to the right wing press by picking on people they see as welfare scroungers.

The problem is that this measure will not just target the long-term unemployed.  The ConDem cuts could make 1.5 million people unemployed bringing the unemployment figure to around 3 million, and there are not the jobs available for the unemployed to go to.  Many professional people and recent graduates are going to find themselves unemployed for over a year, is it the best use of their time to make them go litter picking.  Many people are going to have to spend time re-training for the few jobs which are available, the government should be aiming to help these people out of unemployment, rather than sending them on chain-gangs carrying out what can be seen as pointless tasks to please the Daily Mail reading public.  Clive Anderson also made a good point on the Marr show this morning that is this work does need doing the government should create jobs and pay people to do it.

There are admittedly some people who do not want to work, who are capable of work, and maybe if this limit was set at 3 years it may be more likely to focus on this group.  But as it is many professional people who are unemployed through no fault of their own will be made to do menial tasks due to ConDem cuts.

Stop the government snooping on every Email and Facebook message

From Open Rights Group

The government has announced that it will be spending up to £2 billion into new ways to snoop on email and web traffic.

This Kafka-esque “Intercept Modernisation Plan”, was stopped near the end of the last government, but was quietly revived in the 2010 Spending Review. While billions of pounds are being slashed from education, welfare and defence, the government plans to waste vast sums trying to snoop on our emails and Facebook communications.

We need to tell the government to stop this wasteful, intrusive plan for wholesale snooping on our daily lives.

Please sign the petition at http://action.openrightsgroup.org/ea-campaign/clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=1422&ea.campaign.id=8227

Paul O'Grady on Osborne and the cuts

York Stop The Cuts - Right To Work Demo

Around 200 protesters turned up for the first public demo called by York Stop The Cuts - Right To Work.  There were speeches from Hugh Bayley MP, Cllr Dave Taylor, Father Tim Jones and representatives from PCS, FBU and UCU.

It is unfortunate that many of the public still support the cuts, but I believe this is because they don't realise yet how badly it will target their public services.  It is not until swimming pools and libraries start closing, social services are cut, unemployment rockets and there are fewer police on the streets that the public at large will become motivated to oppose these cuts.

We must all work to build are local groups to oppose the cuts and build for the London demo next year.

We're all in this together?

As expected the comprehensive spending review has attacked the poorest in society and set the blue-print for decimating our public services.  As a result of the review we are expected to see:

• Up to half a million public sector jobs go by 2014-15
• £81bn cut from public spending in the next four years
• £7bn extra welfare cuts

Source BBC News

The Con Dems insist the private sector will create jobs to absorb those who have been made redundant, but there is little evidence to support this dangerous gamble, in the short term there is likely to as many if not more private sector job losses from companies reliant on public sector spending.  So the end result is that we are likely to see the highest UK unemployment figures this country has seen in decades.

What is most grating is George Osborne constantly telling us "We're all in this together".  The Con Dem cabinet loaded with millionaires will not feel the pain from the cuts they are inflicting on the low paid.  Neither will the bankers who caused this state of affairs feel the pain, as many will still rake in huge bonuses, while the dole queues get longer.

And I hope no one forgets that the Lib Dems are responsible for propping up the Tories and allowing these cuts go through, cuts which go far beyond what is needed and have far more to do with right wing ideology.

There will be demos across the country this Saturday against the cuts.  Find your local demo here.

Lib Dem broken promises

Looking back at the 2010 Lib Dem manifesto, you immediately see that many of their election pledges have not been met:

• Saying no to the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear
  weapons system, which could cost £100 billion. We will hold a full
  defence review to establish the best alternative for Britain’s future
  security.
• Scrap unfair university tuition fees for all students taking their fi rst
  degree, including those studying part-time, saving them over £10,000
  each. We have a financially responsible plan to phase fees out over
  six years, so that the change is affordable even in these difficult
  economic times, and without cutting university income. We will
  immediately scrap fees for final year students.
• Reject a new generation of nuclear power stations; based on the
  evidence nuclear is a far more expensive way of reducing carbon
  emissions than promoting energy conservation and renewable energy.
• Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons
  system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime it is unaffordable, and
  Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives. We support
  multilateral nuclear disarmament and will ensure that the UK plays a
  proactive role in the arms reduction talks starting later this year

If you read the manifesto you will find plenty of other policy statements which will not come to pass.  They also made a U turn on delaying the cuts.  And who can forget this election poster:

Again, the Lib Dems are now supporting the rise in VAT.


