http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11510463
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11510466
During the recent General Election campaign, senior Liberal Democrat MPs - including Leader Nick Clegg and current Business Secretary Vince Cable - signed a pledge to oppose any rise in student tuition fees.
The Party campaigned for a Graduate tax instead, saying this would be fairer on those who have completed their degree studies and were looking for work.
Now, Mr Cable has gone back on his word and declared a Graduate Tax unworkable. He and Nick Clegg are likely to support the Tories and back a rise in Tuition fees.
And this comes just ahead of the publication of the Browne Report on Higher Education, which, reports say, will recommend that the current cap on student Tuition fees should be removed, thus allowing universities to charge what they like and effectively closing the door to students from less well-off backgrounds.
No wonder the Liberal Democrats grassroots are angry. Martin Shapland, of Liberal Youth said that this move would go against everything the Liberal Democrats stood for in the election.
Nick Clegg in particular made much of the need to keep Tuition fees at the level they are now.
New Labour leader Ed Miliband has been very quick to capitalise on the situation and appealed to Liberal Democrat MPs unhappy with this dramatic U-turn to support Labour in any parliamentary vote on the issue.
Once again the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition are showing that they are willing to sacrifice both their principles and their core supporters to cling onto power.
Up to now, with the public having been willing to give the Coalition a chance, Liberal Democrat MPs have been prepared to compromise with the Tories to make the arrangement work.
However, on this issue, I wonder if things might be different.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Friday, 8 October 2010
Ed Finalises His Team With Alan Johnson As Shadow Chancellor
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11499638
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/why_has_johnson.html
Ed Miliband has chosen safe pair of hands Alan Johnson as his Shadow Chancellor.
The announcement comes after much speculation over who would get the key post.
The new Labour leader has opted not to go for early favourite Ed Balls, thus avoiding any accusations that he is taking the Party to the left by having someone who has spoken up very strongly in favour of delaying spending cuts and was a prominent supporter of Gordon Brown in the last Labour Government.
This is a wise choice and shows once again that he is prepared to make bold decisions. He certainly cannot be accused of taking Labour back to the left. And Alan Johnson has a reputation for being a loyalist. He will be invaluable in taking the party's message out to the voters and persuading them to come back to Labour at the next election.
Yvette Cooper, who was also considered a strong contender for Shadow Chancellor, is now Shadow Foreign Secretary. She will no doubt be very competent in this role, but I am not sure whether it was a wise choice to give her the Women and Equalities brief as well. Foreign Affairs is a huge department, which needs someone's full attention and I think maybe the responsiblity for Women and Equalities should have been given to someone with a less demanding role - Caroline Flint, perhaps.
Shaun Woodward stays in the Shadow Cabinet as a wildcard, despite failing to make it into the top places in the MPs' ballot.
All in all, though, Labour now has a very strong and experienced team to take on the Coalition and take Labour back to power in 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2010/10/why_has_johnson.html
Ed Miliband has chosen safe pair of hands Alan Johnson as his Shadow Chancellor.
The announcement comes after much speculation over who would get the key post.
The new Labour leader has opted not to go for early favourite Ed Balls, thus avoiding any accusations that he is taking the Party to the left by having someone who has spoken up very strongly in favour of delaying spending cuts and was a prominent supporter of Gordon Brown in the last Labour Government.
This is a wise choice and shows once again that he is prepared to make bold decisions. He certainly cannot be accused of taking Labour back to the left. And Alan Johnson has a reputation for being a loyalist. He will be invaluable in taking the party's message out to the voters and persuading them to come back to Labour at the next election.
Yvette Cooper, who was also considered a strong contender for Shadow Chancellor, is now Shadow Foreign Secretary. She will no doubt be very competent in this role, but I am not sure whether it was a wise choice to give her the Women and Equalities brief as well. Foreign Affairs is a huge department, which needs someone's full attention and I think maybe the responsiblity for Women and Equalities should have been given to someone with a less demanding role - Caroline Flint, perhaps.
Shaun Woodward stays in the Shadow Cabinet as a wildcard, despite failing to make it into the top places in the MPs' ballot.
All in all, though, Labour now has a very strong and experienced team to take on the Coalition and take Labour back to power in 2015.
Ed Miliband To Pick His Shadow Cabinet
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11498402
So the party has spoken. The Shadow Cabinet has been elected. There are more David Milidand supporters than expected and some surprising omissions - Ben Bradshaw, Shaun Woodward, and Peter Hain to name but a few.
Fellow leadership contender Diane Abbott unsurprisingly, also failed to make it.
This is Ed Miliband's new generation, where the Party has gone for youth over experience.
