LabourList

Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

LabourList — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:42:01 +0000

From: HERBERT, Nick

Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29
To: HERBERT, Nick
Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today

Dear Colleague

Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading.

You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples

I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the Bill will create significant new difficulties in the Lords. You may be aware of Stonewall’s concern that the Bill “is not an appropriate vehicle to progress such proposals” and “risks being delayed by proposed amendments which would widen the Bill beyond its clearly defined purpose”.

I therefore believe that the Government’s proposal for a review (Gov NC16 and Gov 51 – 54), and Labour’s manuscript amendment (a) to ensure that the review is immediate, are a sensible way forward.

I appreciate that many colleagues would like to express their support for equality and vote for civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, and that some have backed the amendment for principled reasons. However, a large number of MPs who oppose the Bill appear ready to support the amendment for different reasons, and this reinforces to my concern about its effect.

I would urge you, as a supporter of the Bill, to vote FOR an immediate review of civil partnerships (Gov NC16 and Gov 51-54 and Lab manuscript amendment (a)) and AGAINST the Loughton amendment (New Clauses 10 & 11). I appreciate that many of you might be inclined to abstain on the Loughton amendment, but please be aware that if the opponents of the Bill largely vote for the amendment, it will be necessary to secure a majority against it.

Thank you.

THE RT HON NICK HERBERT MP
MP for Arundel & South Downs

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Tel: 020 7219 4080
Fax: 020 7219 1295
www.nickherbert.co.uk

Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

LabourList — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:20:00 +0000

Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently.

It’s a total whitewash.

The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the “one rogue manager” defence. Now why does that sound familiar…?

The report also claims that there is “no evidence of a secret national regime of targets” – yet admit that it would be “technically possible” to produce such a league table with “a simple manipulation of excel”. It also appears to blame “junior managers” for the confusion, yet the same report notes that the staff member whose email triggered the investigation is a civil servant with 28 years experience.

Perhaps most spectacularly, the annex of the report features ten different examples where such behaviour is taking place and then argues that these are all unconnected and not about targets for sanctions…

The report also argues that although there are no league tables, that it would be acceptable to give “an idea of what might be expected in their local labour market and for their size of caseload as an aid in judging whether the law is being properly applied”

Would a target by any other name smell so sweet…?

Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

Mark Ferguson — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:02:36 +0000

So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own.

Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party.

I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or delay the Equal Marriage Bill. I think those who argue otherwise are neglecting that David Cameron is (much to his credit) willing to go to the wall over Equal Marriage, despite huge opposition from his own party. Indeed a spokesman for the PM said this morning that the government would push ahead with the Equal marriage Bill if the Loughton amendment passes.

Yet Labour evidently felt that the risk of Equal Marriage getting bogged down in a debate about Civil Partnerships was too great. I disagree – but Equal marriage is hugely important, so I can can respect the decision to take the route of least resistence to getting Equal Marriage passed.

What is a concern though is that Equal Civil Partnerships may now be referred to “full public consultation”. Anyone who has even taken part in such a consultation knows that this is often code for kicking an issue into the long grass. As I noted this morning, the argument that Equal Civil partnerships would have a cost to Exchequer proves that there is demand for such a change. It would be a real disappointment to millions of heterosexual couples who might wish to pursue Civil Partnerships if this now received the long grass treatment.

But this isn’t just about those couples – if we are to seek real equality then there should be no legal distinction between the choices for legal partnership available to same sex couples and opposite sex couples. The law should treat everyone equally in this regard.

As a bare minimum, Labour should make implementing Equal Civil Partnership a manifesto commitment for 2015, and although it should by no means be a priority, the party should also pledge to introduce legislation along such lines in the next parliament. If Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband won’t do that, then all the consultation will do is bury the issue.

Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

LabourList — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:48:40 +0000

Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today:

House of Commons
Monday 20 May 2013
CONSIDERATION OF BILL
New Amendments handed in are marked thus *
MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL
MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT
(a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause
(Review of civil partnership) (NC16):-
Kate Green
(a)(a
* Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a full public consultation’.

