MPs back Care Home cuts

Well it is not as if this blog has not given enough time for our local MPs to make it clear where they stand on the privitisation of Nelson Court, Platters Farm or Robert Bean and the closure of the Balfour Centre.

Our MPs have failed to make any public statement that I can find online about whether they back the cuts to Care Homes or not.

Now it has been revealed of sorts. Mark Reckless, Tracey Crouch and Rehman Chisthi back the closure and privitisation of these homes not because they are right, but because they are being led by Conservatives.

It is clear that the Conservative Council has pre-budgeted the closures and privatisation and it is also clear they have not, or at least publicly, considered the not-for-profit limited company or partnership model which is followed elsewhere in the country. Lastly, it is disengenuous to claim closures on the back of statistics which they themselves have manipulated on thresholds which have been changed to reduce numbers.

I can therefore cut and paste the comment from the Nelson Court Facebook page from Maureen Ruparel who has been organising the anti-closure campaign after I put in a request to find out the MPs position on the closure.

Tracey Crouch MP definately backs the closures

Some people cant understand why I have been quite so tenacious (or rude) in pushing for a response. A recent debate with local blogger Chris Sams, explained the logic of why I made a request, a quite assertive one, that they make a public statement on their position.

Members' of Parliament are in the end there to represent the people they serve and are beholden to them to make representations to government agencies, including the Council.

I requested that they make clear in public, to stop any confusion and allow their constituents to see a clear position, how they would react and respond to the consultation by the Conservatives on the Council to cut care services for the most vulnerable.

It is totally reasonable request to make; most MPs would have said that they were backing or not backing it and a link to a reason why. Given the media and press coverage, and ongoing debate and consultation, you would think that not only would a public position be sensible, but actually there would be an expectation of MPs to respond

I got a swift slap down for my enquiries.

The public really do deserve a better.

It is particularly eye-brow raising because meanwhile some of our MPs have rightly supported a cross-party Parliamentary Group to discuss care in the future; and yet in the same breath Tory Councillors ignore local Labour Party suggestions for a limited partnership under local authority control. Listening but only when told. Saying one thing and doing another.

Public and the residents deserve to know where our representatives stand so make it clear when requested.

Civil Aviation Authority backs airport

Tory Boris endorsing the destruction of the Peninsula

Another week and another public body comes out to endorse the proposal for an airport in the Thames Estuary

It seems the endless march to the inevitable paper in April is all but certain to include plans for airports on the Peninsula, an island close to the Peninsula and at Southend.

Full Council on Thursday will consider a badly written and rushed paper on the airport which shows that Cllr Rodney Chambers has been forced into a LEP (Local Enterprize Partnership) Group which does not actually discount an Estuary airport. Indeed, he is sitting alongside Paul Carter who actually wants an airport in the Estuary.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) - that government sponsered quango with responsibility for airways - today advised Government that without a credible, long-term Aviation Policy Framework that focuses and allows capacity to develop sustainably, it is likely that prices will rise, route choice will drop and the UK economy will suffer.

Andrew Haines, CAA Chief Executive

“Additional capacity would offer significant benefits for consumers, and for the UK as a whole, so long as it is delivered in an environmentally sustainable way. However, as we haven’t built a single runway in the south east of England capable of handling Boeing 747s and Airbus A380s for over 70 years, the difficulty of increasing capacity is obvious. This underlines the importance of an integrated policy framework that addresses environmental and planning dimensions as well as consumer need.

“However, in the South East, although a number of measures will help improve use of existing facilities and increase flexibility and resilience; these are essentially short-term fixes and are not enough to maintain the UK’s direct access to global markets alone without additional runway capacity. As such, developing appropriate additional capacity would deliver significant benefits to consumers and wider benefits to the UK economy."

Nothing was mentioned about the flight path issue which a number of Conservative Councillors for some reason think is important. All flight paths could br managed; oh well one argument demolished almost instantly.

Of course play back 12 months ago and all three Conservative MPs were stating it would never come to a government paper; the failure for them to grasp the nettle is now obvious for most to see. The low-key and shocking Medway Conservative campaign 'pie-in-the-sky' was a joke and deliberately kept as such to get Tories elected.

The biggest people to be let down are those on the Peninsula who were cuddled by Ashcroft and the Conservatives over the plans for Grain, [which were nowhere near as developed], but which opportunistic Tories spun into a position for electoral gain. We all remember the posters designed to look like independent ones and the sheer volume of fibs about Bob Marshall-Andrews to curry a few votes...