The question is, what have the Lib Dems got out of this agreement?

From the looks of it very little.  They have got a referendum to allow some minor tinkering with the electoral system to bring us AV.  But there is no certainty they will get a yes vote with their Tory partners campaigning against it.

At the end of the day, all they've achieved is the chance to say they are in government and a few seats at the cabinet table.  They may well regret this at forthcoming elections, as who is going to believe them when they have committed a u-turn on so many of their election pledges?  And it is clear they can no longer pretend to be a party of the centre left, when the policies their cabinet are selling are clearly centre-right.

Is this the beginning of the end for a public higher education system?

Two stories about HE have made the press this week.  The first is the Browne report which proposes tuitions fees starting at £7000 but with no upper limit, it would therefore be no surprise if we see much higher fees, especially from the Russell Group universities.


Then today we see a leaked letter from Universities UK which has been sent to universities warning them to expect cuts of £4.2bn to teaching budgets and £1bn to research budgets a result of the comprehensive spending review.

The result of both these proposals could be an end to the higher education system as we know it.  It would not be a surprise if we see a drop in student applications from those who do not wish to saddle themselves with debts at more than double the current level.  We could also see some universities going bankrupt due to budget cuts and decreased public funding.

What is most worrying is that this clearly looks like the final step to a privatised university system.  If these changes are implemented universities will need to start funding some arts and humanities courses purely from student fees, as funding is to be withdrawn from all but science, engineering, medicine and modern language degrees and with variable fees we are already very close to seeing a private market in HE with only one more step needed to make the system completely funded by tuition fees and private research funding.

UCU and the NUS have organised a joint national demo called "Fund our future:Stop Education Cuts" on 10th November 2010.  Details at http://www.demo2010.org/

"Red" Ed has the Tories worried

Red Ed?

It didn't take long for the Conservative attack dogs and right wing media to lay into Ed Miliband once it was announced he was leader.  Labelling him "Red Ed" and claiming the unions now have a hold over him.

Headlines have appeared such as:

'Red' Ed Miliband says New Labour is dead but vows to stand up for the 'squeezed middle'  Daily Mail

RED Ed Miliband was elected Labour leader last night after snatching the crown from under his big brother's nose. & Left-winger Ed, 40, was catapulted into the job thanks to the backing of union barons who urged activists to vote for him. News of the World

The fact it that there is nothing "Red" about Ed Miliband.  He is a centre-left politician, admittedly to the left of his brother David and some of the Blairite old-guard, but this is not a bad thing.  The policies Ed has proposed are not leftist policies which will alienate the electorate.

A graduate tax will speak to many middle class as well as working class families in the UK who are worried about increasing student debt, debt which may well increase significant if tuition fees rise later this year.

Saying it was wrong to go to war with Iraq is not a leftist policy.  The majority of the country now believe it was wrong, and I believe one of the reasons why David lost was that he continued to defend it.

Ed wants the banking industry to make a bigger contribution to reducing the deficit.  This is hardly radical, and again the majority of the country will agree, especially once the cuts really kick in after the spending review.

It is rare for me to quote Norman Tebbit, but he was right in his Telegraph blog when he said:

The narrowness of David Miliband’s defeat and his brother Ed’s victory says more about the closeness of their views than any deep split in the Labour Party at the present time. Ed is the man most likely to get Labours five million lost voters back to the polls. He is unlikely to neglect the chance to feed off the discontented Lib Dem supporters, but he will not neglect to strengthen the party’s natural constituency.

I think this is why the Tories and right wing press are worried.  Ed really does have the potential to win back lost voters, particularly the many who stop supporting Labour after the Iraq invasion.


