Idea 10: allow self-referral to physiotherapists

Expanding patient choice in the NHS, improving quality of care and saving the NHS millions of pounds a year. A policy that does all of that is not only bound to be popular with the voters but also ticks all the right boxes with the various wings of our party - what's not to like?

So what is this magical policy? It's allowing people to 'self-refer' themselves to a physiotherapist. In other words, rather than having to go to your GP who will then make a decision to refer you to a physio you make the call yourself and book an appointment with the physio directly. 

This has been rolled out in most parts of Scotland with tremendous results freeing up thousands of GP appointments. The Chartered Institute of Physiotherapists believe it could save 100million appointments if applied in England which has two benefits. Firstly, it frees up those appointments for other people, thus helping people access their GP more quickly. Secondly, as physiotherapists are paid less than GPs these 100million appointments work out to a £330million saving for the NHS. 

It obviously benefits the patient and their muscular pains too - improving patient satisfaction with the health service by delivering more timely care for them (because they no longer have to see a GP first then wait for a chance to see the physio!). 

At the moment 32% of CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) areas in England allow self-referral to physics. If this figure was 100% (and we know how much the Daily Mail hates a 'postcode lottery' so another bonus would be having the press on our side for once!) we could be improving care and saving money at the same time. 

Idea 9: maintenance loans for part-time students

Jeremy Corbyn has rightly talked up the need for more lifelong learning, all candidates have talked of the need to help workers up skill in order to address Britain's productivity problem and basic Labour instincts that saw us introduce the Open University should mean we're always trying to help people access higher education at whatever stage of their life.  

So my idea to extend student maintenance loans to part-time students should appeal as a policy idea that ticks all the boxes above. 

Currently part-time students can't access any maintenance support, on the basis that they are working so they don't need any income but this of course ignores the fact that many people who might want to access a part-time degree can't afford to give up their full-time hours in order to do so. 

Part-time student numbers have already dropped dramatically since tuition fees were raised. In response many universities and colleges have dropped their fees slightly but extending maintenance loans to part-time students could help reverse the decline and indeed increase numbers to new highs.  

Currently a full time undergraduate staying at home can take out £4,565 a year. Giving part-time students even just half of this (£2,283) would be a big boost to incomes that could be the difference between reducing hours and enrolling or not being able to.  

If every part-time (around 605,000 on current numbers) claimed the £2,283 it would cost £1.38bn a year. Whilst it's unlikely all 605,000 would opt to claim it's also likely that the numbers enrolling (as I've explained) would rise so let's work on that assumption. You could fund that through adding £197,142 for each of the 7,000 large companies who will have to pay the Government's new Apprenticeship Levy. Like the proposed Levy employers could claim some of that cost back off the Government in exhange for supporting employees to reduce hours to allow them to undertake part-time study. 

Final point: to make this work we should also change the loans regime so that part-time students start paying back after they graduate like full time students. Currently part-time students earning over £21,000 start repaying their loan immediately. Delaying that until after graduation may be another way to help boost numbers enrolling and would be important to make the proposal above work too. 

Idea 8: a Chief Technology Officer for every LEP region

I've already said that I throughly back Yvette Cooper's call for Britain to set a target of 3% of GDP to be invested in R&D annually. This would be double current spending and if current levels of productivity and excellence could be maintained then it would be truly transformational for our economy, setting us on a path to being the world leading place for innovation, allowing us to once again lead the world instead of follow in the trails blazed by others.  

We shouldn't get too downhearted though. London recently came out 2nd in a list of best cities for innovation (https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/news-template/-/asset_publisher/Qw0bKmomFN4q/content/benchmarking-innovation-policy-in-cities/)

The main reason London didn't pip New York for the top spot was because it lacks of a dedicated 'Chief Technology Officer' - a role the report cites as having been 'incredibly successful in other cities'. The report also highlights Barcelona as an example of a smaller city that can be as successful as larger rivals.  

Its with this in mind that I would argue that Labour should include 4 key elements in its policy on science and innovation at the next election:

1. Maintain the 2015 manifesto pledge to bring security to innovation investment by introducing a 10-year framework for science spending that clearly sets out priorities and gives confidence to universities and businesses that science spending policies and incentives won't chop and change every year in the Budget 

2. Set a national goal of acheiving 3% of GDP spent on R&D by 2030 at the latest ideally much before  

3. Building on the Catapult Network - networks of centres (started by Labour) that bring together universities and business to work on cutting edge ideas that can be commercialised - by continuing investment in new Centres and expanding their remit, as suggested in the recent Hauser Review, to look at building relations with the finance industry to help secure private investment in research in new areas and develop Degree Apprenticeship routes into emerging career paths.

4. Introduce a 'Chief Technology Officer' or 'Chief Innovation Officer' for every Local Enterprise Partnership region of England with a remit to ensure the region is doing its utmost to make itself attractive to inward investment in R&D-intensive industries.  

