Labour is going to deliver a 'Tax Dodging Bill' to close loopholes and stamp out tax evasion

Over the past few days I've been contacted by angry constituents. They're demanding action on the big corporations and their highest ranking shareholders and Chief Executives who dodge their taxes while our public services are being cut back and average workers' pay has stagnated for years. 

They are rightly angry because the vast majority of people, even the majority of celebrities and big businessmen, pay their fair share of taxes only to see this select few, the very richest people in our society, opt out of their obligations. 

These constituents who have emailed me are asking me to support a campaign, backed by Oxfam, the NUS, War on Want and many other great organisations, that is calling for a 'Tax Dodging Bill' that will close loopholes that let big corporations get away with paying low or no tax on their profits. 

I'm proud and pleased to say that Labour have today announced that our first Budget will introduce exactly the measures that the Tax Dodging Bill campaign has been calling for. 

Labour will:

·         Introduce penalties for those who are caught by the General Anti-Abuse Rule

·         Close loopholes used by hedge funds to avoid stamp duty

·         Close loopholes like the Eurobonds loophole which allow some large companies to move profits out of the UK and avoid Corporation Tax

·         Stop umbrella companies exploiting tax reliefs

·         Scrapping the “Shares for Rights” scheme, which the OBR has warned could enable avoidance and cost £1bn and is administered by HMRC, and so ensure HMRC can better focus on tackling tax avoidance

·         Tackle disguised self-employment by introducing strict deeming criteria

·         Tackle the use of dormant companies to avoid tax by requiring them to report more frequently

Labour’s measures to tackle tax avoidance will also include:

·         Ensuring stronger independent scrutiny of the tax system, including reliefs, and the government’s efforts to tackle tax avoidance

·         Forcing the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies to produce publicly available registries of beneficial ownership

·         Making country-by-country reporting information publicly available

·         Ensuring developing countries are properly engaged in the drawing up of global tax rules

I urge you to sign up to the Tax Dodging Bill campaign and contact Richard Benyon to ask him why he's not backing these tough measures to crack down on those who believe that the virtue of their vast wealth means tax rules shouldn't apply to them.

The number of people receiving housing benefit in the West Berks area has risen 46% since 2010

The number of West Berks residents receiving housing benefit has soared by 46% since the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition Government came to power.

Stats released by the Government's Department for Work and Pensions and analysed by Labour's Southern Taskforce show that between May 2010 and August 2014 (the latest available statistics) more than 500 additional households have begun claiming support to help them with housing costs. 

These figures show two chronic failures of this Coalition Government. 

First, their failure to make work pay as the majority of these additional claimants are in-work but have seen their pay fall in real terms behind inflation, on average by around £1,600.

Second, their failure to address rents rising above inflation. Rents across England have risen by 4.2% in the same time period and West Berks rents now sit nearly £200 above that average

A Labour Government would introduce three-year secure tenancies where the landlord couldn't raise the original quoted rent above inflation within those three years and we'd cut housing benefit for the long term by building more social housing.

Our policies designed to make work pay such as raising the Minimum Wage above £8 an hour and stamping down on zero-hours contracts will also reduce spending on housing benefit without hurting those who currently receive it. 

 

Labour will double paternity leave to 4 weeks and increase the amount paid too

Fantastic news for new fathers-to-be. 

Today Ed Miliband announced that Labour would double the time new Dads can take off for paid paternity leave from the current 2 weeks to 4 weeks under a Labour Government.

Better still, they'd get £260 a week for each of those 4 weeks instead of the £140 a week they get now. 

How would we fund it? Well that's the genius. Labour has already announced that we'll extend the amount of free childcare for parents of 3 and 4 year olds from 15 hours currently up to a new 25 hours a week entitlement. That policy actually saves the Government money normally spent paying those families tax credits to help them pay for childcare so this new policy of extended paternity leave is actually paid out of the money Government would save from extending free childcare! 

The free childcare itself pays for itself as more parents are able to either go back to work or work longer hours than they currently do thus bringing in bigger income tax and National Insurance revenues and reducing the amount of tax credits paid out even further! That's the progressive way to cut the deficit and boost family incomes at the same time. 

 

Ed Miliband announces the right for employees to buy their company during business succession

 

I'm a member of both the Labour Party and the Co-Operative Party.  

The latter is (since the 1930s) a sister-party of the former and exists nowadays to promote the idea of co-operatives and mutualism within the Labour Party. 

Mutualism is the idea that lies behind John Lewis, building societies, credit unions and the Co-operative branded shops, funeral parlours and banks. it's the idea that employees, and in some cases customers, should own a share in the business they work for.  

Co-operative Party ideals are behind some of Labour's recent policy announcements on giving fans a bigger say in how their football clubs are run, for giving passengers a formal role in overseeing the rail industry and for expanding credit unions.  

Today Ed Miliband has added to that list by announcing that a Labour government will legislate to allow employees to bid to takeover their employer if the business owners want to sell up (an attractive option for owners who want to see their legacy continue in the hands of those who have an obvious interest in the long-term success of the business) or its in danger of shutting down. 

He also announced that co-operative businesses seeking to expand will be able to access credit through Labour's previously announced new state-run British Business Bank.  

These ideas will help increase the number of employees who own a share of the business they work for and give them a greater say in how it is run. Empowering workers in a way that is not only pro-growth but pro-long term growth not quick-fix, short-termist growth that is too often a characteristic of our economy currently.

 

 

Make sure you register to vote

Thousands of Newbury constituents may miss out on their chance to vote if they don't register by April 20th. 

The Government's new individual voter registration means that no-one can register you except you - not your parents, not your landlord nor your spouse - it's all on you!

You can register to vote online in less than 5 minutes by clicking on the photo below. 

Today was also the release of an important report from the House of Commons cross-party Constitutional Reform Committee. 

The Committee calls for immediate action to encourage more people to vote. I completely back their call for the introduction of online voting, trying out weekend voting to see if that improves turnout and also allowing people to register on the day of the election at the polling booth. 

I'm pleased that Labour have agreed to move towards online voting. 

We've also said that we would:

  • Improve Citizenship education in schools so its not just an add-on as it can be in some schools
  • Make it mandatory for schools to inform local electoral officers about young people approaching voting age (as has worked very well already in Northern Ireland)
  • Lower the voting age to 16 

I'm backing the Cold Homes Week campaign

image.jpg

I'm really pleased to back Energy Bill Revolution's 'Cold Homes Week' campaign.  