Update: Speaking to LabourList this afternoon, a senior party source told us that cameron “cannot be given any excuse to wreck this historic bill”. If Labour’s amendment passes, a full consultation on equal Civil Partnerships will begin “straight away”. There’s no word yet on how long such a consultation might last.

However Labour won’t be voting against the Loughton amendment. Ed Miliband and Yvette Cooper will be abstaining on that vote – and most Labour MPs are expected to follow them.

Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

Mark Ferguson — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:46:38 +0000

In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying:

” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t have an education system. And actually the point I will make at Google is that will undermine Google.”

This follows a statement last week from the Labour leader which also attacked Google, and a report from Ed Balls and Catherine McKinnell on tax avoidance.

Ed Miliband has a “long standing” commitment at the Google “Big tent” event on Wednesday when he’ll be speaking to the great and the good of the UK’s corporates and the tech industry. The question is – will he be as harsh on Google at their event as he has been in advance? Whilst some were concerned that Miliband was trying to get his views on Google out ahead of the event to avoid an on the day confrontation, it now seems that the Labour leader intends to take on the internet giant on their home patch…

That’s potentially a double edged sword though – because although tax avoidance of the like Google has been accused of is unpopular with the public, it has had little impact on Google’s massive global success.

Then again – the intention may be to draw attention to David Cameron – who, after all, is advised on business by none other than Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt.

Until Cameron spells out exactly what he wants to “renegotiate”, we’re all “Don’t Knows” on the Europe question

Kevin Doran — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:20 +0000

The rift in the Conservative Party over the European Union has blown wide open and now threatens to consume the party in all-out civil war.

Cameron’s set-piece speech on Europe where he announced that he would hold an In-Out Referendum by 2017 was supposed to put the matter to bed. It was a carefully thought-out calculation but instead of keeping euro-sceptics off his back, it has only fuelled the flames of dissent.

Eur0-sceptic rebels in his parliamentary party have forced Cameron to draft a private members’ bill to pave the way for a referendum. Clearly, his promises are not worth much to his own party.

In a sorry abdication of leadership, Mr Cameron is now conceding to rebel demands. Cameron’s big Europe speech is now a distant memory. His EU strategy is in tatters. It’s all a bit of a euro-shambles.

Over a hundred Tory backbenchers had voted in favour of an amendment attacking their own Government’s Queen’s speech because it wasn’t euro-sceptic enough. If in the last Labour administration, a hundred or so Labour MPs had rebelled against the Government’s legislative programme, the media would have said it was a leadership crisis.

The question of whether we leave the European Union is a serious one. Once we are out, there is no going back. And yet, Mr Cameron, spooked by UKIP’s relative success in the local elections, is treating it in a very cavalier way. He seems more concerned about internal party politics than the national interest.

Opinion polls in the UK show that there is a large amount of Don’t-Knows over the question of whether we should withdraw. This comes as no surprise to me. The information people receive about the EU is heavily biased against the EU. I don’t buy into the idea that once we have a Referendum, the smoke will clear and the public will be presented with clear facts on which they can base their judgement. If anything, the misinformation will get worse.

Cameron talks about “re-negotiating” terms with the EU before putting it to a Referendum. The only alternative to David Cameron’s re-negotiated Europe is complete withdrawal. So, not much of a choice – especially when he can’t tell us what policies he will want to repatriate.

I think it’s fair to say that EU workplace rights will be at the top of his hit-list. But we don’t know what else. How then can even pro-Europeans like me make a judgement about whether the UK should stay in or not? I’m not sure I would want to be in the EU at any price. Mr Cameron needs to urgently spell out what it is he wants. Until then, we are pretty much all Don’t Knows.

The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate leadership, deal with his rebels and engage with the public about what direction he wants the country to take. The Don’t Knows are genuinely torn over what would be in the best interest of the country, and they deserve much better.

Eric Joyce threatens Falkirk by-election over “entryism” concerns – Media roundup: May 20th, 2013

LabourList — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:54:32 +0000

Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here.