Idea 7: mutualise the BBC

Have to admit I've stolen this idea from Tessa Jowell but if in addition to my party membership in also a member of Labour's sister party Co-operative Party and if I'm elected to the National Policy Forum I'll push the co-operative cause non-stop. 

So the idea is to make the BBC more democratically accountable and give every license fee paying household a say in the running of the organisation whilst also giving it a level of legal protection from the kind of onslaught being brought upon it by the Tories currently. 

We all know the Tories want to ruin the BBC, making it an institution owned by all of us would make their attacks harder to carry out and would rule out their ultimate aim of abolishing the organisation. 

Idea 6: abolish the 11+

A nice easy idea after the more technical two I've proposed recently...

I grew up in Buckinghamshire where every child takes the 11+ and are then split into those who are more academically minded and those who aren't and sent to Grammar schools for the former and Secondary Moderns for the latter, even if you agree with this principle I'm afraid it isn't the 1950s and this selective system no longer works like this in practice.

A few years ago Andrew Neil made a programme about social mobility and expected to conclude that as it was Grammar School system he credited with supporting his own social mobility that the answer to Britain's declining social mobility would be to restore them nationwide. Yet Neil (no leftie I'm sure you'll agree!) concluded that Grammar Schools are no longer great levellers lifting up talented working class kids and helping them smash glass ceilings in Whitehall, the media, law or the City. Instead wealthy parents now sent their children to prep schools or spend large amounts of money on personal tutors to ensure their child passes the 11+ whilst those without such advantages naturally tend to fail. 

The test used in Buckinghamshire was revised last year to try and address this problem but initial findings suggest they've made it worse.  

I remember the feeling of being a failure that not passing your 11+ brings. Seeing parents overjoyed that their son or daughter had passed, another - of considerable wealth - in tears and promising to appeal as their son had missed by a few points; all this while people like me are being told 'oh it doesn't mean you're a failure', maybe not officially but it sure feels like it. 

I was lucky, my secondary modern school (now rated 'requires improvement' by Ofsted) was at the time led by some inspirational teachers in the leadership roles. I received a great education that helped re-build my confidence, shaped the person I am today and I also met some great friends some of whom I still hold dear to this day. I was also elected Head Boy so I did alright out of it but many of the non-Grammar schools in the area at the time weren't so good. 

So if I'm on the National Policy Forum I will push for Labour adopt the policy of finishing the job of installing a truly comprehensive system nationwide, I want to abolish the 11+ system. I want to abolish it because I don't think it's right to separate people at such a young age, I think the test is little more than a glorified IQ test and the system is being gamed by wealthy parents.  

If we are serious about addressing social mobility we need to be brave enough to open the Grammar Schools up to a comprehensive intake.

Idea 5: be bold & long-term on high-speed rail

While we build HS2 which will travel at 250mph the Japenese are building a maglev train that will travel at 312mph. 

Connectivity with the existing network and compliance with European track requirements are two reasons cited for not opting for maglev technology but I believe we shouldn't be talking about one line (HS1 is basically an upgrade to the Eurotunnel link and is already operating whilst HS3 proposed by Osborne turns out to just be a faster - about 130mph - direct service between Liverpool and Leeds rather than a proper High Speed line). We need to set out a proper 30 or 40 year plan to build a High Speed rail network connecting all parts of the country and we should do it with a new, maglev service. The EU issue could then be overcome because we could argue for an exemption in the name of innovation and also explain that it doesn't directly connect with the main rail system but is instead a complimentary network which happens to (for obvious reasons) utilise the same stations.  

Some argue that the Japanese system is more expensive but that's largely because 90% of the line will be built underground (so it can short cut under mountains - we could do the same to deal with nimbyism and some legitimate concerns around effects on the countryside). There is an upside to its higher building costs - because maglev trains floor above the track (magnetic levitation) there is no friction meaning the cost of maintenance is lower.

A final reason cited against maglev is that it's unproven over long distances. This is true but the Japanese have heavily tested the technology and are confident that it will work for a longer distance than London to Manchester. They are even offering to build a line between Washington DC and Boston below cost in order to demonstrate its capabilities in the hope that U.S. States will order further lines from them once they see what it can do. Our Victorian ancestors would shudder at how Britain became so risk averse and refuses to utilise our world class engineers and scientists to enter the proper High Speed rail race with our own maglev line.

So why am I mad for maglev? Because HS2 will connect London to Manchester in an impressive 1 hour 8 minutes. Maglev would do it in 48 minutes. That 20 minute difference might not sound worth the fuss but think about how many places are within a 20 minute train or tram ride of Manchester City centre? Suddenly those places become commutable distance to London. 

