Letter to the "Workers Party" on the theft of Workers Tax Credits

Picture is from this mornings programme on the BBC "Andrew Marr" Show where I saw a confident Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, pretty much destroy Tory Education Minister, Nicky Morgan, rather desperate attempts to justify the Government's proposals to rob £1000's from hardworking British "Strivers".

He knew that Nicky was genuinely embarrassed at the prospect of hundreds of thousands of low paid school staff - teaching assistants, admin, cooks and cleaners having a huge cut in their income at a time that the Tories are giving massive tax breaks to millionaires.

This is the letter that John has sent to Gideon:- 

"Dear George,

It has only been three months since the Summer Budget when you chose to break the promise that David Cameron made to the British people during the election – that the Tories would not touch tax credits.

We now know that you plan to cut £1,300 from over 3 million families who are in work and doing all they can to pay the bills and get to the end of each month.

Last week you said that you were “comfortable” with this decision, and David Cameron said he was “delighted”, but the British people will not be happy that you are breaking the promise David Cameron gave to them during the election campaign and that working families are having their tax credits cut to pay for tax giveaways to a few wealthy individuals.

Now, you, me and everyone else in Westminster knows that you will have to u-turn on this issue. However, you need to do it in full. It can’t be a fudge. Not some partial reversal that scores cheap headlines, yet leaves people still worse off or lands another burden on middle and low earners or the poorest in our society. You need to drop this policy completely.

I know first-hand that for politicians the fallout from changing policy can be tough. But sometimes you have to be big enough to admit you got it wrong and do the right thing.

So I am appealing to you to put the interests of these 3 million families ahead of any concerns you may have about losing face and ahead of petty party politics. If you do, I promise you personally and publicly that if you u-turn and reverse this decision fairly and in full, I will not attack you for it.

To restore faith in our political system it’s time that politicians stopped making promises at elections that they won’t keep when in power – this is the lesson the Lib Dems learnt the hard way on tuition fees.

For the sake of those 3 million families, and the British people’s trust in politics, please see sense and fully u-turn on your cuts to tax credits.

I look forward to hearing from you.  

Yours sincerely,

John"

 hat tip Kitty Jones

Labour v Tories 2015: It's ideological

Last week I watched Ed Balls give a typically combative speech at the RSA about Tory spending and taxation plans if they won the next election.

On Sunday morning I again saw Ed interviewed on the BBC Andrew Marr programme who then went on to interview Tory Chancellor, George Osborne.

Ed's message on both occasions was not just an anti-Tory rant. I thought that he made an convincing case that in this election there was a clear economic ideological battle going on between Labour and the Conservatives.

Labour are planning to eliminate the deficit by making cuts but also by increasing wages and making sure that the rich pay their fair share in taxes.

The Tories are not only planning to make massive cuts to public spending to clear the deficit, they have announced plans to go even further and reduce government spending to the same share of national wealth as in the 1930s (35% of GDP). When interviewed by Andrew Marr, Osborne did not deny these plans. The Tories are cutting not because they need to but because they want to.

This is an resumption of an age old fundamental ideological battle between the left and the right in British Politics. Ed argues persuasively that the only way that a future Tory Government would be able to reduce public spending to the level of the 1930s, is not only to further slash and burn public services but they will have to something even more damaging, such as introducing charges for the NHS. No other country only spends 35% of GDP on public services without charging for health services.

On this point Labour financial plans are more credible than the Tories. There is clear red water between Labour and the Tories. A battle of ideas between those of us who believe in fairness and equality and that the role of the state is to enable such change and those who think the state has little or no such role and that such things are better left to the "market".

So the choice is clear. People must decide what sort of society they want to live in and they must vote or note vote accordingly and then live with the consequences.

Prudence says No

So it’s off. My home Virgin media broadband connection crashed yesterday afternoon, then while trying desperately to work out whether or not it was my PC or Virgin at fault (it was of course Virgin), I got a text from a normally “very reliable source” saying “there will be no general election”. I switched on BBC 24 and it was confirmed that Gordon had told Andrew Marr that there will be no immediate election.

I had simultaneously a profound sense of relief and disappointment.

I think that since the Labour Party is in Government and can constitutionally remain in power until at least 2010, then the prospect that we volunteered to go door knocking and delivering leaflets before we had to, during cold dark damp winter evenings, was somewhat discouraging. Especially since opinion polls can be wrong and the predicted margin of victory was pretty narrow (or indeed off beam if today’s polls about the Tories being ahead in marginals are correct).

On the otherhand, any election is energising to any real activist. I admit that I have political scores to settle (mention no names). The opinion polls may have been a little flaky but it is almost unprecedented for a fourth term British government to be ahead in polls. I don’t know for certain but I imagine that Gordon would have instinctively wanted to hold an election as soon as he became PM to establish his authority. The awkward squad on our own side will no doubt make problems over policies they want to grandstand over in the near future.

There again, they would probably do this anyway if they were re-elected on a Brown manifesto.

Anyway, Prudence has spoken. Remember this instinctive caution and intellectual analysis is one of the reasons why this son of the manse was re-elected unopposed. Yes, Gordon probably wanted to hold a snap election soon after he took over to give him a clearer mandate; yes, there appeared to be an opportunity too good to dismiss after Tory disarray during the summer and deft handling by Gordon of critical events.

Yes, I did think that he was going to hold an election and it is clear that he was seriously considering it. However, upon reflection he decided against it.

Is there anything really wrong with that? Isn’t this something we should encourage politicians of all Parties to do a little more thinking and being susceptible to arguments before making a final decision? It’s a good thing in my book.

Remember with Gordon, WYSIWYG and if Gordon decided after shifting through all the evidence, this was not the best time to hold an election then we can expect nothing less than for him to say "No".