Eric Joyce threatens Falkirk by-election over “entryism” concerns

“Labour could face a potentially damaging by-election in Falkirk unless it sorts out the controversies and confusions that have surrounded its selection process, party leaders were warned last night. Eric Joyce, the sitting MP, said that he was ready to stand down immediately and force a snap poll in the Westminster seat unless there was an end to problems over Labour’s selection process. Mr Joyce is particularly concerned about claims of trade union “entryism” — the term used to describe the introduction of new members in the hope of swinging a selection process towards a favoured candidate. Labour decided that it needed a new candidate to stand in Falkirk after Mr Joyce, who won the seat for Labour in 2010, was convicted of assault last year. Mr Joyce has always insisted he would stay on as the Falkirk MP until the next election in 2015, despite being abandoned by the Labour Party. But he declared yesterday that he was prepared to trigger a snap poll unless Labour and the unions cleaned up the selection process. He said: “I intend to go all the way to the end of the term. However, this may change if I feel it is in the Labour Party’s best interests to stop entryism by calling a by-election.” - Times(£)

Tories begin defecting to UKIP

“Local Conservative party campaigners, including the chairman of one constituency association, will this week pledge their support for Nigel Farage after one of David Cameron’s allies described grassroots Tories as “mad, swivel-eyed loons”. Mr Farage uses an advertisement in Monday’s Telegraph to urge Conservative voters to back Ukip. The “loons” description, he says, is “the ultimate insult” from a party leadership that has betrayed the trust of its own supporters. He writes in the advertisement: “Only an administration run by a bunch of college kids, none of whom have ever had a proper job in their lives, could so arrogantly write off their own supporters.”” - Telegraph

Other highlights

Mandelson declares New Labour era over - Telegraph
Ashcroft says Tories need to behave like a party of government -ConHome
Welcoming the swivel-eyed - Political Scrapbook

Why are the Tories putting a price on loving commitment?

Mark Ferguson — Mon, 20 May 2013 08:33:23 +0000

So here we are again. Gay Marriage. Civil Partnerships. And a Tory rebellion.

Except this time it’s different. Tim Loughton’s amendment calling for Civil Partnerships to be extended to heterosexual couples is being branded a “wrecking amendment” and could – bizarrely – see anti-gay rights Tories like David Jones voting the same way as staunch defenders of equal rights on the Labour benches.

The argument being put forward by the Tory leadership is that granting such rights would delay the implementation of the Equal Marriage Bill (something that no-one should want to see – the house has spoken clearly on this issues), and yet their reasons for opposing the amendment appear to be entirely financial. The government are claiming – without any real explanation of their figures – that Civil Partnerships for heterosexual couples would cost the government £4 billion.

But aren’t there some things that we cannot – and should not – put a price on? If so, allowing loving and committed couples to mark their partnership legally is surely one of them. The Tory leadership’s argument amounts to arguing that the government will have to pay out more money to loved ones if someone dies – seemingly prefering the existing system where unmarried couples who choose not to marry exist in a legal limbo. Stay classy, Maria Miller.

Worse, the way in which Miller and Cameron are approaching this amendment calls into question the very argument that Civil Partnerships and Marriage are one and the same. If those heterosexual couples who wish to enter into civil partnerships chose to marry instead, the costs would be the same, yet you sense that rather that the Tories worrying about the cost to the exchequer, they would be delighted. If Civil partnerships and Marriage are truly seen as equal in the eyes of the government, then the choice to engage in either should surely be available to all.

Heterosexual couples should have the opportunity to enter into Civil Partnerships if they feel that this is a better representation of their love and commitment for each other than marriage. The argument that this would see a surge in costs as heterosexual couples choose to enter into Civil Partnerships rather than Marriage merely serves to prove that their is a demand for such legislation.