He is also helping to continue the rise in Labour party membership, as a recent @uklabour tweet said:

Since @Ed_Miliband was announced as our new Leader at 5pm yesterday 726 people have joined Labour. One new member every 1 min 48 secs #Lab10

The voting system


Some are questioning how fair the voting system is, as the union votes from the electoral college sealed Ed's win in the 5th round.  But union members are not mindless automatons who blindly follow their leadership.  If you look at the results many union members did not give Ed first preference.   


If the voting system is to be reviewed, it will be important to also look at the 1/3 of the electorate college which is given to MPs and MEPs.  Surely this is less democratic with a few hundred voters having a significant say on the outcome of the election.

We should never go back to Blairism

Recently I have seen numerous Labour activists defending Blair on the basis that he won us 3 general election.  A quick look at the polling figures show that this defence is not so black and white:

Labour Party results

Year    Popular Vote    Percentage of the vote
1997    13,518,167       43.2%
2001     10,724,953      40.7%
2005     9,552,436        35.2%

If Blair was so popular with the electorate why did Labour lose 4 million votes between 1997 and 2005?  The only reason Blair won the election in 2005, was that the alternative was Michael Howard.

The argument is that we should continue to use Blair's policies to attract back Tory voters.  In reality we did not lose that many votes to the Conservatives.  In 1997 the results for the other two parties were as follows:

1997
Cons: 9,600,943
Lib Dem: 5,242,947

And in 2010:

2010
Cons: 10,703,954
Lib Dem, 6.836.824

This shows that of the 4 million lost votes the Conservatives have only taken about a million votes and the Lib Dems about a million and a half.

This means that many who no longer vote Labour have either stopped voting or have opted for smaller parties.  It is these parties and the Lib Dems who we need to focus on.  Many of whom will have stopped voting Labour because of Iraq and attacks on civil liberties. 

Blarism may be good for targeting Tory voters, but that is not where we should be directing our efforts.

Further vandalism of the NHS as Con Dems axe NHS Direct

The Tories claimed in the general election:

"We can't go on like this. I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS"

This may be technically correct, as they have ring-fenced the budget.  But they are using some of the funding for a pointless and dangerous re-organization of the NHS and to pay for it they are cutting services.

The latest example of this is the announcement yesterday in the Guardian that the Con Dems plan to scrap NHS direct replacing it with a new budget service called NHS 111.

Currently forty percent of NHS Direct's staff are trained nurses.  NHS 111 will have one trained nurse to every 25 call centre staff, in other words only 4% of the staff will be professional nurses.  The other call operators will go on a 60 hour training course.

As soon as the public realise that the new call centre is not staffed by health professionals they will start putting extra demand on casualty and out of hour GP services, rather than risk receiving unprofessional advice from call centre operators.

I have used NHS Direct on more than one occasion in the past and was satisfied with the professional advice I received to save me having to put demand on other NHS services.  I would not use the proposed new service for health advice.

The biggest risk could come from a member of staff offering poor or incorrect advice to a caller which could result in them not seeking professional medical advice when they do require it.

The cost to the public of NHS Direct is £123 million a year.  This is money well spent, which reduces the demand on other areas of the NHS.  We must fight to defend this and you can start by signing the petition at http://www.savenhsdirect.co.uk/

There is no need for these cuts.  The government would not need to be looking for cuts if it was not for their expensive and dangerous re-structuring of the NHS which is going to cost the tax payer £1.8 billion a year.

We have to fight the cuts and the Con Dem vandalism of the NHS before it is too late and see all the improvements of the past 17 years thrown away.

Why I won't give a preference to any Labour leadership candidate who sends out a negative message on immigration

After a few months of the leadership campaign I have come to the decision that there are two candidates in the leadership election I cannot give a preference to on the ballot paper due to their views on immigration.