The big question is who he will pick for the key post of Shadow Chancellor. I am hoping it is not Ed Balls. He represents a strong link to the past and the conflicts of the Blair-Brown era, having been a major ally of Gordon Brown.
Yvette Cooper is the most obvious choice. She combines youth and experience and has topped the Shadow Cabinet election poll.
Ed needs a team that represents a party remaining on the centre ground. That is how elections are won.
So the party has spoken. The Shadow Cabinet has been elected. There are more David Milidand supporters than expected and some surprising omissions - Ben Bradshaw, Shaun Woodward, and Peter Hain to name but a few.
Fellow leadership contender Diane Abbott unsurprisingly, also failed to make it.
This is Ed Miliband's new generation, where the Party has gone for youth over experience.
The big question is who he will pick for the key post of Shadow Chancellor. I am hoping it is not Ed Balls. He represents a strong link to the past and the conflicts of the Blair-Brown era, having been a major ally of Gordon Brown.
Yvette Cooper is the most obvious choice. She combines youth and experience and has topped the Shadow Cabinet election poll.
Ed needs a team that represents a party remaining on the centre ground. That is how elections are won.
Wednesday, 6 October 2010
PM's 'Call To Arms' Conference Speech The Calm Before The Storm
David Cameron today addressed the Conservative Party Conference for the first time as Prime Minister; the first occasion a Tory leader has done so as leader of this country for fourteen years.
His overriding message was, there are tough economic times ahead, but stick with us and we will get through it.
Really Mr Cameron?
Anyone from my generation who remembers 18 years of Conservative rule before 1997, can see history repeating itself.
The Prime Minister made much in his speech of the mess that Labour have left the country in after thirteen years of their misrule.
But those of us old enough have seen it all before, if not in the the thirties and fifties, but certainly the eighties: A long period of Labour in government, creating a huge budget deficit by spending money the country doesn't have. The Tories then come in and insist that the only way to clean up the country's finances is getting the budget deficit down very very quickly.
History has shown very clearly that reducing the deficit too fast by cutting public spending will actually take us back into recession, not further into recovery. That is exactly what happened in 1980-81 as a result of Thatcher's policy of reducing expenditure. I remember it like it was yesterday.
David Cameron is living in the clouds if he doesn't know that taking money out of the economy will only do a lot of damage.
The announcement by the Chancellor, of cuts to Child Benefit during the Tory Conference has not been received at all well by Party activists. They may have liked the Prime Minister's keynote speech, but many are very unhappy about the introduction of a policy that not only will hit many of them very hard but does not take combined household income into account.
I am reminded of how unpopular the Poll Tax was in the 1990s.
David Cameron knows, as do the rest of his party, that the Child Benefit changes are just a taste of things to come.
Everyone is holding their breath to see what will happen on October 20.
His overriding message was, there are tough economic times ahead, but stick with us and we will get through it.
Really Mr Cameron?
Anyone from my generation who remembers 18 years of Conservative rule before 1997, can see history repeating itself.
The Prime Minister made much in his speech of the mess that Labour have left the country in after thirteen years of their misrule.
But those of us old enough have seen it all before, if not in the the thirties and fifties, but certainly the eighties: A long period of Labour in government, creating a huge budget deficit by spending money the country doesn't have. The Tories then come in and insist that the only way to clean up the country's finances is getting the budget deficit down very very quickly.
History has shown very clearly that reducing the deficit too fast by cutting public spending will actually take us back into recession, not further into recovery. That is exactly what happened in 1980-81 as a result of Thatcher's policy of reducing expenditure. I remember it like it was yesterday.
David Cameron is living in the clouds if he doesn't know that taking money out of the economy will only do a lot of damage.
The announcement by the Chancellor, of cuts to Child Benefit during the Tory Conference has not been received at all well by Party activists. They may have liked the Prime Minister's keynote speech, but many are very unhappy about the introduction of a policy that not only will hit many of them very hard but does not take combined household income into account.
I am reminded of how unpopular the Poll Tax was in the 1990s.
David Cameron knows, as do the rest of his party, that the Child Benefit changes are just a taste of things to come.
Everyone is holding their breath to see what will happen on October 20.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Why The Coalition's Benefit Cut Plans Are Unfair
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300
The Chancellor, George Osborne has announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to families where one parent is earning £44,000 or more.
This is an inherently unfair change, because if both parents' combined earnings are more than this, they will not be affected.
My view is that universal benefits should not be touched at all, but if the Coalition was going to reduce Child Benefit, then they should have made the threshold much higher and applied the cut in payments only to those parents earning more than £60000.
This measure will hit middle-income families very hard and will cost the Conservatives a lot of support. And it will not please many Liberal Democrats, who passed a motion at their Conference arguing against any cuts to Child Benefit.