The campaign calls for a street-by-street home insulation programme. Britain has some of the most inefficient housing stock in the developed world when it comes to keeping heat in. It escapes through roofs, walls and windows. This wasted heat means many spend much more than they should do heating their home. 

I'm proud of Labour's policies on energy bills. Locally we've campaigned for West Berks Council to run a collective switching scheme to help residents come together to barter for better deals from energy suppliers and nationally we've promised to freeze energy bills at their May 2015 price for 20 months meaning bills can fall but cannot rise in that time. We'd use that time to permanently reshape the energy market so that it was more competitive and therefore had greater downward pressure on prices for the long-term. 

In relation to insulation I'm particularly proud that we will deliver a programme of home insulation for 3million of the most poorly insulated homes over the next ten years. This is a huge programme that will create jobs as well as saving consumers from fuel poverty.  

Fuel poverty is defined as a household spending more than 10% of their income on heating their home. Millions across Britain are in this situation and I was saddened that even here in Newbury constituency over 3,000 people are defined as being in fuel poverty.

That fact makes it even more shocking that while over 250 MPs have supported the Cold Homes Week campaign, Newbury's Richard Benyon isn't one of them.

I'm committed to reducing energy bills for the people of Newbury and I back this campaign wholeheartedly. 

New Hungerford homes won't be ring-fenced for local residents, but they could be under Labour

Hungerford Conservatives seem to agree with Labour Party policy on new homes. 

Newbury Weekly News reports that the part-buy, part-rent (shared ownership) homes being built as part of a new affordable housing project in Hungerford won't be prioritised for local residents. 

Conservative Town Mayor Dennis Bennyworth is reported as backing calls for the homes to be reserved for Hungerford residents but fellow Tory Councillor Paul Hewer, who sits on West Berks Council's planning committee, disagreed and backed the District Council's decision, saying such a move would be 'discrimination'.  

If Mayor Bennyworth or any other Hungerford residents feel that new homes should be ring fenced for first-time buyers in the local community to bid first then they should vote Labour as this is exactly what we would do.

Our housing policy, announced late last year, would allow councils, developers and housing associations to stipulate a period of time where local residents are given priority to buy any newly built homes in order to help first-time buyers stay in their home towns. 

Labour is trying to save West Berks from fracking but the job isn't finished yet

Last week Labour forced the Government into a u-turn on its proposed fracking free-for-all.

After great pressure from Labour and campaign groups the Government finally accepted our amendments in the House of Commons which mean fracking will be banned in all National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and groundwater Source Protection Zones.

These measures should, in theory, act as a blanket ban on fracking happening here in West Berks but the Guardian reports that a spokesperson from the Department of Energy & Climate Change said it was "too early to say what areas might be affected by the extension of protections" as the measures may be overturned in the House of Lords. In particular, they were unable to say whether all levels of groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) would be covered. 

If it turns out that the Tory-Lib Dem intention is to only ban fracking in what the Environment Agency describes as Level 1 or 2 SPZs then large swathes of the area would continue to be potential sites for shale gas and oil extraction. If the much-wider SPZ Level 3 (see map) is protected as Labour intend then all of Newbury and Thatcham are to protected from fracking. 

The rest of West Berks outside Newbury and Thatcham will be protected by our amendment because it prevents fracking in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the North Wessex Downs extends across the West of the area. 

I'm pleased that a Labour government is committed to a frack-free West Berkshire and I hope that Tory and Lib Dem members of the House of Lords will not remove these proposed protections. I also hope that the Coalition Government will include all levels of SPZ in the final legislation so all of West Berks is covered. 

Fracking can be dangerous to water supplies and cause tremors; it would blight the countryside with huge drills and large trucks driving to and from the sites but worst of all it would distract from our mission to move towards renewable forms of clean energy.  

West Berks residents don't want fracking and if im elected in May I'll ensure they get their wish. 

Parkway social housing scandal has gone on far too long

The Newbury Weekly News reports again today that the scandal of homes designated for social housing tenants lying empty at the Parkway development continues to go on without resolution in sight. 

This whole situation is a debacle from start to finish. 

First, West Berkshire Council (and thus council tax payers) were robbed of £900,000 when the developer, Standard Life Investments, persuaded the Tory-run Council that they couldn't possibly afford to go ahead with the whole development if they had to meet their obligations to build these social homes without subsidy. 

Second, its quite clear to me that developer has taken the decision to delay the assigning of a housing association partner to rent out these flats because they feared that having them occupied would affect their ability to sell the private flats. They have essentially assumed their potential customers are snobs and in doing so prevented 37 families from leaving the social housing waiting list and taking up residence in the flats that are designated for their use.

What makes the whole thing inexplicable is that a year ago West Berks Council, quite rightly, blocked them from selling private flats until a housing association partner was sourced. Why this hasn't prompted them into action I don't know. 

Social housing tenants are not a second-class of citizen, they are simply families on low-to-middle incomes who can't afford market rates of rent. These can be newly-qualified teachers, trainee nurses and apprentices in all sorts of trades. It's desperately important that we build more social housing to clear the waiting list but its even more outrageous that there are 37 homes already built and waiting to be occupied. 

I sincerely back West Berks Council in taking any action against the developers but frankly these are obscene delays and I would urge that they immediately try to involve the Secretary of State for Local Government & Communities in the matter. 

Preserving competition in our mobile network market - A letter to Richard Benyon MP

You may or may not have read the recent news that the mobile company Three is seeking to buy O2.  

I'm really concerned that consolidation in the mobile market (which already started with the merger of Orange and T-Mobile into EE) could see prices rise and customer service worsen. 

There is further cause for concern in that Vodafone is such a huge and important employer in this area and if this deal went through they would be left as the smallest of the big three operators in the UK thus potentially putting local jobs at risk. 

If elected in May I would be using my power and influence as an MP to urge UK and EU-level competition regulators to investigate this deal and I'd make representations at any subsequent inquiries to state the case against further consolidation of our vibrant mobile market which has delivered some of the lowest prices in Europe. 

However, business moves fast and this deal could be on the table before May. So today I'm writing to Richard Benyon to ask him to take this action immediately should any deal be brought forward: 

 

Dear Mr Benyon

There has been considerable speculation over the past 2-3 weeks regarding a buy-out of mobile phone company O2 by its rival Three. 