Some who argue against HS2 argue that it will suck growth from regions and into already prosperous London. They are missing two points. First, growing regional economies isn't something that is magically done by a railway line it's done by investment plus long-term focus on schools and skills etc., in other words the North needs more than a railway line to support growth it needs a wider plan. Secondly, where a line would help is if people can access careers in high earning London jobs without moving from Manchester or Leeds and can instead commute and bring back their London wages to spend in Manchester and Leeds thus creating more jobs in entertainment, leisure, retail etc. 

Maglev would spread those benefits out more widely so that larger parts of Greater Manchester not just central Manchester are within commutable distance of London. Likewise with Leeds. 

The earlier stops on the HS2 routes get even more benefit from maglev which would be able to do London to Birmingham in just 27 minutes compared with HS2's 45. That would put whole chunks of the West Midlands within commutable distance of London.  

But we shouldn't stop there. We should set out this 30-40 year grand plan to make the geographical gaps between our increasingly divided country much smaller. We need to ensure new maglev lines from London and Birmingham respectively to Cornwall and South Wales. From North Wales to South Wales and bringing Newcastle, Glasgow, Hull, Norwich, Edinburgh and even Belfast (we'd need a Channel Tunnel style connection) into this super grid of high speed rail. 

Imagine London to Edinburgh in just 90 minutes? Imagine how that would put domestic flights out of business and thus help us achieve our carbon emission targets. Every way you look at maglev is seems to be yes the radical choice but also the most sensible long-term. 

If I'm on the National Policy Forum I will be arguing for Labour's policy to be to call for HS2 to be built using maglev technology before it's too late and propose a national network of maglev lines that would connect all the major conurbations of the UK.  

Idea 4: electric car charging points for every block of flats

One of the things holding back the take off of electric vehicles (and there are a few) is that despite being able to simply plug new 100% electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf into the plugs in your house those living in flats miss out unless they're willing to run a long cable out of the window and across the car park. 

If you live in a house the Government's Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) will install a free electric charging point for you outside your home but if you live in flats this won't work as you would obviously would need to share the charging costs with the other residents who probably don't have an electric car and almost certainly don't want to pay to charge yours. 

The solution is for the OLEV to install multi-point electric charging points in the car park of every block of flats in the country and provide a card, much like a hotel room key, which users slot in to charge their vehicle. This would allow the costs to be applied directly to the person charging rather than pooling the costs amongst all residents. 

Idea 3: Bring back Child Trust Funds but better

Child Trust Funds didn't survive long in the Coalition era. 

Introduced by Labour in 2005 they were designed to ensure all children had some savings set aside for when they turned 18. Money for a car, to travel, to tide them over at uni or to put towards a deposit for a house. The Tories promised to means test them to families with only £16,000 household income a year, under pressure from the Lib Dems (yes, the Lib Dems opposed CTFs) they were scrapped altogether in 2011.

The idea worked as so: Government would put in £250 for every child at birth. They would have then added £250 when the child reached 7 years old (plus an additional £250 means tested to low income families only) but of course the scheme was scrapped at age 6 itself. Rumours at one time suggested Labour intended on adding another £250 top up at age 11. 

I think we should bring back the Child Trust Fund but make it better than before.  

Government would contribute a certain amount, say £500 a year, to the children of the lowest income families with £250 being the average and less and less up until top earning families receive no contribution. The annual contribution would be dependent on families making a contribution themselves, again the amount required would be tapered so it's set at zero for those with household income below £18,000 and rising to £250 a year (£20.83 a month) for families earning £44,000 a year and the government subsidy tapers away thereafter by about £9.62 for every £1,000 earned up to £70,000 so a family on £55,000 a year would have to pay in £355.82 a year in order to trigger the release of the Government top-up contribution (of £144.18) to make the total £500 a year. A family earning £26,000 would have to pay £76.96 a year to unlock £423.04 from Government. Children in care would automatically get the full amount. 

It would cost just £192m to implement in its first year, rising in cost for 18 years until it settles on a cost of £3.5bn a year (in 2039 - presuming it takes a year to implement so starting 2021) which could be part funded by reversing Tory tax cuts for high earners I.e. Restoring the 50p tax rate or bringing inheritance tax back to the level it was set at before Osborne's most recent budget. 

These figures are very rough estimates but you get the point. The new and improved Child Trust Funds could allow every 18 year old to have a savings account of £9,000 (plus interest which hopefully will have kept up with inflation) to allow them the opportunities too often constrained to the children of the better-off.  

Interestingly the money sat in accounts would need to gain interest to at least keep pace with inflation so it could be invested in long-term assets in Government bonds - in other words, it could actually fund infrastructure investment! 

Idea 2: Make the energy companies pay the Winter Fuel Allowance

This is the 2nd of my 25 ideas in 25 days. I'm doing one a day leading up to the close of voting for the National Policy Forum.  