Well its payback - from all those voters whose house prices are falling, who are insecure about the future and who have totally lost trust in their Conservative representatives. The more Tories ignore this issue the tighter the screws will turn...

This blogger has spoken to independent parish councillors, chairman and residents and the simple fact is they have lost faith in Mark Reckless to have any influence over the airport process - many think his head is with the European issue and not focused on domestic problems.

Any MP with any thought would be running to endorse the airport in Birmingham now that HS2 has been accepted. Birmingham wants a new mega-airport and the rail network gives them an opportunity.

Tracey has run away from it and Rehman barely mentions it. CCHQ look like they have given them media advice, but unfortunately the about turn is visible for everyone to see; waxing lyrical about the airport in August and September to be silent in December. Come off it; get a grip

The House of Commons meets on Thursday to discuss Transport Questions; will any of our MPs seek assurances that the airport will not be in the paper in April?

I will put a bottom dollar that they wont, and even if they do, will get a flagrantly unsubstantive response which they wont challenge.

Over the next couple of days and weeks Medway Conservative MPs will be challenged. They can stop this charade of ignoring local issue after local issue and back Labour on a consistent position on the airport.

We will see whether they back the people or whether they shirk their responsibilities

Labour stand up for vulnerable

Guest article by Cllr Teresa Murray; Spokesperson for Health.

Teresa is responding the article in the Guardian yesterday about the leadership of Ed Miliband:

Saturday's interview with Ed Miliband portrayed him as the personable, determined leader we in the Labour Pary know him to be who won't be distracted by less confident Party technocrats who are losing their nerve.

We have to play a long game and as Polly Toynbee rightly says, there's no shortage of battles to fight while this old style Tory government do what they know best,attack the vulnerable.

Here in Medway we are fighting to save the only day centres left for elderly and disabled people.

The local Tory council are doing what Eric Pickles wants them to do, shutting down as many public services as possible before the next election in the hope that by then, voters will have forgotten what they did and be grateful for the inevitable tax cut in the pre election budget.

We have seen this before but it doesn't stop it hurting. Our centres, now under threat of closure or privatisation give therapy,hope and respite to those who have no other means of socialisation and no possibility of finding such facilities or friendship groups elsewhere.

These groups also face losing up to £70 per week in Benefits making it even harder for them to fund their limited activities if the centres close.

This is the real fight and the Labour Party is up for it.

Cllr Teresa Murray

Rochester East Ward

Transport Price Hikes hit

Article from YourMedway on Tory transport failure on bus and rail. More to come from other publications am sure.

Euroland could be worse

Another Tory flipflop on Europe as they reneged within 2 years. Not as if we have seen opportunism from them over Europe before have we...

Particularly interested to read the latest blog piece 'Euroland is not working' from John Redwood; the arch Euroloon and as many will remember from the 1990s the 'bastard' behind the Tory leadership election in 1995.

It is particularly interesting and worrying to note now that John Redwood's position in the Conservative Party is now accepted as mainstream; such is the drift towards the right in the current crop of Conservative MPs.

Of course the argument positioned by John is utterly one-sided and I would suggest dangerous for UK jobs and our future economic interests. They must be ignored by the government; I hope they will, but these days you can never be sure...

Firstly he uses the argument that because unemployment is high the Eurozone it must be failing; whilst on the face of it this is compelling argument it totally ignores the fact that the crisis in unemployment is global. John knows as well as everyone else that unemployment is also very high in non-Euro countries in the EU - Latvia (16.2%), Lithuania (with flat tax - 15%). Bulgaria (12.1%), Poland (9.9%), Hungary (9.785) and UK (8.3%). These unemployment rates are broadly comparable, whether in the Euro or not, and are more related to the relative designs and strengths of domestic tax and spend policies then currency.

Secondly he argues that the weakness of the management of the Euro has caused the problem but then argues against further controls by rejecting the treaty. He is correct; the lack of central control over those in the currency from the centre allowed nation states to engage in debt-binges over the last 10 years. The Euro creators saw this early on which is why they tried to limit the budget deficits of the nation states involved, but it was (and this is crucial) watered down by the individual governments of the Eurozone at the time. The cause of the problem is not the Euro itself but the fact that individual nations tried to get out of the rules. Germany is therefore absolutely right to require sovereign capital monitoring and tighter fiscal control not because they want to 'take over' other countries but because it will keep stability across all the states using the Euro. Stability incidentally which will help all those in Europe whether in the currency or not, including the United Kingdom, in growing our economy because stability means growth, and growth means exports.