This comes hot on the heels of news that BT plans to buy EE (itself a merger between Orange and T-Mobile). 

I'm concerned that further consolidation of our mobile phone market and the reduction in choice for consumers will lead to higher prices in the medium-to-long term and may also lessen the focus on delivering quality customer service. 

Believe it or not but British consumers are currently able to access some of the lowest mobile contract prices in Europe thanks to our more competitive market.

Further cause for concern is that Vodafone, obviously such a huge and vital local employer, would be negatively affected becoming the smallest of the remaining big networks. 

So I am writing to you today to ask you to pledge that you will do all you can to ensure that the EU and UK competition regulators investigate any potential merger between O2 and Three and make representations to those investigations regarding the negative effects of reducing consumer choice. 

Yours Sincerely, 

Jonny Roberts

Parliamentary Candidate for Newbury

Newbury Constituency Labour Party 

 

 

The Tories have turned out the lights but Labour has got a plan to turn them back on and still save money

I've always been a fan of Hilary Benn, he's a great speech maker (must run in the family!) and one of the most astute minds in the Shadow Cabinet. He's demonstrated that again today by talking into an important issue, one that really resonates with voters up and down the country and, best of all, offering a solution to the problem. 

The issue is that the Tories have literally taken us back to the dark ages. By that I mean the news that 75% of councils in England have dimmed or turned off their street lights to save money. Under this Government streetlights have become merely eyesore memorials to a day when we could afford to help people get home safe after dark. As Ed Miliband is fond of saying: 'Britain can do better than this'.

So Hilary Benn's solution is two fold. Firstly Labour will allow Councils a 4-year budget cycle rather 12 months. That will free them to make sound investments now to save big money later. So secondly Labour councils (and hopefully Tory and Lib Dem ones too) would invest in new low energy LED bulbs for street lights as they are doing in Madrid (see more here: http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/madrid-to-upgrade-100-of-its-street-lights-with-smart-and-sustainable-led-system/). These energy savings of 44% are not only better for the environment but they'll mean savings for cash-strapped councils thus allowing them to keep the lights on.

Remember it's not just about helping people FEEL safe, street lighting genuinely does cut crime and save lives so even being totally mercenary about it - turning off street lights costs more in the long run whereas Labour has put forward an alternative that saves on the cost of running the lights and avoids the human and fiscal costs caused when the Tories turn out the lights. 

Thank you for the support

Today I was selected by Newbury Labour Party members to be their candidate for the General Election in May. 

I want to thank all the members who voted for me and promise that'll I give everything I've got to make this an exciting and successful campaign in both the General and local elections. 

The next 4 1/2 months will be immensely challenging for us but I really believe that the more we can get out there and speak to people across the constituency they'll connect with our positive vision for Newbury and our plan for a better Britain. 

On Wednesday night at our all-members meeting I'll be setting out initial thoughts on how we can campaign and inviting any thoughts or suggestions. 

Thanks again 

Universal Credit is just a plaster for the deep problems of our economy - Labour has a long-term vision to get welfare spending down fairly

Last week Iain Duncan Smith triumphantly announced that his much-delayed Universal Credit system would finally roll-out fully to 7million claimants by 2019.

Now that's 2 years later than planned and the system has been beset by constant problems with the IT required to operate it properly but all in all I do support the laudable aims of the UC. The idea of merging a number of benefits and tax credits into a single system whereby claimants must only enter their information once (ensuring benefits to which people are entitled to aren't missed out on), a system that is flexible enough to respond to the fluctuating weekly incomes of claimants (a increasing commonality in the low-pay end of our labour market) and one that tapers benefits away as people earn more (rather than creating cliff-edges like the old 16 hours a week rule) are all measures that have my total support. 

My issue is that simply improving the benefits system is like sticking a plaster on the problem rather than tackling the root causes of growing demand for welfare. It can't be right that 7million people need benefits (bearing in mind that disabled benefits and child benefit are outside the remit of Universal Credit) and especially considering that unemployment is reducing - the vast majority of these 7million claimants are in work! It says everything about our economy's failure to produce good jobs with fair wages for far too few.

Iain Duncan Smith's prognosis is that people have been made idle by the system and he will tell you that by tapering benefits away UC increases the 'incentives' to work more  hours, thus paying for the system as people will now work more and claim less. The system will certainly remove some of the aforementioned silly disincentives but the fundamental problem he and this Government refuse to accept is that too many jobs are paying too little for people to live on, too many landlords charge rents that are too high for people to afford and childcare costs are spiralling out of control.

Let's clear the party political air here. The last Labour government introduced a myriad of tax credits designed to redistribute income from the more wealthy to the low-paid. This, again, was laudable and combined with a new National Minimum Wage it improved the lives of millions who had suffered under the previous 18 years of Conservative rule. However we did too little to tackle low pay - real pay rates stagnated over our latter years in power - and far too little was done on house building where the sell off of millions of council homes under Thatcher had, quite rightly, created homeowners of many working class families for the first time but, criminally, the revenue was never ring-fenced to build a new generation of social homes thus resulting in huge waiting lists for social housing and an increasing reliance on the private rented sector.

So even under Universal Credit the Government will continue to subsidise subsistence wages from big employers and high rents charged by property magnates such as our own local MP, Richard Benyon who is estimated to have made £120,000+ a year from housing benefit.

Labour has made it a priority to reduce welfare spending in the long-term. Not through the cruel freezing of benefits so that their real value falls as inflation rises nor through simply cutting away at entitlements. No, instead Labour will tackle the root causes of poverty. 

In the immediate short-term we will:

- Raise the Minimum Wage to £8 by 2020 at the very latest.

- Cut business rates for small firms and freeze energy prices for 20 months to further help small businesses thus freeing up some cash for potential pay rises or taking on new workers.

- Introduce a one-off Living Wage Contract that will reward firms who agree to pay all their staff the living wage by giving them  some of the additional income tax and National Insurance revenue / benefit
savings generated by them paying higher wages. 

- Force employers who use 'zero hours contracts' to offer a permanent contract after 3 months.

- Increase fines for employers who aren't paying the minimum wage and focusing HMRC resources on finding and tackling such businesses.