I know Jeremy Corbyn has called for renationalisation of the energy companies but in the interim here's a easy move a Labour government could make in its first Budget...

Shift the cost of the Winter Fuel Allowance away from Government and onto the energy companies. 

George Osborne has just done the same with the BBC - making them bear the cost of the free TV licenses for over 75s - so why not do it to the energy companies? 

The money saved could be put towards part of the costs of a radical street-by-street insulation of Britain's notoriously draughty homes which would itself lead to great savings down the line as we'd need to build less power stations due to the decreased demand from simply having more energy efficient housing stock. 

I'd actually go further than making the energy companies pay the Winter Fuel Allowance. I'd like it if we could legislate to say energy companies have to provide a 25% discount to any home with a resident over 67 or with a disability. This, combined with insulation, could rid us of fuel poverty which is a scourge that shouldn't exist in modern day Britain. 

Idea 1: all fines should be levied proportional to income

The first of my 25 ideas in 25 days is a simple one: all fines should be proportional to income. 

In Switzerland fines for speeding are proportional to income (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/08/should_speeding_fines_be_based.html) so if you're caught speeding if you're on the national average income (roughly £26,000 a year) or less you would pay say (for ease) £100. If you earn more than that then your fine increases proportionally with income so someone earning £260,000 a year would pay £1,000 whilst someone earning £2.6million would pay £10,000. 

This would raise a little extra cash but more importantly makes the deterrent more equal. Take the example of John Terry and the disabled parking bay (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-539397/100-000-week-football-star-John-Terry-ignores-60-fine-park-disabled-spot.html). Terry would probably think twice about parking in a space designed to help disabled people access facilities more easily if his £60 fine was more proportional or he may well still ignore the £6,000 fine but at least we'd raise £6,000 instead of a paltry £60!

Thanks for everything

Thank you so much to everyone who donated, helped leaflet, knocked on doors, drove me to hustings, attended hustings, retweeted, shared posts, helped out with our campaign launch party - every one of you played a part in building what, in context, was a pretty successful result for Labour in Newbury - our largest share of the vote since 1979.

Thank you above all to my wife, Adriana, for designing the leaflets, attending the count and keeping my spirits high as the national catastrophe emerged and for putting up with seeing a lot less of me for the past 5 months and above all for your undying faith in me and your love. He/she might unfortunately be being born into a Tory England but we have something so magical to look forward to in October and I cannot wait.

I've learned so much during this campaign, acquired new friends and mere acquaintances have become great friends too. I'll never forget meeting the people who've suffered because of the Bedroom Tax or those worried about the future of the NHS. I want to thank the 4,837 who voted for me. It means an incredible amount to have your faith placed in me. 

One thing that can be taken from this result is that Newbury Labour stands stronger than it has done for a long time. New members joining, new supporters out with us campaigning including a wave of youthful support. We are building a movement. Join us on this journey and I urge you be with us in challenging the mistakes and wrong headed beliefs of this new Government that will see inequality in our country rise further.

On that final note, we have a new campaign to begin fighting now. It is one that will define our future and that of generations to come. A referendum of whether we stay in or come out of the EU. For those who ask what next for me? This is the answer. Fighting with all my heart to keep Britain in Europe, be a leading voice in building a fairer Europe, this will now consume much of my time and energy and I hope, again, you'll support me and join me as we undertake this new battle.

Thank you all again, for everything, from the bottom of my heart.

"When cowards flinch and traitors sneer. We'll keep the red flag flying here"

Listen to me debating with the other candidates on BBC Radio Berkshire

On Wednesday morning I took part in a debate with Richard Benyon, Judith Bunting from the Lib Dems and Paul Field from the Greens live on BBC Radio Berkshire.

The questions came from local residents and the topics covered were:

 - International development 

- Housing

- Support for small businesses  

- The differences between parties  

- Zero hours contracts  

and a brilliant question: 'name one policy you don't agree with in your party's manifesto'.

You can listen to it here (starts 2 hours 9 minutes in): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02p6vy1

Talking to voters in Thatcham and setting out our education policies

This evening myself and a team of Labour council candidates were out speaking to voters in Thatcham.

One woman (a teacher), quite rightly, pointed out that education policy hasn't been discussed enough in this election campaign.

So I explained some of our plans:

- we'll protect the entire education budget from early years right through to universities, raising it in line with inflation every year 

- unlike with this Government's Free Schools programme we won't build new schools in places with surplus places, instead we'll focus spending on areas where schools are over subscribed. We'll allow parents, academy chains AND local councils to open new schools in these areas. 

 - we'll reintroduce the proper cap on class sizes for years 1, 2 and 3 so they can't go over 30 pupils per class max. 

- we'll end the use of unqualified teachers 

- we'll offer teachers new career paths and support their professional development. These new paths include specialising in a particular discipline such as behaviour or SEND or in a subject I.e. Science or History. These teachers will then help train and guide newly qualified teachers - sharing their best practice.