Cameron I believe was wrong to veto the treaty and that is why; the guff over the City of London was never on the table... and that is also why he will go back to the table to help push through a fiscal compact.

Thirdly, John targets the loss in equity value on banking stocks. There is always a risk of jumping on such fluctuations in stock valuations and some would say just a tad opportunistic. The decline in bank stock is related to cross-border loan exposures to in-debted economies and the capital implications on the bank balance sheets. Currency valuation is important but French banks investing in Greece would be just as exposed to loan implications were it in the Euro or not; however and I would juxtapose that the fact these countries remain in the Euro does give some form of underlying guarantee that payment will be received; albeit one that currently has little confidence.

It would be far worse believe me if these countries were kicked out of the Euro not only on its short term impacts but the markets would have zero confidence in these countries in extracting themselves from the problem (remember they have distorted the truth on economic performance / tax / spend for years). There would be a flight on capital like we have not seen and this would impact UK banks as well; we have huge exposure to Italian debt. Returning to the dracma or lira would have undermined Bank capital balance sheets across Europe even more...

John then talks about bond yields which he fails to mention are decreasing. Gilts are high and that happens when any national government is overly exposed; irrespective of its currency. The fact is gilt yields are not solely related to currency and is actually related to government balancing its books; exactly the treaty solution which John opposes and Cameron veteod. Incidentally if a country were to de-value its currency the gilt repayments would skyrocket... creating an even larger risk to surrounding states and those banks John is talking about.

The last mistake John makes is on currency valuation. Now there is a truth to the fact that had Greece been allowed to leave the Euro that it could have revalued its currency so making exports more attractive - and therefore magically improving jobs. This assumes though that other countries are fiscally stable and that there is a demand elsewhere in the global economy; neither is true currently. I would suggest it would be worse for the countries kicked out because unemployment would still go up, gilts would go up and this would spread instability. it is also likely the Eurozone would have introduce tariffs on imports to prevent wholesale destruction of nationalised industries in Euro-land economies; leading to fiscal nationalism and the undermining of the common market itself.

And that is what these Tories want.

The break up the Euro would lead to major instability in the European Union. The end result in my mind a round of fiscal nationalism and tariff impositions across Europe as nation states compete to be the best value; not only would this have been self-destructive but also immensely damaging to employment prospects in the UK, which has a relatively high wage bill and which could never compete on a 'race to the bottom.' Fiscal nationalism of course leads to jingoism and the election of extremist governments and so the political implications mentioned by Merkel are entirely accurate.

Incidentally the fact that Greece, Spain, Ireland and Italy can remain in the Euro does confer stability. The markets know that the Eurozone nations are acting, albeit and I agree, not quickly enough. They also know that politics in these countries is subservient to the wider economic interest; the imposition of Mario Monti in Italy may be anti-democratic but no one is suggesting it has not been a necessary solution.

The Euroloon Tories state that imposing policy on government is anti-democratic but ignore the fact that IMF has been doing this for years by the backdoor. In an interconnected world to be utterly niave to this fact is playing games for populist appeal. Of course the ideal solution would be the election of a government that has a mandate (e.g. Spain) but this is not always the case in countries with a very pluralistic system of political engagement; sometimes difficult choices need to be imposed and I believe the President of Italy acted correctly in selecting Mario Monti.

And for those who dont think there is precedent in the UK; you'd be wrong. The formation of a national government of all parties happened in the 1930s where the King led the creation of a joint Labour and Conservative government. I refer primarily to the government of Ramsay MacDonald.

It is all very easy for the Euroloons to moan from the sidelines but the basic premise of fiscal union and currency union is sensible. Free trade, no tariffs and open movement of Labour increases wealth in all countries and reduces conflict; it is the basic premise of capitalism. For it to work properly we all need to balance the books and for the hypocrites to claim this at home whilst opposing measures for it abroad are playing a dangerous game with our jobs for a principle.

The Euroloons are posturing to the national-flag to gain grubby votes out of people's natural response in a crisis which is to protect one's own. Pandering to prejeudice whilst ignoring the end result of their political argument which is essentially nihilistic and regressive.

The destruction of the Euro would be immensely damaging to our economy and for anyone to claim otherwise is living in laa-laa land.

Compare and Contrast CVs

The Iron Lady

Background before becoming MP

Margaret Thatcher was born Margaret Roberts in Grantham, Lincolnshire, on 13 October 1925.