- Introduce a Jobs Guarantee - funded by a tax on bankers bonuses - that will mean any young person out of work for more than a year, or anyone over 25 out of work for more than 2, will be given a paid job placement to help them back into the labour market.

- Reform tenancy agreements so that people renting in the private sector are able to secure 3 year fixed tenancies with rents not able to rise by more than inflation during those tenancies - thus helping keep Housing Benefit in check. 

- Reduce demand for the childcare element of Universal Credit by increasing the free entitlement for 3 and 4 year olds from 15 hours a week to 25 hours a week and also introducing a Primary School Guarantee where local primary schools will be open and offering activities from 8am-6pm.


And we'll take action for the longer term too, including:

- Better careers advice in schools and a far better vocational route to help those who don't want to go to university to enable them to acquire degree-level skills and move into well paid careers. 

- Get annual housebuilding rates up to 200,000 or more by 2020 and continue at that pace thereafter so as to meet housing demand, reduce social housing waiting lists and make the dream of home ownership a more likely reality for the many not just the few. 

- Introduce a new goal for the Low Pay Commission to ensure the Minimum Wage at least keeps pace with rises in average earnings.


This is a plan to reduce welfare spending but to do so in a way that improves livelihoods rather than shattering them. It's an example of our wider vision too, of how Labour would reduce the deficit in a fairer way than the Conservatives and at the same time begin to build a better, fairer economy that works for ordinary people not just a privileged few at the top.

The prize freeze is a great headline but its only part of the complete overhaul of our energy sector that Labour is proposing

It was great to be in the hall at conference in Brighton last week during Ed Miliband’s fantastic notes-free speech. He got no fewer than three standing ovations DURING his speech – for his commitment to implement Andy Burnham’s plan for integrating mental health and social care with the rest of the NHS I don't think the media and public have woken up to how radical this could be!); for his commitment to lowering the voting age to 16 and for his pledge to repeal the bedroom tax. Yet the media, pre-briefed on much of the above, focused on the surprise announcement: the freezing of energy prices until January 2017.

Immediately the Tory press and energy industry came out with their predictable message of doom and gloom: it was illegal (yet they regulate prices much more rigidly in other EU nations), it would cause ‘blackouts', it would deter investment in renewables and it was, of course, a Marxist plot cooked up between Ed and his father back when Ed was in his teens. Clearly, this is drivel. Thankfully it seems, according the latest polls, the public have seen through the blue fog of lies and love the idea, hence the change in the Tory's stance from hysterical (Schapps and Pickles) to the more nuanced – ‘energy companies haven’t behaved well, prices are too high, but this isn’t how to deal with it’ (Gove and Cameron).

The public’s passion for this policy is hopefully a sign that they are acknowledging that under Ed Miliband our party’s mission will be to stand up the vested interests (Murdoch, bankers, energy companies, developers who sit on land and payday lenders to give some examples). That said, we can’t be complacent, the reach of the Tory press is still considerable and makes up the majority of newspaper readership. Their message will be a consistent battery of fear mongering bile.

We shouldn’t be put off spreading the word about this policy though; its immediate simplicity is striking and helps us sell it on the doorstep but it is very thought-through if people do want more information. Firstly it won’t cause ‘blackouts’, the energy companies themselves – within minutes of Ed’s speech finishing, were running adverts on Google saying: ‘Don’t wait until the election, freeze your prices until 2017’. 3 of the big 6 are now offering this deal, yet Centrica (who own British Gas) aren’t. Centrica make the biggest profits and yet invest the least of the big 6 companies – and no prizes for guessing who is shouting loudest against the freeze. They can afford this freeze, they deserve this freeze.

Don’t get me wrong. Britain’s energy infrastructure needs massive investment and we have declining capacity and increasing reliance on imports but this is precisely because of the decades of underinvestment from these private energy firms. This prize freeze is only temporary, it is designed to cover the time it will take to pass an Energy Bill through Parliament that would legislate for comprehensive reform of the energy market. Such an Energy Bill would focus on breaking the ‘vertical integration’ i.e. the people owning the plants can’t be the same as those selling the energy. This, combined with a target for decarbonisation by 2030, would open up the production market to smaller renewables firms (i.e. increasing investment in renewables!) and also opening the market to new players willing to work on lower profit margins in order to gazump the others by offering households and businesses lower prices.

This is the message we need to get across to anyone on the doorstep who is having doubts about the feasibility of the proposals:

1) This is absolutely genuine, Labour will definitely freeze prices from the May 2015 to January 2017;

2) This is a pro-business intervention - it will save non-energy sector businesses millions which may well lead to lower prices and/or new jobs in other sectors;

3) We agree investment in new power stations is vitally important, particularly renewables, but that just isn’t happening under the status quo. Therefore we would:

a. Commit to a decarbonisation by 2030 target to give renewables investors assurance that the UK is the place to put their money;

b. Use the 20 month period of the price freeze to change the way the generation market works so that it is focused on high levels of investment and more open to new entrants, particularly renewable producers like solar farms, wind farms and tidal technology;

c. Also use the price freeze to change the way the sales-side of the market works so that its easier for new companies – or even not-for-profit organisations - to enter that market and offer lower prices by working on lower margins rather than affecting investment in generation which will be a completely separate market;

d. The Energy Bill would also tie all providers into providing a much more simple, easy to understand tariff system; and

e. It would also abolish Ofgem and put a really tough new regulator in its place.

The constant refrain pre-conference was that people wanted to hear Labour’s policies. Well on energy Labour have a really comprehensive offer. I haven’t even mentioned that Labour would harness the public sector’s energy use to encourage investment in renewables by committing the NHS, schools and Whitehall departments etc. to use green energy and also giving serious borrowing powers to the Green Investment Bank that would further support investment in this area.

We need to let the public know that Labour is the only party that will lower their bills, instigate the investment that is needed to secure our energy supply and be the only serious green choice at the next election with a fundamental understanding of our collective responsibility to future generations to develop renewables now.

Jimmy Carr is the just the tip of the iceberg and as the world faces austerity its time to tackle the tax havens


Oh Jimmy. I really enjoy Jimmy Carr’s multiple TV appearances, presenting slots and of course stand-up performances so yesterday’s Times expose, revealing he paid about £30,000 tax despite earning a £3,300,000 fortune last year, was painfully disappointing.