The first is Ed Balls.  It is with a heavy heart I do this as I feel he as been very good calling the Con Dems to account, but I cannot support a candidate who has come out with the following statements:

"What I've said is we should look at that free movement of labour directive to see whether or not it needs to be changed either to allow transition arrangements to be longer or also to prevent the practice where people can come and work in our country and then send benefits back to their own countries". UKPA

To be honest, I think Gordon's answer to Mrs Duffy showed he'd not been having the conversation, because what she said was the kind of things being said by Labour supporters, and in some cases former Labour supporters over the last year and a half. [This] was: 'Look, we're not racist, and we support our EU membership and we know that immigration's important for the NHS, but look what it's doing to my community, to my child's job prospects, to our housing queues'. Guardian

Secondly we have Andy Burnham.  Once again he has been good tackling the Con Dems, particularly on NHS reform.  But I will not support him because of statements like the following:

"We were in denial. We were behind the issue all the time, and myths were allowed to develop. There's still an ambivalence among some in Labour about discussing immigration. I've been accused of dog-whistle politics for doing so.

"But it was the biggest doorstep issue in constituencies where Labour lost. People aren't racist, but they say it has increased tension, stopped them getting access to housing and lowered their wages." Telegraph

While he said he would "avoid disowning our past" on immigration, he said: "Their [the electorate's] strong feeling was that we had our fingers in our ears and our hands over our eyes. We just didn't want to talk about it.

"For me the big task is for Labour to reconnect with people who are feeling this. They need to feel that Labour understands what they are saying and then will take steps to address it." Guardian

These two candidates worry me about the direction Labour would take if they became leader.  I don't deny that immigration is a doorstep issue, but this is mainly due to right wing tabloids blaming migration for everything from lack of housing and jobs to terrorism.

We have to establish a two pronged approach to this problem.  Firstly we have to have policies to increase and improve housing stock and tackle the areas which have high unemployment and deprivation.  Secondly we have to challenge the myths around immigration.

The easy solution is to agree with the likes of Mrs Duffy and try to appeal to those who feel immigration is an issue by lurching to the right and trying to out do the Tories on immigration.  But this is surely wrong and against the fundamental values of the Labour Party.

We have to move away from the New Labour rhetoric which resulted in David Blunkett accusing asylum seekers of "swamping" some British Schools (BBC News) and Phil Woolas putting out this dreadful leaflet during the general election:

100 days

We have now reached 100 days of the Con Dems and we face a very bleak picture of what the country will be like for the next five years.  The country faces:

• Drastic cuts to public services of up to 40%, even though the private sector is in no position to absorb the thousands of public sector workers who will be made redundant.  Those who manage to keep there jobs face a two year pay freeze at a time when RPI is currently 4.8%.
• A rise in VAT to 20%.  A regressive tax which will hit the poorest in society the worst.
• A wrecking bill which will see an expensive re-organisation of the NHS and allow back door privatisation by scrapping primary care trusts.
• An unequal education system which will see Gove's free schools create a two-tier education system at the expense of 700 projects being scrapped from Labour's building schools for the future scheme.  At the same time we will see higher education facing a real funding crisis as cuts kick in.
• A shake up of benefits which will see many of the poorest in society facing even tougher times as benefits are slashed.
• A cut in the number of MPs tagged onto the AV bill. The money this will save is negligible and will mean MPs will be more thinly stretched to cover constituency work.
• Councils will see funding cuts of £1.165 billion, meaning drastic cuts to local services.
• The arts will see major cuts regardless of how successful some of the projects currently are.  This has been shown by the scrapping of the UK film council.
• 9 regional development agencies have been scrapped.
• More outsourcing of government duties to the private sector, most recently with the scrapping of the audit commission.

There is absolutely no need for such huge cuts to public services at such speed, and no need for root and branch re-organisation of our public services.  These moves have more to do with Tory ideology than reducing the deficit.

None of this would have been possible without the support of the Lib Dems.  Many Lib Dem voters feel betrayed as they did not vote for this.  Many voters believed the promises of not bringing in immediate cuts or raising VAT and I sincerely hope they desert the Lib Dems at the next election, polls at the moment show a drastic drop in Lib Dem support and at the same time the highest polling for Labour in 3 years, not something you would expect so early in a new administration.

It was not an easy decision for me to leave the Green Party as I supported many of their ideals and policies, but the country now faces impending crisis and the wrecking of the public service improvements made by Labour in the past 13 years.   Only Labour can mount a serious challenge to the ConDem government and it is important that all of us who feel passionate about defending public services no longer sit on the sidelines and join the fightback to ensure the next election brings a clear Labour majority to roll back the mess this coalition will have made.