She spent her childhood in Grantham, where her father owned two grocery shops.[4] She and her older sister Muriel were raised in the flat above the larger of the two, located near the railway line. Margaret was middle class and came from humble roots

Her father was active in local politics and the Christian church, serving as an alderman and a Methodist local preacher, and brought up his daughter as a strict Methodist. Unlike Cameron who is not particularly religious. Margaret had religious convictions.

He came from a Liberal family but stood—as was then customary in local government—as an Independent. He was Mayor of Grantham in 1945–46 and lost his position as alderman in 1952 after the Labour Party won its first majority on Grantham Council in 1950. Family was not traditionally Conservative.

Roberts attended Huntingtower Road Primary School and won a scholarship to Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School. State school educated.

She arrived at Oxford in 1943 and graduated in 1947 with Second Class Honours in the four-year Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree; in her final year she specialised in X-ray crystallography under the supervision of Dorothy Hodgkin. Degree was not PPE; she was not a careerist by choice from the age of 16.

After graduating, Roberts moved to Colchester in Essex to work as a research chemist for BX Plastics. Had a professional career before politics.

Stood in a non-winnable seat of Dartford; Officials of the association were so impressed by her that they asked her to apply, even though she was not on the Conservative party's approved list: she was selected in January 1951 and added to the approved list post ante. Not given a safe seat because of connections in CCHQ

Her selection was not assured and she had to work hard against the establishment to win a seat in Finchley. She was not part of the 'old-boys' network and instituted major change.

Etonian Cameron

Background before becoming MP

David Cameron is the younger son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron and his wife Mary Fleur daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. His father was born at Blairmore House, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire. His paternal grandmother, Enid Agnes Maud Levita, Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV by his mistress Dorothea Jordan. This illegitimate line consists of five generations of women starting with Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll née FitzClarence, William and Jordan's sixth child, through to Cameron's grandmother (thereby making Cameron a 5th cousin of Queen Elizabeth II). Aristocratic 'high society Tory upbringing' and related to Queen

Cameron's paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon, in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron's ancestors, including David's grandfather and great-grandfather. Family wealth made through banking dynastic 'connection' with historic banks

Cameron was educated at two independent schools: at Heatherdown Preparatory School at Winkfield, in Berkshire, which counts Prince Andrew and Prince Edward among its alumni. At the age of thirteen, he went to Eton College in Berkshire, following his father and elder brother. Eton is often described as the most famous independent school in the world and "the chief nurse of England's statesmen". Educated at top Private Primary and Secondary Schools

He obtained three 'A' grades and a '1' grade in the Scholarship Level exam in Economics and Politics. Went to study politics from early age

After leaving Eton in 1984, he worked as a researcher for Tim Rathbone, Conservative MP for Lewes and his godfather. In his three months he attended debates in the House of Commons. Benefited from Nepotism and family connection to get experience

Cameron was a member of the elite student dining society the Bullingdon Club, which has a reputation for an outlandish drinking culture associated with boisterous behaviour and damaging property. Member of elitist drinking society (and anyone who has been to University will know this sort)

He bagan his career with a call from the Palace which got him a job at CCHQ. He progressed to work on campaigns and was part of the 'brat-pack' which successfully worked to elect John Major in 1992. He then became SPAD to Home Office and Treasury Ministers. Gained first job through nepotism and call from Palace and progressed up greasy pole internally. Considered a 'careerist' root into politics

He used his political connections to get a top PR job at Carlton.

Having been approved for the Candidates' list, Cameron began looking for a seat. He was reported to have missed out on selection for Ashford in December 1994 after failing to get to the selection meeting as a result of train delays. Early in 1996, he was selected for Stafford, a new constituency created by boundary changes, which was projected to have a Conservative majority. Was given a winnable Tory seat which he only lost because of the huge swing against the Tories in 1997.

Labour Memo

MEMO [TO ALL]

To: The Public

From: The party of the centre / moderates

Re: 2012: Setting the Scene

The leak of the Labour Party strategy memo today was perhaps not as bad as first appeared and certainly has a number of interesting and important messages for Labour members which are similar to my own conclusions.

The memo, ironically written by the former Conservative Election Strategy supremo Shaun Woodward (who worked alongside Cameron in the 1992 Conservative Campaign team and who is despised by him) states that Labour is in a strong position when compared with other opposition parties after government, and that we are well positioned to improve our position and build on most accepted poll leads that we held on average last year.