The centre-right and right-wing papers have clearly enjoyed, quite rightly, laying into the hypocrisy of this man, clearly on the liberal left of things politically, committing such a heinous sin (and to be fair the Guardian is delighted that Gary Barlow OBE is now implicated in a separate tax avoidance scam) but beneath the glee that can be sourced from embarrassing a hypocrite there is genuine anger on the right and left.

Tax evasion and this kind of ‘aggressive tax avoidance’ angers traditional Tory voters, the kind who want out of Europe, want no immigration etc., just as much as it does the kind of lefty who holds a sit-in in a state-owned bank. That’s why David Cameron is so confident in being able to attack Carr on this issue. As Cameron himself says, it is an affront to the vast majority who pay every penny of tax they owe at the full rate (often grudgingly for Tory voters who think taxes should be lower) and then have to fork out £30 of their disposable income to see Carr or Barlow et al only to see them earn extraordinary sums and then pay less in tax - proportionately, over a year - than they do in a monthly pay packet.

Yet much as the Tories trumpet their planned General Anti-Tax Avoidance law I simply can’t believe they will really be able to deal with the problem. Legal but ‘aggressive’ tax avoidance measures cost the country £7bn according to the Times – that’s a whole lot of cuts not needed any more, in fact its more than all the cuts the Coalition made in their first year in power. If they can make it all back despite the significant reduction in HMRC staff that they are making, I’ll buy a hat, pay the 20% VAT, and eat it.

More importantly and less likely to be tackled is corporate tax avoidance and illegal personal/corporate tax evasion. Tax campaigners often cite the figure £40bn for the amount of tax they believe is being evaded by corporations, combine that with the £7bn personal, ‘aggressive’ tax avoidance that’s over half of the cuts being made by the Government not needed. Yet the Conservatives won’t tackle this for two reasons. Firstly, 25% of those who make up the Times Rich List are Tory Party donors, there’s little doubt that many of these protect their fortune through ‘aggressive’ avoidance and illegal evasion. Many of these will have worked in the City of London, the UK’s dark tax-haven secret. I’ve just finished Nicholas Shaxson’s book Treasure Islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world, it is essential reading for anyone who cares about people not paying their tax and some of it's most startling revelations revolve around the lobbying power of the City of London and the City’s cosy relationship with Britain’s Overseas Territories – Jersey, Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands etc. – that are the epicentre of the off-shore, dark web of tax evasion. If these men, its mostly men, have such a hold on the Conservative Party then they can never seriously challenge the status quo, of course their biggest donor Lord Ashcroft was a non-dom who paid only £30,000 a year to the British tax man despite his considerable donations to the Conservatives.

The second reason the Conservatives will never challenge is less seedy but just as depressing: its really, really difficult to stop tax evasion. Shaxson highlights the way in which the global super-rich shift their money around the various, often centuries-old tax havens to minimise their contribution to our public services to just a smidgen. To be fair to the Tories even if they took a radical ideological shift to the left and began re-shaping our tax system and investing in more tax inspectors to catch tax evaders they might make inroads into ensuring tax due to Britain is paid but they still wouldn’t be able to do it without concerted global effort. If Cameron is serious about tax evasion he should use forums like the G20 and the UN to create a UN convention on taxation, ideally setting out globally agreed minimum rates of taxation on profits, incomes and wealth but at the very least setting out an agreed global framework for taxation across borders and back this up with a UN tax unit dedicated to investigating and charging tax evaders under international law.

I’m pretty sure this Jimmy Carr stuff will blow over within a month or two, hardly likely to permanently damage his career but what the Times have done, publicly humiliating tax avoiders and evaders is the right way to go. That said, we won’t get anywhere just restricting our ire for individuals, the press must do more to reveal and confront the fundamental problems posed by tax havens. Tax havens, including those within the UK’s direct sphere of influence, are not only the host to money avoiding the clutches of the taxman, they are home also to the dirty money of serious organised criminals and dictators. Tackling tax havens would deliver a huge net gain not just for our Treasury but for the governments in the developing world, who’s less technically proficient tax systems are regularly screwed over by large companies and dodgy politicians thus stunting their growth and making them dependent on aid. We would also strike a serious blow to organised crime, indeed a 'war on tax havens' would do far more to win the ‘war on drugs’ than anything the Mexican army struggling to do right now.

The party leader who stands up and makes the point about the pernicious effect such havens have on the lives of the 99% worldwide would be brave but would surely also gain great warmth and credit from voters. As the quality of public services, the cost of public transport and the reductions in benefits really begin to bite the public are only going to get more angry about those who don’t pay their fair share, lest us forget the Government’s most unpopular move since taking power has been the cut to the 50p tax rate. So which politician is going to stand up to the ultimate vested interest? As that loveable fictional dodgy Brit Del Boy used to say: 'He who dares wins'.

Same old Tories - how David Cameron is copying Margaret Thatcher's policy of speeding up the painful process of creative destruction


Anyone who is a member of the Labour Party can easily reel off the story of 1980’s Britain where the rise of China, India and other economies elsewhere began to drive the deindustrialisation of the UK and yet Margaret Thatcher’s policies deliberately sped up the process and did nothing to support the communities and individuals affected by the radical change befalling them. Yet despite many shouting ‘same old Tories’ about many of this Government’s policies few seem to have noted that the legacy of their ‘too far, too fast’ cuts programme is already becoming clear – a second period of hyper-speed creative destruction in one of our key industries, putting millions of jobs at risk.

The industry I mean? Retail. The retail sector employs 1 in 10 workers in the UK (3m people) and generates roughly of 8% of GDP. Yet look at any nearly any High Street across the country and you’ll see an ever-increasing amount of empty shops, 14.3% of shops are empty according to the British Retail Consortium. People will argue that net loss is not that bad because in 2011 5,268 shops were closed, 5,094 opened (net loss just 174) but this ignores two important devils in the detail.