Action Alert – Panorama ‘Death on the Med’ - Contact the BBC

The following is a mailing from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

Action Alert – Panorama ‘Death on the Med’ - Contact the BBC

Last night, the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme entitled ‘Death on the Med’.

It claimed to reveal ‘what really happened’ when Israeli commandoes boarded the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010.

Watch the programme here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00thr24

The programme was extremely biased, portraying the activists on board as violent terrorists who set out to kill Israeli soldiers.

Please write to the BBC asking the following questions:

• Why was Israel’s ‘right’ to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?
• Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel’s siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.
• Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the ‘thousands of rockets’ fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.
• Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed – shot from a helicopter – before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.
• Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?
• Why were the autopsy reports – which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can’t constitute self-defence – not used, or even mentioned?
• Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists – which led to nine deaths?
• Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word ‘terrorists’ to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandoes. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandoes, when these ‘terrorists’ were so willing to attack?
• Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?
• Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain's deck?

  

You can find more points to make on the PSC website at www.palestinecampaign.org and http://t.co/wxcKyPH

Where to send your complaint:

Online: BBC complaints link: Follow the link and fill out the online form: https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Ring: BBC complaint line number: 03700 100 212

Email: panorama.reply@bbc.co.uk

Write: BBC Panorama, MC4A1, Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ.

=====================================

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) aims to raise public awareness about the occupation of Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people. PSC seek to bring pressure on both the British and Israeli government to bring their policies in line with international law. PSC is an independent, non-governmental and non-party political organisation with members from communities across the UK. Join PSC today!

Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Box BM PSA
London
WC1N 3XX

Tel:   020 7700 6192
Fax:  020 7609 7779

Email: info@palestinecampaign.org

Web: www.palestinecampaign.org

A short video explaining why the ConDem plans equal the privatisation of the NHS

The ConDem Milk Snatchers

Borrowing from Thatcher's milk snatching policy of the 70s, the ConDem government are now going to stop free milk for under-fives in nursery and day care.

What really annoys me about this move is the rubbish spouted by Health Minister Anne Milton to justify the cut by saying there was no evidence the scheme improved health.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge about health knows it is a given fact that milk is beneficial to child development.  I'm sure many experts on health will soon come out to challenge Milton's statements.  This has already started with the following quote:

Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation charity, said scrapping the Nursery Milk scheme would be "disastrous", adding: "The Conservative minister for health doesn't seem to have learnt the lessons from Margaret Thatcher. Milk is absolutely vital for children in their growing years, particularly pre-school, and has many other attributes as well. It's a step towards healthy living."

Yahoo news

Fib Dem Clegg misled voters in run up to election

Last night's BBC documentary Five Days That Changed Britain, about the negotiations which produced the Con Dem coalition proved to be quite revealing.

Many of us have been rightly saying that the Lib Dems have ditched their principles for power, but the documentary proved that they were not even honest with the voters before the election.

Nick Clegg admitted that he changed his mind about the timing of spending cuts before the election, even though he was telling voters that to bring in cuts now would be "economic masochism" (More on this story in the Guardian)

I hope this latest revelation will cause the exodus of even more Lib Dem members.  They have been betrayed by their leader, and will pay dearly in the next election.

Who can trust a word the Lib Dems say in the future after this betrayal?

Why I'm supporting Ed Miliband for leader

A month ago today I blogged in support of Diane Abbott.  I still very much support Diane's policies and will give her my 2nd preference, but after a month of campaigning and having watched several hustings online I do not believe Diane is the right person to lead the Labour Party.

I don't feel she has proven that she can be a unifying force to lead the party into the next election, and unless we are unified we will not win the next election.

I therefore decided to back Ed Miliband.  I feel he offers the policies which I can unite behind:

Equality and dignity in work – tackling the gap between rich and poor, campaigning for a living wage and a high pay commission for both the public and private sector.
Rebuilding prosperity – supporting new industries, training opportunities and taking on the Coalition’s cuts and unfairness.
Building a sustainable future – putting climate change at the centre of everything we do, including our economic future.
Foreign policy based on values – not simply our alliances, learning lessons from the mistakes of Iraq.
Fairness in education – excellent schools in every community and fairer funding in higher education.
Protecting individual liberty – support for measures like CCTV but opposition to unnecessary state intervention in people’s lives, like excessive use of stop and search powers.
A 21st century democracy – support for the Alternative Vote, reform of the House of Lords, votes at 16 and more power for local government.
Building a movement – more voice for party members and a culture change in the way we do business, with women comprising 50% of the Shadow Cabinet.