He is absolutely right, as this blog has suggested, the Labour Party is united and occupies the moderate and centrist positions on a number of key policy issues and on this turf we must remain.

I absolutely agree that the Tories are now shifting to the right which represents a major strategic and electoral mistake for them.

The Euroloon fraternity locally, represented by Mark Reckless and Tracey Crouch are of course very pleased to see the party move back into the right wing comfort zone. The public however have the impression that the Tory detoxification exercise has all but collapsed - the nasty party is back.

The memo states

"Analysis of Tory party policy, carried out over the summer, convincingly demonstrates the Conservatives are shifting to a distinctly rightwing strategy, in both their chosen focus on issues and their solutions,"

"Cameron clearly recognises some of the danger he faces in his repositioning. He is still seeking to separate himself out from a toxic Tory brand and has assumed a presidential role and style. But the Tories have become far less worried about inhabiting the centre ground they once cultivated and more worried about any perception of appearing weak."

"They do not appear to be seeking long-term solutions to Britain's real challenges and problems"

There is now an opportunity for Labour to move back onto the centre ground but we need to do some heavy lifting on economic credibility and we need the public to notice we are doing it.

A number of heavy hitters making noises could be presented as a party split and at war with itself, or it could be used as a means to articulate a new narrative on the economy. An argument takes press attention and allows differentiation and markers to be set. The public tell focus groups Ed needs to up his game; a few surrogates take to the air to state the same (as the public); and within weeks a shift in leadership. I suspect we will see more.

The public perception is that the Tories are inhoc to big business (primarily investment banks, private equity and spivs) - they are the elite - the establishment and represent the vestige interests. They dont like Labour still but they also know that all is not working with Cameron.

The polls being so close reflects the fact that the electorate moved to the left between 1997-2010 and that the Tories are now trying to push them to the right a little bit too quickly, and in so doing damaging the Tory brand:

"But here is the paradox: whilst the Tories made changes before the election – intended to convince the public they were compassionate – since the election (and especially in the last few months) the Tories have taken major strides back towards their ideological roots. Buffeted by events, there is a growing incoherence between 'liberal conservatism' and the increasingly shrill language the Tories are using as they vacate the centre ground."

Cameron is and should be the only target for Labour and he does have an achilles heel.

Cameron is a light-weight who failed to win the general election with all the fair winds behind him, he is a fop, an elitest and he gets things wrong time and time again. He is not a 'grocers daughter' and did not achieve his position by meritocracy; he won it from a call from the Palace! He is a born Tory not a grafter and that image will never shift enough for a big majority; ever.

The media have been totally on side since his election yet the Tories barely bobble around the 38% mark. The trick for Labour is to bank the Liberal Democrat vote and outflank him in the centre which the Tory party is allowing with grins. Target Cameron as an out-of-touch elitest which even Tory voters think is true; focus on his CV, his financial backers, his education and background and keep on reminding people.

Labour do need a new narrative on the economy and accepting some deficit reduction and we need the public to be watching whilst we do it; mirroring Tory cuts in some areas will nullify any attack and allowing Labour to be presented as sensible on others we oppose

A move to a more fiscally neutral position on deficit reduction where we accept that cuts have to be made but that Labour would be fairer, nicer, better at delivering them would be a good position to be in 6 months time. Post-Olymics the economy may see recovery say we need to be positioned to take this forward.

Labour can also present the Tories as fiscally irresponsible on the Euro and Europe. Not now, but in six to twelve months time this blog predicts the Eurozone crisis will stabilise; rest assured we will point back at those that called for its implosion and ask the electorate whether that was sensible in the middle of a downturn.

Irresponsible partisan posturing which would have ruined our economic recovery at a key moment of recovery.

Miliband does need to improve his personal profile and leadership position; I suspect you will see much more of that over the next six months helped by 'managed debate'. Cameron was in a very similar position this far into his term as opposition leader and did exactly the same.

The Tories know that Ed is not damaged goods and that the public still have an open judgement on him. This is better than Hague and Howard and he is immeasurably stronger than IDS; if he can stiffen the sinews and stand up on issues in the centre they will respond positively to the Labour brand; contrast it with the elitest Tories who are trying to move the public too far too fast to the right and the vote share wont slip beneath 40%.

The Tory attacks on Ed show wobbles in the Tory Party and the recent poll fillip does not reflect a sustained gain. They are making an ideological mistake but Labour needs to be positioned to gain by understanding our weaknesses and targeting there's.