Policy
Gordon Brown’s standing ovation for barnstorming speech
May 3rd
Gordon Brown obviously believes in keeping the best till last. He’s just given a barnstorming speech to Citizens UK. He was greeted with massive applause as he entered and a standing ovation for the clear Labour policies he articulated.
UPDATE: Full video (via Political Scrapbook)
David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ just didn’t cut it. People who are really involved in community action and volunteering don’t want it.
What the Tories mean by ‘Big Society’ is abandoning the government’s responsibility to the most vulnerable in society, expecting community groups and charities to pick up the slack, because the Conservatives can’t be bothered and don’t think it’s important enough.
What Labour means by ‘Big Society’ is the government helping and facilitating community groups and charities to enable them and make it easier for them to achieve even more. It’s more than a subtle difference. The Tories are setting out to deliberately disadvantage the most vulnerable people in society who are the least able to take on the responsibilities of running their own schools, post offices and police. Meanwhile the privileged, who already have the most, will be able to grab even more as they ‘run’ their own services.
Tory NIC cuts – the truth for small businesses
Apr 9th
Small businesses employ almost 60% of the private sector workforce and without a doubt the Tories are right that Labour’s proposed increasing in NIC will hurt. I run a small business and they will hurt us. If you asked me if I wanted them to go ahead I’d say no I don’t as it’s going to cost us money that we don’t have. For us it’s not about preserving profit margins as we plough it all back into the business to grow and create more jobs. The NIC increase will make this harder.
But, and it’s a huge but, the Tory alternative is far, far worse. For Wolfstar to grow and prosper we need an improving and stable economy. We’re a business that sells services to other businesses. Our clients can only spend more money with us, if consumers spend more money with them. The Tory plans to hack and slash essential public services hurts consumers. That hurts our clients. That hurts us. That hurts the people that work for us.
That’s why Labour’s plans for NIC might not be good, but they are a lot better than the Tory alternative.
Tackle the binge drinkers, not the sensible majority
Jan 19th
There is a lot of pre-election hot air today around the subject of alcohol and licensing law reform. I’m broadly in favour of Alan Johnson’s proposals, but still don’t really think any party is getting this right.
I was an enthusiastic proponent of licensing law reform and 24 hour opening, even organising a conference ‘Time called on last orders’ to help successfully lobby in favour of the new legislation. I see it as one of Labour’s many achievements in government. So what went wrong? Well nothing much in my back.
The problem as I see it isn’t the pubs, clubs or supermarkets. It is the irresponsibility of a minority of people (not all of them young, so let’s not demonise the wrong people.) What Alan Johnson and the Home Office should be focusing on as far more draconian sanctions against the minority of people who are responsible for drunken behaviour on our streets. If they can afford to get drunk, they can afford to pay big fines.
I propose a zero tolerance approach to drunkenness and rowdiness on the streets. Two sanctions should be introduced 1) On the spot fines 2) Compulsory alcohol education programmes after the first offences (none of this three strikes and your out nonsense.)
The alcohol education programmes would be at zero cost to the taxpayer as attendees would foot the entire cost of the programme themselves. The set-up costs could be levied with a voluntary/compulsory charge on alcohol producers and vendors, but allowing them to recoup the costs from the attendees.
I’d also like to see some sort of reform to the licensing law to force most venues to introduce an at seat service. This would have numerous benefits including slowing down the speed at which people can drink, increasing the cost but also crucially doing so by increasing the number of people employed thus helping to tackle unemployment. Venues that don’t do this would have licenses refused or restricted.
Together these two proposals would go a good way to reclaim the streets for the vast majority who want to sensibly enjoy the night-time economy and achieve the European cafe culture that Britain needs.
The Tax Payers Alliance doesn’t represent me
Jan 5th
I don’t understand why the media given any credence whatsoever to the so called Tax Payers Alliance. The idea that it anyway represents ordinary tax payers like you and me is ridiculous. It represents a narrow sectarian interest of rich people who don’t have a patriotic bone in their bodies.
The vast majority of people in this country understand that you pay tax in order to fund essential public services such as the NHS, education and the defence of the nation. Every tax payer is a recipient of services that are paid for by tax. Britain is a democracy and we vote to elect a government that represents our interests. We don’t need an unelected, shadily funded, unaccountable pressure group pretending to defend our interests.
A real Tax Payers Alliance would represent ordinary tax payers who also benefit from the essential services the state provides. A real Tax Payers Alliance wouldn’t necessarily stand for “lower taxes” it would stand for fairer taxes.
John Prescott’s Go Fourth campaign deserves praise for exposing the TPA as a partisan pressure group rather than a legitimate think tank or support group. He did well with the Charity Commission investigation and the response from the BBC that acknowledges:
"I do accept that the TPA’s publications and policies come from a distinctive political position and think we should try to avoid our output giving the impression that it is an impartial body.