With more cuts on the way, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Chancellor, George Osborne has announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to families where one parent is earning £44,000 or more.
This is an inherently unfair change, because if both parents' combined earnings are more than this, they will not be affected.
My view is that universal benefits should not be touched at all, but if the Coalition was going to reduce Child Benefit, then they should have made the threshold much higher and applied the cut in payments only to those parents earning more than £60000.
This measure will hit middle-income families very hard and will cost the Conservatives a lot of support. And it will not please many Liberal Democrats, who passed a motion at their Conference arguing against any cuts to Child Benefit.
With more cuts on the way, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Why Baroness Warsi Is Wrong About Labour's Policies Towards Ethnic Minorities
http://www.labourlist.org/tulip-siddiq-the-pessimism-of-baroness-warsi
Prime Minister David Cameron today tried to inject some positive spin on the effect the imminent cuts in public spending will have on the worse off in our country.
Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, he tried to allay people's fears by saying that the cuts won't be as bad as the public think.
Compare this tone with that of the speech from Sayeeda Warsi, the Party Chairman who struck completely the opposite note.
Her speech attacking Labour's record in helping ethnic minorities showed that the PM is saying one thing and members of his cabinet are saying another.
I respect Baroness Warsi.
She is one of the few politicians who is not afraid to say exactly what she thinks.
However, in her opening speech to this year's Conservative Party conference - the Party's first in government for 14 years - Baroness Warsi accuses Labour, whilst in power, of not looking after ethnic minorities in general and the Asian community in particular.
By saying this, the Conservative Party Chairman is actually being very divisive. Such negative comments will only serve to make the Asian community feel even more alienated from the rest of the British population than some do already.
Baroness Warsi is now in government. The negative rhetoric that may be acceptable whilst in opposition, will no longer sit easily with people looking to her to take the lead.
I would like to see some positive suggestions from the Conservative Party on how to further bridge differences between people of various backgrounds.
After all, isn’t this Coalition supposed to be working in the national interest?
Prime Minister David Cameron today tried to inject some positive spin on the effect the imminent cuts in public spending will have on the worse off in our country.
Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show, he tried to allay people's fears by saying that the cuts won't be as bad as the public think.
Compare this tone with that of the speech from Sayeeda Warsi, the Party Chairman who struck completely the opposite note.
Her speech attacking Labour's record in helping ethnic minorities showed that the PM is saying one thing and members of his cabinet are saying another.
I respect Baroness Warsi.
She is one of the few politicians who is not afraid to say exactly what she thinks.
However, in her opening speech to this year's Conservative Party conference - the Party's first in government for 14 years - Baroness Warsi accuses Labour, whilst in power, of not looking after ethnic minorities in general and the Asian community in particular.
By saying this, the Conservative Party Chairman is actually being very divisive. Such negative comments will only serve to make the Asian community feel even more alienated from the rest of the British population than some do already.
Baroness Warsi is now in government. The negative rhetoric that may be acceptable whilst in opposition, will no longer sit easily with people looking to her to take the lead.
I would like to see some positive suggestions from the Conservative Party on how to further bridge differences between people of various backgrounds.
After all, isn’t this Coalition supposed to be working in the national interest?
So It's Ed....What Now For Labour In The Quest To Regain Power?
Ed Miliband is now the Leader of the Labour Party.
His narrow victory over brother David has surprised many people. I did think some time ago that he might edge it, but was convinced as the results were about to be announced that David had won.
David has done the right thing in not standing for the shadow cabinet. Had he stayed there, the press and media would have scrutinised his every move and word. Labour would have not been able to get on with the business of opposing this coalition and ensuring that Labour is returned to power in 2015.
However, it is not lost on me that perhaps it might have been better for David to leave Parliament altogether.
His spat with Harriet Harman following Ed's comments during his speech condemning Blair's invasion of Iraq was clear for all to see. Moreover, The headlines of 'back-seat driver' and 'David Carps From the Sidelines' could still appear in future, knowing just how keen the Tory press are turn politics into a soap-opera.
You could be forgiven for thinking that there were just two candidates in the recent Labour Leadership contest, rather than five.
Nevertheless, Ed's main speech to the Labour Conference was very impressive. He did very well in countering the charge by the Tories and their friends in the Daily Mail that he was wholly the choice of the Trade Unions.
Such hysterial headlines calling him 'Red Ed' because he received more votes from individual Trade Union members than his brother did totally ignore the fact that only a very small percentage of them actually voted. I was impressed with his plea to the media to engage in a more mature discussion about the issues that really matter to people.
Whilst the speech was by comparison with previous leaders' addresses, quite long, lasting an hour, I thought it was important that Ed introduced himself to the voters, having only had a very junior cabinet post in the previous Labour Government.
So what now for Labour?