Letters in local press opposing Lib Con NHS "reforms"

I got the following letter in The Press today, there was also letters from York Labour councillors James Alexander and Ruth Potter, which you can read here

THE Tory/Lib Dem coalition has obviously never heard of the saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Last month, the Commonwealth Fund judged the NHS to be the second-best health-care system in the world and top for efficiency, yet despite this the Government wish to undo the improvements made over the past 17 years, and fundamentally reform the way the NHS works.
It makes no sense whatever to scrap primary care trusts (PCTs) and put GP groups in charge of funds. Such a move will create a postcode lottery for health, and the fund managers will be less accountable than the current PCTs.

Like many of the other changes and cuts we are going to see over the duration of this Parliament, these are based on Tory ideology, and not what is best for the public sector and its users. The only people who will benefit from these changes will be private health providers, as waiting lists grow and those who can afford to switch to private health care.

It is imperative that we join the battle to save the NHS before it is too late and join the campaign against the proposed reforms.

Andy Burnham on Lib Con NHS reform

In today's Independent on Sunday Andy Burnham writes a very important article challenging the Lib Con reforms on the NHS.   I strongly recommend that everyone who is concerned about the direction the government are taking the NHS in reads this article.  It clearly highlights the major flaws of a plan which could end the NHS as we know it.

Andy Burnham is not my first choice for Labour leader, but he has been excellent on calling the Lib Cons to task over their reform plans.

The end of his article is a rallying call we should all respond to:

So, my message to patients, doctors and staff who hate these plans as much as I do is this – get ready for the mother of all battles. Labour will bring forward a campaign over the summer to show the strength of opposition to these plans before the health Bill arrives in Parliament in the autumn.

We will defend our party's finest creation with everything we've got from a Bill that threatens to unpick its very fabric.

I would also recommend you join the following two Facebook campaigns:

Hands of our NHS

National General Protest Day to Save the NHS 

Why is Diane Abbott the only Labour leadership candidate to oppose Trident?

I find it surprising and disappointing that only one of the five contenders for the Labour leadership is willing to oppose the replacement of Trident.

I can understand that as a former Foreign Secretary David Milliband may be accused of double standards by carrying out a u-turn on policy, but the other candidates should reconsider their position.

There is no logical reason behind defending Trident.  According to CND:

• 58% of people say that "given the state of the country's finances, the Government should scrap the Trident nuclear missile system" in an Independent/ComRes poll of September 2009 (Table 7)

• 54% of the public say Britain should "no longer have any nuclear deterrent" in a Gurdian/ICM poll of July 2009 (Table 8)

• Only 30% of the public would spend £20bn on Trident when offered alternatives of spending on nurses salaries or affordable homes, in a YouGov poll for The People newspaper from July 2009 (Page 4)

• 72% of the British public, in a poll in March 2007, did not support the government's plans to replace Trident - More4/Populus poll.

• 59% of the British public oppose replacing Trident when presented with the cost of £25 billion just to acquire a replacement system. (The equivalent of building around 1,000 new schools at current prices) - ICM poll, July 2006

• 73% of Scottish people thought it was wrong that £50 billion might be spent on a replacement for Trident.
• 64% were against nuclear weapons being based in Scotland for another 50 years. ICM poll carried out for Scottish CND, January 2007

I would imagine if potential Labour voters were polled there would be an even larger percentage supporting the scrapping of Trident.  I therefore cannot see why it would be politically damaging to call for Trident to be scrapped.  Do Andy Burnham, Ed Balls and Ed Milliband really believe that it is in the country's interest to renew its nuclear deterent?

What's more, unlike when the issue of Trident first came up 2006 before the recession, we really cannot afford to be wasting billions on such a weapons system.  By scrapping Trident renewal we could save thousands of jobs in the public sector, surely on economic grounds alone this is a more sensible option.