- we'll introduce new Directors of School Standards for local areas who will have oversight of ALL schools in the local area whether they are Academies or not and they will have power to intervene when things are starting to show signs of going wrong rather than waiting for a bad Ofsted judgement. 

- We'll change the whole Ofsted system to create a new peer-review model of best practice sharing and supportive improvement advice led by head teachers rather than the current system of adversarial data-driven inspections and Ofsted will not make any prescriptions about teaching methods. 

- we recognise the huge myriad of reforms undertaken by Michael Gove and the stress that another overhaul would cause teachers so we've pledged to keep the bulk* of his reforms in place and letting teachers focus on teaching 

*that said, there are exceptions to this rule where we've seen this that just aren't right and need fixing so...

- We'll stop the decoupling of A-levels and AS Levels so that AS Levels still count towards a full A-level thus expanding flexibility for students and improving the accuracy of university admissions processes

- We'll sort out careers advice with fully funded one-to-one advice for every pupil and we'll bring back statutory work experience in Year 10 with a national body that can support schools in setting up quality opportunities for students 

- We'll make sure Ofsted can't rate a school outstanding unless their arts provision is of sufficient quality to make sure that all pupils have access to a broad and balanced curriculum that values creativity alongside core skills like literacy and numeracy. 

- We'll improve the citizenship curriculum so young people understand more about the different layers of Government and how these affect them and how they can influence them

I also spoke to an 18-year old first time voter who was surprised when I explained that even though she'll start at uni this September if we're elected she'll still benefit from our student policies. Her first year will cost £9,000 but if we're elected our reforms will kick in for all students from Sept 2016 so her 2nd and 3rd year will be £6,000 instead AND she'll benefit from our extra £400 a year increase in student maintenance grants. 

I really enjoy explaining our policies to voters and I understand that so many people are still undecided. Unfortunately I simply can't physically get around to speak to everyone but I'd be very happy to visit you, to talk on the phone or just discuss via email any policy area you're particularly keen to hear both Labour's proposals and my personal views.

Feel free to email me on: jonnyrobertsfornewbury@gmail.com to arrange. 

Labour would get rid of the £21billion black hole this Government has left for future generations

Tomorrow I'll speak to 6th formers at Park House School. One key message I'll aim to get across is the same message I've spoken about at St Gabriel's, Bradfield College, Trinity and Kennet Schools. Its about the dangerous fiscal legacy that this Government's £9,000 tuition fees policy has left for future generations regardless of whether they went to uni or not. 

I will explain that our proposed cut in fees to £6,000 (from September 2016) would address the double-debt time bomb which in 30 years time, when this generation of politicians who never paid a penny to go to university, will be long gone.

What I mean by that is that under the £9,000 fees system it is estimated that 45% of graduates will not repay the full amount even after 30 years. Whilst that remaining debt is written off for the individual it doesn't just disappear. It then becomes public debt and is estimated to open up a £21billion gap in the public finances that will see the students who've paid back a lot of their loan, the students who paid back all of their loan and even those who didn't go to uni at all hit with higher taxes or reduced public services. I think that's wrong, short-term thinking and that's what our fee cut fixes. 

I also explained that university funding would not be reduced as we plan to replace the fee income with direct Government funding secured through reducing the tax relief on pension contributions for the highest earners. 

Finally, to help with living costs we would increase student maintenance grants by £400 a year from September 2016, paid for by increasing interest payments on the higher earning graduates (which addresses concerns about the fee cut helping only those higher earners).

Why I oppose the bedroom tax

I think the most unfair day of this Government's tenure has to be the 2012 Budget where they simultaneously cut the top rate of tax (levied only on income above £150,000 thus paid only by the richest 1% of people in our land) by 5% (£42,500 for every millionaire and rising the more they earn) whilst introducing the 'Bedroom Tax'. 

Essentially what the 'Bedroom Tax' does is it cuts the amount of housing benefit tenants of housing association homes or council houses can claim if you have 'spare' bedrooms. This has often cost people between £750 and £1,500 a year extra depending on if they have one or two 'spare' rooms. 528 households in Newbury constituency alone have been affected. 

I've met single people on this campaign trail who have had to move away from the community in which they knew everyone to a place where they feel less safe. I've met disabled people who have been affected and now live solely out of the reduced section at Tesco. One older woman said she didn't want to move to a 1 bedroom place because her granddaughter visits often and wouldn't have anywhere but a sofa to sleep on.  

This shouldn't be how Britain works. Cutting tax for the haves and slashing support for the have-nots. 

But I don't just oppose the Bedroom Tax because its cruel. I oppose it because its deeply flawed and actually doesn't save any money at all. 