Firstly the type of shops closes and the type that are replacing them. Out go your traditional, middle of the road retailer to be replaced by one from either end of the scale – ‘pile ‘em high, sell them low’ poundshops and other bargain retailers or their opposite number, the John Lewis-market boutique retailer. This phenomenon is so symbolic of the nation’s current economic situation and enforced by this Government’s policies. The many are cutting their debts or have less money due to their hours being cut back, their job being lost or just reductions in working tax credits etc. whilst the richer residents are protected by low interest rates and the very rich given a 5% tax cut. The result on the ground is that the middle of the road stores, with an eye on quality as much as low prices, a use of nice displays and higher staff numbers are the first to go, sharply replaced by the bargain basement retailers selling products with less frills and thus much lower costs. Surely this is a good thing? It is, to an extent, for customers who can offset their personal financial woes with these savings on consumption costs, yet in many cases – particularly clothing – quality will be lower. It is particularly bad however for employees, remember those 3,000,000? That number is dropping, rapidly, because these replacement shops – with less care for tidy displays, less concern about queue length and customer complaints – don’t need as a many employees, and of course it is these budget retailers who are the most enthusiastic users of the Government’s unpaid work experience scheme.

The second key point that hides beneath the not-so-bad veneer of net shop opening/closure figures is that we are seeing an increasing gap between poorer areas and wealthy areas. I’ve seen this first hand, here in Newbury there are closures but at the other end of town a whole new mini-shopping precinct has been opened, yet in my old university haunt of Newport, South Wales, it really is more of a ghost town. This is borne out in data collected for the Daily Telegraph back in February:

More than one in three shops are vacant in Margate, Kent, and Leigh Park, Hampshire. On the other hand, many parts of London such as St John's Wood as well as Cambridge and St Albans have fewer than one in 10 shops vacant.
(H.Wallop, Daily Telegraph, 7/2/2012)

Just like in the 1980s where whole towns, cities and even regions were based on the mining and manufacturing industries that had existed there since Victorian times were beginning to close down only to be egged on the Thatcher Government causing rapid closures, rapid job losses and thus rapid social decline – this is why the Conservatives are still seen by so many as ‘the nasty party’ and why they are unelectable in the urban centres of Wales, Scotland and the North of England. Worst of all Thatcher offered the victims of unemployment little in the way of re-training. As I said in the start deindustrialisation was obviously coming, indeed already happening when Thatcher arrived in power, we shouldn’t gloss over the role that unreasonable wage demands from Trade Unions played in speeding up the process too, but with this radical change being so obviously on the horizon educational resources should have been focused on these areas most at-risk to support people with the transition to a new ‘knowledge economy’. This didn’t happen, instead the process was sped up, no support was really offered.

The decline in physical retail is inevitable, internet shopping has been taking an increasing share of the market for over a decade now. Without the cost of buildings and sales staff prices can be much lower online without compromising on quality. Yet rather than realise this and beginning to put in place a serious strategy to offer re-training, careers guidance and support for displaced retail workers this Conservative-led Government is making the same mistake again. Doing nothing to stem the rapid decline of physical retail that has been sped-up by the recession, indeed they are speeding up the decline with their economic strategy that is cutting demand out of the economy while it is too weak to withstand such cuts. The new National Careers Service - in reality a new website and phone service offering careers advice - is a weak response, whilst it isn't a long-term solution Labour's proposed cut in VAT would at least improve spending on the High Street to stem the tide, let's not forget Osborne's first move as Chancellor was to raise VAT to the record high of 20%.

We are seeing a pattern, Thatcher sped-up the decline of manufacturing and mining, Cameron will now oversee the death of physical retail, both will then bemoan the social collapse that ensues – Ed Miliband is right, the ‘nasty party’ is back, but Labour need to win over the 3m retail workers by highlighting what is happening sooner rather than later. Like the plaudits awarded to Ed Balls for predicting the Tories would push us back into recession are showing, ‘I told you so’ can be quite the vote-attractor...providing you have a plan to sort it out.


Ed is right to highlight low turnout - there is much to be done to improve public engagement with politics


As an Ed Miliband supporter I’ve been pleased to see Ed’s reaction to the local election victories. Not overzealous celebratory rhetoric but instead a calm recognition that only 30% of the electorate (in the areas which held local elections) actually turned out to vote for anyone, thus Labour’s 38% of the vote was actually 38% of 30%. My maths skills are terrible but I think that works out to about 11.4% of the total potential voters actually came out to vote for Labour.

Sorry to put a downer on the jubilation but these are the harsh facts we need to appreciate. Ed’s speech to the Progress Conference today was equally stark, pointing out that anyone attending is hardly representative of ‘the people’ as those who engage in politics nowadays are a quirky minority whilst the majority will be out shopping, watching sports or indeed working today. These are the people Labour needs not only to engage with to win but these are the very people who Labour was born to represent, it should be the ‘people’s party’ and it won’t realise that lofty position again without giving these people, ‘the 99%’, a good reason to think that Labour is the party for them.

Like anything in terms of Labour policy at the moment things are rather opaque but I’m enthused to hear Ed talk about the need for Labour to become much more localised and involved in the daily grind of community issues. I couldn’t write my first post-election blog and not dedicate a sentence to congratulating my great friend Tom Bond on his fantastic victory, becoming a Labour councillor for Rogerstone ward in Newport, South Wales – this was on the back of weeks of constant campaigning and it was the sale of the local fields and a set of cars constantly blocking a road which were the main concerns on the doorstep, followed by the state of the city centre. Labour needs to use these council election gains to deliver real improvements in people's daily lives, visible improvements for towns and cities across the country where they have been entrusted with power. Every Labour council, indeed every Labour ward should have a ‘1-year on’ plan setting out what it aims to achieve within its first year of office. Equally every Labour councillor should pledge to go door-knocking at least a few weeks every year, listening to people’s concerns throughout their term in power rather than just when elections roll around again. Showing people that voting Labour reaps results and embedding our councillors as key figures in the local community are vital parts of the rebuilding process.

I’m also delighted to hear that Ed Miliband has announced Labour CLPs will be mobilised to get out on a massive voter registration drive. An estimated 6million people are not registered to vote in their actual place of residence, a disproportionate amount have low-incomes – these should be Labour’s core vote, reaching out to them, registering them and then, crucially, staying in touch with them will bolster hopes of Labour restoring the ‘people’s party’ mantle and sweeping to victory in 2015.