Although Trident is not the only important issue in the leadership campaign, having a candidate who is clearly against renewal and is also questioning the mission in Afghanistan gives us a clear signal as to which direction they will take on foreign policy in the future.  That is why I am supporting Diane Abbott.

Tabloid homophobia raises it's ugly head again

Two tabloid newspapers sunk to new depths today with homophobic opinion pieces on the recent ruling by the supreme court to allow asylum seekers who are gay not to be sent back to countries where they will face the risk of persecution.

The Daily Express produced this gem:

In the article they quote Supreme Court judge Lord Rodger, who comes out with the following hideous stereotype:

He said: “Just as male hetero sexuals are free to enjoy themselves playing rugby, drinking beer and talking about girls with their mates, so male homosexuals are to be free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts, drinking exotically-coloured cocktails and talking about boys with their straight female mates.”

The Daily Star produced an even worse headline with 'NO ROOM FOR GAYS'.  In the article they claim asylum seekers will go gay to gain asylum, by saying:

Some people will do whatever it takes if it means a cushy life in Britain.

We must challenge this hideous excuse for journalism when we see it.  It is designed to promote homophobia and prejudice towards asylum seekers.

The Tories and their Lib Dem poodles plan to take us back to the eighties with their wreckless cuts

Many in the public sector were shocked when Osborne announced in the budget that he wanted 25% cuts across all departments except Health and International Development.  We all knew cuts were coming but this felt far too deep and would result in many job losses and poorer public services.

To then hear yesterday that Danny Alexander wanted departments to plan for 40% cuts was a real punch in the guts to public sector workers.  Many will now be seriously worrying about their jobs, as such drastic cuts could result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost from the public sector.

The only two departments which will not be hit quite so hard are Education and Defence.  Yet Defence is the one department where the most obvious cuts lie, in Trident and Afghanistan.  These cuts could be made with little effect being felt by the British public.  The chances are that in Education it will be seen more politically acceptable to make higher education face the largest share of the cuts, which would be an attack on a sector which is already in great financial difficulty.

The big question is what the government thinks is going to happen to all those public sector workers they make redundant.  There is no abundance of job vacancies in the private sector to absorb such job losses.  Without a doubt these actions will lead to the highest levels of unemployment and poorest levels of public services in decades.  It will take us back to the dark days of the eighties.

Despite the rhetoric these cuts are not unavoidable.  There are numerous commentators offering examples of less harmful measures to deal with the deficit such as:

• Scrapping Trident and leaving Afghanistan
• Raising capital gains tax to 40%, as this would not affect the poorest in society
• Leaving the NI rise for employers in place
• Scrapping the married couples tax allowance
• Hitting the banks harder, who after all are primarily responsible for the mess we are in
• Bring in a higher tax level for those earning over £100k

These drastic cuts have to be fought.  I am not a person who calls strike at the drop of a hat and was not prepared to vote in favour of industrial action over pay this year, but there comes a point when we have to make a stand.

The only answer to these drastic actions is for all public sector unions to join together and work on co-ordinated industrial action, before it is too late and we end up with millions on the dole and third-rate public sector.

At the end of the day there are alternatives and these cuts have more to do with Tory ideology than being faced with no other option.

Interim cap on non-EU migration bad news for Higher Education

There are many reasons why the Libservatives cap on migration is a badly thought out policy, but the reason which concerns me the most is the effect it will have on Higher Education.

Universities and colleges are already facing hardship, closing departments and making wide spread redundancies, and this is before the implementation of the 25% cut on the Department of Education announced in the budget.  With the cap on migration it will also limit the amount of non-EU students who can attend UK universities.  This will have a devastating effect on university funding if it loses the income from overseas tuition fees.

To quote the article from the BBC News article on the interim measures which are being introduced:

Tim Finch from the Institute of Public Policy Research, said the measures were just a stopgap and would have a detrimental affect on the higher education sector.

He added: "Do we really want to have restrictions on foreign students at a time when the higher education sector is facing funding cuts and is going to rely on the fees that those students bring in?"