1) There is a shortage of social housing with 1 or 2 bedrooms. People who want to downsize (as the policy is designed to encourage) cannot because there simply aren't the properties available meaning people are forced to pay more even if they are willing to comply with the logic behind the policy. 

2) 60% of homes affected are now in arrears because they can't afford to pay. This means tenants will be evicted from their homes. Councils, quite rightly, have a statutory duty to house anyone who is homeless so these people end up in Bed and Breakfast accommodation which costs the council more than the Bedroom Tax saves!

3) Even those who downsize into private rented accommodation find that the rents are higher and thus the Government's Housing Benefit Bill increases!

So there you have it. The Bedroom Tax is the cruellest, most ineffective and illogical piece of legislation I've ever seen. 

That's why I'm proud that if Labour win this election we will prioritise scrapping the Bedroom Tax in our first Budget. 

My response to Osborne’s final Budget

Yesterday’s Budget exposed the very worst side of the calculating mind of George Osborne – it was a Budget designed to fool the public to which he is elected to serve. Full of unfunded gimmicks and miniscule tax cuts for the many, larger ones for the more wealthy and unveiled a horrifically cynical set of spending plans for the next five years. 

The spending plans

First of all those spending plans. They’ve already been described by the Office for Budget Responsibility as a “rollercoaster”. Basically, in order to stop my party from being able to describe his spending plans as cutting spending back to 1930s levels by the end of the next Parliament he will now no longer aim for a budget surplus of £23billion in the final year of the Parliament but a surplus, instead, of £7billion. 

So does this mean a easing of austerity? You’d think so wouldn’t you? But no. Instead Obsorne is proposing this “rollercoaster” plan to cut back public spending in the first two years of the new Parliament by double the amount he has cut public spending in any previous year. These are extraordinary cuts. Spending cuts continue but a reduced pace in year 3 of the Parliament before shooting back up by £16billion in the 4th year – the year before the next General Election. 

Why cut public spending so deeply simply to restore it by £16billion in the final year? There are 3 possible explanations – perhaps it’s a mixture of 1 and 2 or 1 and 3:

1. It allows him to show public spending as a percentage of GDP is only falling to 1964 levels instead of 1930s Depression-era levels. 

2. It allows him to boost public expenditure with massive popular investments in the NHS and Defence but only in Year 4 when dramatic further austerity to local government and other services will have pushed other services into disarray (the King’s Fund – a respected health think tank – recently showed how cuts to local authority budgets had resulted in huge cutbacks to social care budgets leaving more older people reliant on hospital A&Es thus causing the A&E crisis)

OR

3. He actually doesn’t intend to make these dramatic cuts but was hoping Labour would sign up to this level of austerity therefore giving our supporters (quite rightly) reason to ask what we stand for. 

If its point 2 then he’s genuinely going to make some of the most dramatic cuts to public spending ever seen in this country. Even if he froze benefits for the working and out of work, the sick and disabled for five years that would only ‘save’ £6.9billion by attacking the real incomes of the poorest and most vulnerable in society. To meet his target of £12billion of welfare savings he would have to find a further £5.1billion – that can only mean real terms cuts to benefits for people in work but on the minimum wage struggling to pay soaring rents and their rising bills. 

Labour has a better plan to cut welfare:

-       We’ll raise the National Minimum Wage which reduces welfare spending on tax credits and increases Government income tax and National Insurance revenues. 

-       We’ll encourage businesses, especially the biggest firms to go further and pay a Living Wage, by offering them part of those tax revenues and benefit savings as an incentive but only for one year so as to create a long-term higher pay situation for millions of workers and further benefit savings and tax revenue increases

-       We’ll introduce guaranteed jobs for young people who’ve been unemployed over a year as the Welsh Government has done recently to great success rates, with over 80% going on to sustained employment

-       We’ll get young people back into college by reversing the situation where they lose benefits if they enrol on a course and instead remove the incentive to not further their education by removing their eligibility for Jobseekers Allowance and re-introducing a form of Educational Maintenance Allowance but for over 18s; and

-       We’ll reduce the number of people claiming Housing Benefit by introducing new three-year tenancy agreements that cap rents from rising by more than inflation during those three years and by increasing the number of affordable homes being built.

If its option 3 it will show he has learned some of the lessons of this Parliament where he cut too far and too fast (as we repeatedly warned) and saw the economy stagnate, tax revenues way below those he had forecast and thus his deficit reduction plan had to bring it in-line with the plan he inherited from Labour but by then we’d wasted two years of low or no growth. 

The tax cuts 

His tax cuts – raising the personal allowance to £10,800 from April 2015 and £11,000 the year after – will obviously do nothing for the lowest earners who earn less than this amount but will benefit people earning over that amount including those who earn enough for some of their earnings to fall into the 40p tax bracket. Osborne decided that people earning more than £42,700 were a priority for additional tax cuts by raising the threshold the 40p rate kicks in to £43,300. 