The lowest turnout age group is 18-30. After being ceremoniously ditched by the Liberal Democrats the student vote is up for Labour’s taking but it must get out to every single campus and listen to concerns and genuinely reach out to the student population rather than the clunky pledge to reduce tuition fees to £6,000 that was announced at conference last year (a pledge which wouldn't actually reduce students monthly repayments and instead would benefit higher earning graduates). The biggest problem for Labour is that the courting of the student vote often distracts from the wider problem of reaching out to all young people, i.e. those not yet old enough to vote but who will be in May 2015 (there’s about 2.4million of them), those who aren’t yet at university (on gap years etc. or more politically interesting: those who missed out on a university place), those who have already left university and are looking to get a job/onto the housing ladder and most importantly those who didn’t/won’t go to university. The ‘youth vote’ is a diverse grouping. Politicians failure to quite appreciate this has no doubt led to much of the apathy amongst this age range - Labour needs an ’18-30 voter engagement strategy’.

Just one interesting area for development was the little noticed Young British Talent Showcase, hosted by Eddie Izzard at the Labour conference in Liverpool last year. This invited anyone 16-24 with a business or science idea, a community project or an art, media or design talent to send it in, a top 3 were selected (by someone in the Party?) and then judged ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ style on the day. I haven’t seen anything about this year’s conference but it should be repeated and promoted asap to get as many entries as possible. This kind of opportunity could be localised with local Labour parties organising non-party events like talent shows, quiz nights and comedy nights that are for all the family in every community hall all over the country. Further to that Labour should be approaching 6th forms, colleges and universities to offer the opportunity to make posters for different campaigns and to make campaign videos for each candidate at the next general election to played on the new local TV stations the government is planning as well as on YouTube. These kind of opportunities will revitalise Labour’s ability to campaign at little or no cost and make campaign materials more in-tune with young people.

Finally, Ed Miliband should call on the Government to establish a Royal Commission to look at:

  • Whether online voting could securely be implemented;
  • Would moving votes to Saturdays or spreading them over 2 days would improve turnout?
  • Should we extend the franchise to 16 and 17 years olds?
  • Should there be a single date for all local elections nationwide (as exists in Scotland and Wales)?

Ed Miliband is absolutely right to remark on the low turnout and utilise it as a moment for genuine change, he must now ensure he does everything he can to act on his convictions and reach out to ‘the people’ long before 2015.

The time is perfect for Culinary Arts to come to the fore in the National Curriculum


First it was taught as part of Home Economics but as that faded out of fashion. It re-emerged as part of Design and Technology, deigned ‘Food Technology’. Now I believe the time is just right for cooking classes to move again – to the Arts.

Food Tech rightly tries to teach pupils about nutrients and hygiene, absolutely vital elements of their learning but frankly the majority of this should be covered in primary school Food Tech lessons and picked up again in more detail at GCSE for those who want to take the subject on to this formalised level. The best way of improving the nation’s health (and bank balances) is to make sure young people are able to cook for themselves, weaning a generation of the ready meals. We need young people to be enjoying cooking and doing as much of it as possible.

Jamie Oliver has worked with EdExcel to introduce a new set of basic Level 1 and Level 2 Home Cooking Skills courses which pupils are now able to take alongside their Key Stage 3 and GCSE study. However the scheme is voluntary, thus often the pupils most at risk of suffering poor nutrition and being unable to cook for themselves will still be the ones missing out. Jamie is heroic in his pursuit of improving life for the next generation but he can’t do it alone, at the very least Government should be making this a mandatory part of schooling.

Yet we can go further. With celebrity chefs like Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey all over the TV at the moment, not to mention the revived popularity of Masterchef, young people are more enthused (or could be) than ever before about cooking and cooking well – we should seize the moment and introduce Culinary Arts at Year 7.

The first step would be to ensure the teaching of basic cooking skills happens in Primary, even if this requires formal assessment alongside SATs to ensure that schools take this responsibility seriously. This is important to get right so that by the time pupils reach secondary school every pupil understands the basics of the kitchen. This would then provide a basis for Culinary Arts to be taught at Key Stage 3, building on the popularity of celebrity chefs and TV cooking competitions to encourage pupils to really experiment with food and develop affordable dishes that go beyond the basics. We need every child to be cooking a meal at least once every two weeks throughout Years 7, 8 and 9 of their school career – if this was a reality children would learn how to make over 50 different meals before they even begin a GCSE syllabus. The best pupils would go on to take their Culinary Arts to new levels, creating a new generation of world-class chefs.

Some will question my focus on cooking, suspecting I must be some kind of amateur chef myself. The sad truth is I enjoyed Food Tech lessons but wasn’t very good and by the time I reached university I didn’t know how to cook anything for myself - cue embarrassed questions to my peers about how to cook things as simple as bacon, a period of quick-fire self-teaching and a religious adherence to reading the on-packet instructions. I now really enjoy cooking but I’m no expert. I argue for better Food Education because I think all young people should leave school able to cook because the health benefits for the nation are potentially fantastic.

If we can teach young people to enjoy a varied diet, to cook hygienically and eat healthily we will improve their livelihoods (and the livelihoods of their children) all whilst reducing the obesity burden on the NHS and welfare bill and stop hampering businesses with long-term absence due to health problems. It’s a total win-win, so let’s lose the pretentious and/or naïve view that Food education is a nice but not totally necessary add-on to the curriculum confined to learning the very basics and lets embrace it as a genuine subject of creative and social worth.

We must all resist regional pay at any cost but Plaid Cymru's policy is awful


Regular readers of this blog will know that the focus of my writing is Westminster politics but today I feel compelled to write about an issue born in Westminster but one that will have a horrific impact on the Land of my Father…Wales. In my last post I made it quite clear that regional pay for public sector workers, as suggested by the Chancellor in his recent budget, would be an absolute economic disaster for everywhere outside the South East and London; for Wales where the gap between public and private is one of the largest in the UK the effects would be even worse.

Some early estimates are suggesting that in practice regional pay would mean the public sector pay freeze lasting 20 years in Wales – two decades of hoping that private sector wages rise roughly in-line with inflation and whilst that same inflation eats into the real terms wages of nurses, teachers and social workers across a nation with some of the worst health inequalities, educational outcomes and other deep social problems.

Regional pay is not just wrong on the moral basis outlined above, it poses practical problems, some of which Carwyn Jones, the fantastic First Minister of Wales noted in the Assembly last week: will it be based on place of work (most likely) and therefore we could have a nurse working in North Wales earning far less than his/her neighbour, another nurse who happens to commute to high-paying Chester. The alternative would be basing it on where people live but I’m pretty sure that causes legal problems and anyway it would simply reverse the problem with people being paid less for commuting.