According to the Guardian there are 250,000 non-EU students.  This wreckless move will have a devastating effect on higher education.  I hope when the full policy is implemented the government think twice about include non-EU students in their cap, or we may begin to see the closure of whole universities rather than just departments, as there will simply not be the demand out there for the current number of student places.

Do you believe this man when he says 'We're all in this together'?

I feel nauseus each time I hear him say 'we are all in this together'.  The government has a majority of millionaires in the cabinet completely out of touch with real life.

The Lib Dems put out the following poster during the election:

They have now let down those who voted for them who believed they would not raise VAT.

VAT hits all regardless of income and raising it to 20% will hit the poorest the most, where as capital gains tax was only raised to 28%.  Raising this higher would have been fairer as the it would not affect the poorest in the country unlike VAT.

On top of this public sector workers are faced with a pay freeze for two years. Considering RPI is currently over 5%, this is in real terms a significant pay cut.  On top of this many are likely to lose their jobs in the public sector due to real terms cuts across all government departments of 25% over four years (with the exception of health and foreign aid).  How can making thousands of workers redundant and putting them on unemployment benefit help the economy?

The Tories have always been in favour of rolling back the public services and now they can use the fig leaf of the economy to do just that.  Harriet Harman was right when she said that the budget was driven by "ideology not by economics". 

Why I'm supporting Diane Abbott for Labour leader

Today Diane Abbott launched her campaign website at http://www.diane4leader.co.uk

I was very pleased to see her reach the required amount of nominations to enter the race.  If Diane becomes leader of the Labour Party we will see a real difference between Labour and the Con Libs, a difference which I believe will bring many more people back to the Labour Party who have either stopped voting or voted for minor parties in recent years.

I stopped voting Labour after the Iraq war and refused to vote for party again until Blair had left office.  During this time there were still many Labour MPs who inspired me, who voted against the exceses of the Blairite era, such as Diane who voted against the Iraq War, tuition fees, Trident and ID cards.  These are not radical views, a large amount of the electorate were against these policies.

I also greatly respect Diane's position on immigration.  Some of the leadership candidates have chosen to empathise with Mrs Duffy and argue that we were wrong on immigration and that it helped us lose the election.  I do not believe this is the case, and it is good to see a candidate who is willing to challenge the misconceptions about immigration and to focus on the core issues behind discontentment amongst the electorate such as housing and jobs.

I feel it is important that we focus on what Labour did right in the past 13 years such as the minimum wage, equality legislation, Northern Ireland peace process. improved public services.  I feel Diane is best placed to carry on this agenda, and to steer us clear of unpopular policies.

Diane for Leader Facebook group
Diane Abbott Twitter feed

Demonstration against Israeli attack in York

With just a few hours notice around 150 demonstrators attended a protest in York over the Israeli attack on the peace flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of at least 10 peace activists, quite likely many more.

Israel attacks unarmed humanitarian flotilla in international waters

I could not believe the news when I woke up this morning.  Earlier this morning Israeli troops boarded the international aid flotilla to Gaza.  So far it is reported 16 peace activists are dead.  Even for Israeli this is a new low.

This action is in direct violation of international law.  An unarmed ship attacked in international waters.

Many of the activists were Turkish, and the Turkish government have strongly condemned the attack, saying they:

"strongly condemn[ed] these inhumane practices of Israel"

I would hope other governments will now not sit on the fence and strongly condemn the actions of Israel.  If this was any other country there would be international outrage at a unarmed ship being attacked with its passengers being killed in international waters.

David Laws is arguing over semantics

David Laws was entitled to a private life, and his relationship with another man did not need to be made public.  Unfortunately David made an ill judged decision, and he alone is reponsible for the repurcussions.

In his statement on the BBC News website he says:

At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as "one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses."

Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses - for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives.

This is simply playing with the semantics of the term partner.  Many who have come to his defence in the media this morning talk about his great intellect.  Surely a man of such intellect should have realised that what he was doing was at the very least bending the rules.

According to a recent article in the Times he is worth an estimated £1.3 million.  If David had wanted to keep his relationship private, he should have made the decision not to claim expenses to give to his partner for rent.