Over the course of the Parliament Osborne’s tax plans will hand average earners around £500 but by contrast will hand people earning over £50,000 a year a whopping £1,300 tax cut. The most regressive tax move since his own decision to cut tax for people earning over £150,000 by 5% back in 2012. 

The other giveaways and gimmicks

The Budget was also full of gimmicks and giveaways which Ed Balls has said he will not reverse simply because they don’t amount to very much and don’t affect Labour’s spending plans. That includes a freeze on fuel duty for another year, a cut in beer duty by 1p, money for church roof renovations and a cut in the Severn Bridge toll. 

We’ll also keep his Help to Buy ISAs which give first-time buyers £50 for every £200 a saver puts in. Osborne obviously thought we wouldn’t back this but with Ed Balls agreeing to keep it in place if Labour win just means Labour’s offer to first time buyers is now even better. For first time buyers:

-       We’ll be building more homes 

-       We’ll be allowing local authorities to designate these homes for 1st time buyers from the local area before they can be sold on the open market

-       We won’t match Tory plans to offer cut price homes that will exempt developers from high quality building standards, energy efficiency measures and their contributions to social housing schemes and local infrastructure because this wheeze will store up huge problems for the future

-       We will match their Help to Buy programme and Help to Buy ISAs

-       Our more secure three-year tenancies with caps on rent increases will help renters save deposits

In summary

So all in all this Budget has shown us Osborne’s plan for Britain is not a long-term economic plan as he likes to claim. It says everything about the man that he believe long-term means nothing more than a 5-year electoral cycle. It’s a plan for huge public service cuts and attacks on the poor to pay for more giveaways to wealthier and older voters. It is a core vote election strategy nothing more, nothing less. 

Labour has a better plan and better vision for Britain. A One Nation vision that will help us all by not cutting services that are actually investments to help our future like early years education or the services that save our NHS money and help it run better like social care for older people. It’s a plan that doesn’t saddle the next generation with a debt burden from unpaid tuition fee loans and it helps those who struggle to get by at university with a £400 increase in annual student maintenance grants. A plan that cuts welfare by helping people into work, into affordable homes and increasing their pay and a vision that sees small businesses prospering from a cut in business rates and from the productivity gains of higher quality Apprenticeships. 

On Red Nose Day I wanted to tell you I'm 100% committed to international development

This evening I debated with the Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP candidates at St Gabriel's School. Of course we disagreed on a lot of things but nothing got me more angry than when the UKIP candidate argued for getting rid of most of Britain's international development budget.

International development is so important. I'm so proud of our record in Government on this issue which means so much to me. Labour formed the Department for International Development, we started the move to increase aid to 0.7% of GDP and we led the world on debt cancellation for the world's poorest countries at the 2005 G8 summit.

There is still so much more to do.

It isn't just morally right to help those most in need but it makes cold, hard economic sense too. Aid is an investment. The future for our economy is all about high value manufacturing, about creative industries and services. To have such products and services are nothing but a dream for the majority of people in developing countries who are just happy to have something, anything to eat and drink. The more we can help developing countries develop and grow their economies now so that they can provide for their whole populations then the more likely that in future those citizens will become customers for the goods our economy produces.

Yet the reason I got so, so angry today was because it IS, of course, a moral cause too.

Too many people, every day, are dying from preventable diseases because they lack proper sanitation or access to basic healthcare. Too many people don't have jobs and when they do they don't pay more than a pittance. Too many children aren't able to go to school and worse too many children are soldiers in conflicts where they have no idea why they're fighting.

We can change this. We already are - slowly. But we need to push other G8 nations to live up their commitments too. If all of them invested 0.7% of their GDP like we now do then the difference we could make would be monumental.

We can only continue to lead the world if continue to lead by example. I'm proud of Britain's commitment to international development and it angered me so much that on Red Nose Day - a show of Britain's generous soul - that Newbury's UKIP candidate chose to discuss with glee the idea of cutting aid to the world's poorest countries.

Enjoy Red Nose Day today tonight, please donate and thank you to all those who have done something to raise money for it this year.

I've agreed to be an 'Arthritis Champion' for Newbury constituency

Today I agreed to become an ‘Arthritis Champion’, supporting Arthritis Research UK in their efforts to find a cure for arthritis while calling for policy change to prevent its onset and transform the lives of people that have musculoskeletal conditions.

Musculoskeletal conditions include osteoarthritis, back pain and osteoporosis. People with these conditions often experience a great deal of pain and a loss of mobility. Over 10 million people in the UK have a musculoskeletal condition.

By agreeing to become an Arthritis Champion, I've pledged to:

·    campaign to make musculoskeletal conditions a public health priority

·    fight to ensure that people with arthritis get high-quality care at the time that they need it

·    champion the UK’s leadership role in medical research.