Marriage is not for everyone, and each and every couple in the land who wish to enter into an alternative, legally binding arrangement that allows them to show their love for each other should have the opportunity to do so. Labour MPs should reject arguments about the cost of Civil Partnerships and fight hard for the swift implementation of Equal Marriage. But they should vote for Equal Civil Partnerships today too.

Because you can’t put a price on loving commitment, as much as the Tories seek to do so.

We must challenge the biggest welfare myth of all

Simon Danczuk — Mon, 20 May 2013 06:00:30 +0000

Who can forget Gordon Brown’s meeting with Gillian Duffy? Nothing has come close in recent years to symbolising the disconnect between the Westminster bubble and the working class. As someone who had to endure every painful minute of Duffygate it’s a lesson I’ll never forget.

Mrs Duffy’s memorable intervention on the campaign trail means it’s now widely accepted in our party that calling someone racist simply for raising concerns about immigration putting pressure on public services or pushing down wages is frankly ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other areas where we must guard against being equally tone deaf to what Labour voters are saying.

Welfare is a prime example. Week after week I knock on doors in Rochdale and everywhere I go welfare comes up as an issue. The public’s attitude to Attlee’s cradle to grave welfare state is not what it once was.

There are some – most notably Owen Jones and his disciples on the Metropolitan liberal wing of the left – who not only dismiss this view but condemn anyone who so much as whispers it. In a cruel mirror image of some of the absurd responses to working class concerns about immigration, their knee-jerk response is to portray anyone who expresses less than full confidence in our welfare state as ‘Tories’. What Jones and his disciples never quite grasp is that nine times out of ten, the people complaining about welfare on the doorstep are Labour voters.

Labour has a powerful broad church tradition and it’s this that makes us representative of people from every community. But the head in the sand approach to welfare from a loud chorus on the hard left is not serious politics, and it must be challenged. It’s not Labour politics either, and it’s certainly not Ed Miliband’s politics. We mustn’t forget the direction on welfare set out by Ed in his 2010 conference speech.

“Let’s be honest,” he said, “we also know there are those for whom the benefits system has become a trap. That is not in their interests or the interests of us as a society and we are right when we say it must be challenged. Reforming our benefits system is not about stereotyping everybody out of work, it’s about transforming their lives.”

Ed was right to say this and it’s right that Labour grasps this nettle. Because if the Labour Party can’t talk about the need to get more people into work to fulfil their potential and build a stronger society then we may as well tear up our founding principles.

People forget it wasn’t all that very long ago when we had a Labour Work and Pensions Secretary claiming that the welfare “system is crackers”. The eight principles of welfare reform outlined by David Blunkett in 2005 united around a common Labour principle, which we should never forget; that work is the best route out of poverty.

That the Tories are trying to make incursions into this territory is hardly surprising. But this is Labour territory and we should not be ceding it to a party that famously declared “unemployment is a price worth paying”. Labour understands the value and dignity of work better than any other political party. From our very reason for being founded as a party to represent the workers to our unshakeable bonds with the trade union movement, we have always understood the dignity and transformative power of work. The Tories don’t share these values. For them, the value of work is measured not so much in the dignified sweat on your brow or the strong communities it builds, but the Bentley on your drive and the gated community you can aspire to live in.

The recent pantomime TV debates between Owen Jones and Guido Fawkes, Owen Jones and Harry Cole, or Owen Jones and some other frothing right-winger created a lot of heat but little reforming light on welfare. If Owen and others think that the only people who want a stronger and sustainable welfare system are swivel-eyed crazies then they are wrong. This is by far the dominant view across the country, as every poll shows.

Our welfare system survives and endures on the basis of public support, and if that continues to haemorrhage then we can expect the language and intentions of the Tories to harden like stone. There are many myths about welfare, but the one we all have to face up to is that the status quo is working just fine. It isn’t – and the public knows it.

Reforming housing benefit, getting young people back into work, having a relentless focus on growth and delivering a work programme that supports people into proper employment are the movements where Labour is building a convincing symphony. But this has to be heard above Owen and others simply protesting against reform of any kind.