The key failing of regional pay however is neither its moral failings nor its practical problems – it is the economics of the idea. As I outlined in my last post it is the problem that it will make a further dent in regional economies at a time when it is needed least. Reducing public sector pay will not help the private sector thrive in Wales; instead it will mean less disposable income to be spent in the retail, services and leisure sectors. The idea that private sector businesses will run to Wales in droves to offer jobs to the talented public sector workers now feeling underpaid is wrong-headed – bad infrastructure and acute social disadvantage leading to poor educational outcomes and a under-skilled workforce are far more likely to be the kind of things holding the Welsh economy back. The notion that leading staff in the public sector will become disgruntled with their ever-decreasing pay over the years and eventually quit to use their talents to start up their own businesses instead may well to actually come to fruition, but should we really celebrate the loss of talented individuals from the services designed to solve the systemic social problems of Wales that I’ve outlined?

So, I’m completely against this awful idea of regional pay in the public sector but I also think that if the UK Government go ahead with the plan then I’m afraid the Welsh Government will have to grin and bear it. Plaid Cymru’s radical new leader has already shown her own economic ineptitude and highlighted her party’s lack of competence on public spending. Leanne Wood was doing so well when in her first week she persuaded the Welsh Conservatives (along with the Lib Dems and Labour Government) to create a cross-party consensus saying no to regional pay. Yet Wood lost it when she stated that if the plans went ahead then the Welsh Government should demand responsibility for setting public sector pay in Wales (so far sensible)…so that it could maintain public sector pay at current levels (rising in-line with inflation year on year). Oh dear.

The problem with Wood’s plan is that under the Barnett Formula (which is the calculation deciding how much funding the devolved governments of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland get from Westminster) any savings the UK government makes from implementing regional pay across England will not be used to boost public spending in other areas but will instead be part of the cuts programme. Thus, this reduced public expenditure in England will be passed on, proportionately (ignoring the failings of the Barnett formula which means Wales gets £400m a year less than it should), to the devolved administrations. Under the plan Wood outlined the Welsh Government would then be committed to paying public sector wages in-line with the South East of England (as is the case currently) but with only enough cash to pay them the regionally adjusted rate (i.e. much less). The result would therefore be further cuts to other areas of public expenditure and/or job cuts in the public sector.

Wood is suggesting that if Plaid Cymru were the largest party in the National Assembly her Government’s response to regional pay would be (providing the UK government agreed to devolve responsibility for public sector pay to the Welsh Government – which the Conservatives, sensing the impending disaster would certainly accede to) have 45 children per class so that the remaining teachers that haven’t had to be laid off can keep getting good pay.

Regional pay is a policy that must be resisted at all costs, how the Unions can fight it whilst keeping the public on board is the challenge now. The support of the UK Labour Party as well as all the cross-party resistance from the three non-England UK nations might help to kill it off but Plaid Cymru’s response is at this stage unhelpful, defeatist and downright awful.

Scotland and Ireland know what they’re doing – England and Wales should celebrate their patron saint’s days

An economic downturn more severe than anything seen since The Great Depression is perhaps not the best time to be talking about reducing the national productivity rate but with life being ever harder for so many it is about time to give everyone a break – so c’mon let’s take the day off for St. George’s Day. No, I’m not talking about some kind of national mass walkout on April 23rd, but something more permanent instead - making St. George’s Day a bank holiday.

Business leaders will bemoan calls for an extra bank holiday but they should talk to their mate Boris Johnson. The Tory Mayor of London who defends bankers and calls for the 50p tax rate to cut as a matter of priority also agrees with me – on St. George’s Day in 2010 he called for a national holiday on April 23rd each year to allow Englanders to celebrate being English. John Cruddas, the Labour MP, who regularly calls on our party to engage more with the concept of Englishness, also backs the idea. Both are right, English identity is currently confined to sports matches and the racism of the English Defence League – the threat of the latter means its hugely important all parties come together with a strategy to give the people of England the freedom to engage with and indeed celebrate their Englishness. I’ve written before in support of a Parliament for England to rebalance the post-devolution UK, a bank holiday is a far simpler and less contentious idea for Tories, Labourites and Lib Dems to rally around.

England wouldn’t be alone in celebrating their patron saint in this way. Northern Ireland has had a day off for St. Patrick’s Day for decades and Scotland has had St. Andrew’s Day as a public holiday since the St. Andrew’s Day Act 2007. Plaid Cymru constantly demand St. David’s Day become a bank holiday and I urge the Welsh Labour government to heed the call. St. David’s Day is celebrated to a much greater extent than St. George’s Day is, but it could be turned into a grand annual celebration in the vein of its Scottish and Irish counterparts. Turning St. George’s Day into a grand celebration could help Cameron’s Big Society vision – I can see village fetes, street parties and carnivals to celebrate the day, that is after the twenty-somethings celebrating the night away the night before arise from their hangovers.

On the point of drinking the bar industry, still in recession, would love the boost this extra celebration would bring. The idea of a St. George’s Day bank holiday even got a mention in the Government’s Tourism Strategy on the basis of the boost it would give to seaside towns and National Parks etc. when families decide en masse to fill their new found late April long weekend with a traffic-jammed trip away from the cities. The Government haven’t since mentioned the idea but under their plan the May Day bank holiday (two weeks later) would be moved forward. There’s a worrying bit of ideological thinking behind the idea to scrap a day, internationally recognised, for celebrating the labour movement, but even if May Day had no significance why not give us the extra day instead of shifting the pack? Sure, two long weekends in (not-quite) succession might seem excessive (Government's alternative proposal was to celebrate the far more obscure Trafalgar Day – 21st October – a Major-era idea which surely should have died along with the Cones Hotline) but we should remember no country in the EU has less public holidays than the UK. Only the Netherlands matches our stinginess and whilst other nations have an excessive amount (Cyprus and Slovakia have 15 a year!) but even Germany, the country with the economy all parties collectively look towards longingly at the moment, has 2 more than the UK does.

So there really is no excuse not to excuse the majority of workers that extra day off to celebrate St. George’s or St. David’s Day, times are tough but an extra day will not be a death knell for our economy, it might even give some suffering industries a much-needed boost. So let’s back the Government if it goes ahead with a St. George’s Day bank holiday, but fight for it to be an extra day, not a early May Day.