I am delighted to become an Arthritis Champion and support further research into cures for these terrible conditions and better support to help sufferers through the pain. Musculoskeletal conditions affect a huge number of people, I’ve personally been affected as my grandmother suffers from arthritis.

Dr Liam O’Toole, chief executive officer of Arthritis Research UK, said, “I’m delighted that Jonny has become an Arthritis Champion. We need his help to champion the needs of people with arthritis both nationally and locally.

“Our Arthritis Research UK manifesto sets out an exciting vision for the future of musculoskeletal conditions. We are calling for policy changes to support the prevention, transformation and cure of musculoskeletal conditions. There is much that can be done: but we can’t do it alone. We need to work in partnership to put the needs of people with arthritis on the political agenda and transform the lives of people living with arthritis.”

Signing up to support the fight against fraud

Today I signed up to support the manifesto of Cifas – the anti-fraud body.

Fraud affects everyone in Newbury in some way – either as direct victims, or through higher taxes and fees as a result of the huge losses which occur. Last year alone there were 32,757 cases of fraud in the South East costing over £113m, according to Cifas’ figures.

The Cabinet Office estimates that the cost of fraud to the public sector is between £31billion and £56billion every year. The true cost to charities and the private sector is unknown.

Cifas’ Fraud Manifesto has three clear asks of the government:

§  That a national measure of fraud loss is created. Government needs to work with industry, charities and other interested parties to understand the scale of the loss. Until it is understood, we will not be able to tackle it.

§  For a government to lead on a co-ordinated education and awareness campaign on fraud, resourced jointly by Government and industry. People of all ages need to be savvier to frauds and fraudsters across the board in order to better help themselves.

§  A comprehensive review of the sentencing guidelines for fraud. The public must have faith that when crimes are prosecuted, fraudsters are punished appropriately. And criminals need to know that whether they defraud a multi-national company of millions, or swindle a widower’s pension, that they will face a tough sentence which reflects the impact of their crimes.

I’m happy to sign up to these measures and I’m pleased that Labour have announced that if we are elected we will introduce an Economic Crime Bill that would increase corporate fines for fraud as well as increasing the powers and resources of the Serious Fraud Office so that it can really get to grips with this serious issue that is costing us all so much.

Simon Dukes, Chief Executive of Cifas, said:

“One thing is clear – incidents of fraud are on the rise. The internet makes it easier and cheaper for fraudsters to try their luck and they are doing so at a greater pace and on an industrial scale.

“We are never going to arrest our way out of fraud. So we need to understand the scale of the threat we are facing in order to change behaviours and protect ourselves.  And when we have evidence on the worst cases, citizens need to have confidence that fraudsters are being pursued with the full force of the law and that the punishment fits the crime.”

Labour will cut tuition fees to £6,000 from Sept 2016 and increase student maintenance payments

Ed Miliband has just announced that if we're elected in May a Labour Government would reduce tuition fees and increase student maintenance grants from September 2016. 

This means current freshers (1st year students) will pay £6,000 for their final year of study instead of the current £9,000 and students entering uni this September will pay £6,000 for their final two years with all students entering the system from 2016 onwards paying £6,000 a year for the entirety of their studies. 

This puts right a fundamental inter-generational unfairness that is built into the £9,000 fee regime. Because £9,000 fees are so high  it is estimated that  45% of graduates will have a proportion of their debts wiped clean but this simply means transferring that debt onto the books of the Government in 30 years time meaning that same generation will then face higher taxes and public service cuts to pay for the £21billion a year deficit that the £9,000 fees policy would create from 2035 onwards. 

The £9,000 fees policy was not only a betrayal from Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats who individually pledged not to vote for a rise in fees only to vote through a trebling of them but it was also an act of dodgy accounting by George Osborne by shifting huge debts onto future taxpayers whether they went to university or not. 

Miliband also announced that we would increase student maintenance grants by £400 a year from September 2016 too helping students address the rising cost of living - particularly sky-rocketing accommodation costs. 

Whilst there is no university in Newbury we are a constituency with one of the highest proportions of young people applying for Higher Education so I know that these policies will be a great help for young people in Newbury and if I'm elected I'll personally campaign for Government to go further look at regulating student rents. 

In a final part of the announcement Labour have said its our long-term aspiration still to overhaul the whole funding system and replace tuition fees and debt with a graduate tax and we'll work on the costings for such a system in Government. This would be a fairer system because it would eliminate interest from the system which punishes lower earning students who can't pay their fees up front or take longer to pay their fees back and would instead reverse it by charging the highest earning graduates progressively more. 

Today's announcement on maintenance grants is funded by a step in the direction of a graduate tax by charging higher interest for the top earning graduates and we would fund today's fees cut by restricting tax relief on pensions for the highest earners.