The overwhelming feeling from attending their Party Conference in Manchester is, that, yes, it is disappointing to be back in Opposition after 13 years of power. However, as Harriet Harman said in her address to Delagates, Labour is 'fortified' and united in the belief that the focus should be on fighting the spending cuts of the coalition and not turning on each other. Those members who can remember 18 long years of opposition before Blair's stunning victory in 1997, will not want Labour to stay out of power for too long.
Labour needs to focus on the fact that, despite all the work David Cameron did to change the Tory Party since becoming their leader, he was unable to win a majority for them.
That says a lot.
Ed Miiband has the youth, energy and charisma to inspire people. I have seen him on the hustings during the leadership campaign and he has the ability to win back the millions of voters Labour has lost since 1997.
Labour have elected someone who, I believe, has the nous to wrong-foot Cameron at PMQs.
And as for the Liberal Democrats, they may be enjoying a taste of power for the first time in nearly seventy years, but they know they are the junior partners in this coalition. Nick Clegg and his lackies have abandoned just about every principle they held just to be in government.
Their supporters did not vote for this and the Party will be punished for it. My guess is the Liberal Democrats are now finished for a generation. Those voters who backed Nick Clegg's opposition to immediate cuts in public spending during the election campaign will undoubtedly come over to Labour, who is now the only main party on the side of the poorest in our society, as they are the ones who will be hit hardest by these cuts.
As long as Labour remains united and keeps their nerve, they should only have to endure a short spell in opposition. Come October 20 and the announcements of where the spending axe will fall, this ConDem Coalition will have an impossible task in recovering their popularity in time to prevent Labour from returning to power in 2015.
His narrow victory over brother David has surprised many people. I did think some time ago that he might edge it, but was convinced as the results were about to be announced that David had won.
David has done the right thing in not standing for the shadow cabinet. Had he stayed there, the press and media would have scrutinised his every move and word. Labour would have not been able to get on with the business of opposing this coalition and ensuring that Labour is returned to power in 2015.
However, it is not lost on me that perhaps it might have been better for David to leave Parliament altogether.
His spat with Harriet Harman following Ed's comments during his speech condemning Blair's invasion of Iraq was clear for all to see. Moreover, The headlines of 'back-seat driver' and 'David Carps From the Sidelines' could still appear in future, knowing just how keen the Tory press are turn politics into a soap-opera.
You could be forgiven for thinking that there were just two candidates in the recent Labour Leadership contest, rather than five.
Nevertheless, Ed's main speech to the Labour Conference was very impressive. He did very well in countering the charge by the Tories and their friends in the Daily Mail that he was wholly the choice of the Trade Unions.
Such hysterial headlines calling him 'Red Ed' because he received more votes from individual Trade Union members than his brother did totally ignore the fact that only a very small percentage of them actually voted. I was impressed with his plea to the media to engage in a more mature discussion about the issues that really matter to people.
Whilst the speech was by comparison with previous leaders' addresses, quite long, lasting an hour, I thought it was important that Ed introduced himself to the voters, having only had a very junior cabinet post in the previous Labour Government.
So what now for Labour?
The overwhelming feeling from attending their Party Conference in Manchester is, that, yes, it is disappointing to be back in Opposition after 13 years of power. However, as Harriet Harman said in her address to Delagates, Labour is 'fortified' and united in the belief that the focus should be on fighting the spending cuts of the coalition and not turning on each other. Those members who can remember 18 long years of opposition before Blair's stunning victory in 1997, will not want Labour to stay out of power for too long.
Labour needs to focus on the fact that, despite all the work David Cameron did to change the Tory Party since becoming their leader, he was unable to win a majority for them.
That says a lot.
Ed Miiband has the youth, energy and charisma to inspire people. I have seen him on the hustings during the leadership campaign and he has the ability to win back the millions of voters Labour has lost since 1997.
Labour have elected someone who, I believe, has the nous to wrong-foot Cameron at PMQs.
And as for the Liberal Democrats, they may be enjoying a taste of power for the first time in nearly seventy years, but they know they are the junior partners in this coalition. Nick Clegg and his lackies have abandoned just about every principle they held just to be in government.
Their supporters did not vote for this and the Party will be punished for it. My guess is the Liberal Democrats are now finished for a generation. Those voters who backed Nick Clegg's opposition to immediate cuts in public spending during the election campaign will undoubtedly come over to Labour, who is now the only main party on the side of the poorest in our society, as they are the ones who will be hit hardest by these cuts.
As long as Labour remains united and keeps their nerve, they should only have to endure a short spell in opposition. Come October 20 and the announcements of where the spending axe will fall, this ConDem Coalition will have an impossible task in recovering their popularity in time to prevent Labour from returning to power in 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)