The terrible performance of this Government has insulated Labour from the kind of fierce scrutiny we can expect in 2015, but from now on we’re likely to be facing big questions on a daily basis. There are plenty more like Gillian Duffy waiting to handbag Labour politicians in Rochdale, and that’s why we need to get our message across loud and clear.

Delivering a reformed welfare system that focuses on getting people back to work will not only help rebuild confidence in Labour’s greatest achievement but also bring lost Labour voters back to the ballot box.

Simon Danczuk is the Labour MP for Rochdale

The culture of high risk credit is being exploited by betting shops

Matthew Zarb-Cousin — Sun, 19 May 2013 15:00:58 +0000

Since the financial crisis, the perfect storm of recession and banks restricting access to credit has led to the rise of payday lenders. Our high streets are slowly deteriorating from the vibrant, diverse places they once were into an abyss of pawnbrokers, payday loan shops and bookies.

The three feed off of each other, targeting some of our most deprived areas and perpetuating a cycle of despair driven by the need for extra income. Research carried out by Geofutures found there to be 2.4 times the amount of betting shops in areas of high unemployment than in areas of low unemployment, and bookies are clustering as the Gambling Act 2005 limits each shop to four Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, or FOBTs. These machines are lethal, highly addictive roulette and casino gaming machines, upon which it is possible to stake up to £100 every 20 seconds. For this reason, many see it as a quick way to make a bit of extra money.

So why should this concern us? FOBTs have been described as “the crack cocaine of gambling” and there is empirical evidence linking them to problem gambling. The last thing some of our most deprived areas need right now is more social problems. Then there is the economic impact. A report by Howard Reed of Landman Economics found that for every £1bn spent on FOBTs, 7000 jobs were created by the industry but 20,000 jobs were lost in the wider economy as FOBTs are a very “labour unintensive” form of consumer spending. In 2012, I witnessed this first hand when I visited Newham, as what was once a pub, probably employing up to 10 people was now a BetFred employing two or three staff on minimum wage yet sucking more than £3,500 per week out of the area from FOBTs alone. In 2012, £1.4bn was lost on FOBTs across the country, and Mintel project this will rise to £2.2bn by 2018. Landman Economics predict, based on growth in real terms, FOBT revenue will increase to £1.7bn by 2016 and £3.4bn by 2023 – and this is money that’s coming primarily from our poorest areas.

Newham is an interesting case study, as they have 24 betting shops and have recently rejected an application from Paddy Power for number 25. The proposed site is on Green Street and would be situated 100 yards from another Paddy Power and less than 50 yards from a Ladbrokes, which is opposite another Ladbrokes. You really have to see it to believe it. The Council have rejected the application on the basis that the shop will not be used for traditional, over the counter betting – which is what the license is for – but for gaming on FOBTs. Because of the limit of four FOBTs per shop, betting shops cluster to allow for as many as possible, so this is evidence alone that the primary gambling activity in these shops is gaming and not betting. According to Ladbrokes’ most recent accounts, 52% of their profits and 83% of their turnover is derived from FOBTs. The case in Newham is going to Magistrates’ Court on the 10^th June, and if they are successful other local authorities will be able to successfully reject betting shop license applications on this basis.

It’s great that Labour have committed to sticking bookies in their own use class if they win the next election, but this looks to have led to the bookies bringing forward loads of capital investment to prepare for that eventuality. As a result, the PLCs Ladbrokes, William Hill, Coral and Paddy Power are planning 245 new shops in 2013. Add BetFred and independents to that and we’re looking at another 300 betting shops this year.

So what can we do? We set up the “Stop the FOBTs” campaign as we believe the proliferation of betting shops is driven by FOBTs, and this is having a parasitic effect on some of our most deprived areas. We’re also concerned about their link to problem gambling, so the Government must reduce the maximum stake from £100 to £2. If you want to set up a local campaign, please get in touch with me matt@fairergambling.org and we can advise you on how to go about objecting to new license applications or building a grassroots movement.

The more people we have on board, the more likely it is we will succeed.