The candidates selected were:
Reading West - Victoria Groulef
Reading East - Matt Rodda
We congratulate them both.
Tuesday, 4 December 2012
Labour candidates for Reading East and Reading West selected!
The candidates selected were:
Reading West - Victoria Groulef
Reading East - Matt Rodda
We congratulate them both.
Monday, 22 October 2012
Reading East and West Shortlists Announced!
Last night Reading Labour officially announced the shortlisted candidates for the parliamentary selections for the 2015 General Election, and we are proud to say that the candidates we backed in each constituency have been shortlisted!
The 5 people shortlisted in Reading East are:
The 3 people shortlistd in Reading West are:
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Target Achieved!
by Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
This year Reading Labour set the target of recruiting 50 new members and as of last night we've achieved that goal (undoubtedly with a little help from Ed Miliband and his 'One Nation' speech). What is also amazing news is the fact that almost 20 of the new members are Reading Young Labour members. The rise of young people in Reading Labour has been rather extraordinary and our numbers have increased from around 40 in 2010 to over 150 in 2012. This year our delegate to Labour Party conference was chosen out of over a thousand to sit on stage with Ed Miliband, partially due to the success we've had here locally in the elections and in our membership recruitment.
Its certainly become an exciting time to be a Labour member in Reading. More and more young people are stepping forward to say they disagree with this Tory-led government and to fight for a better future, and as Joe Barker pointed out in his post, young people are becoming more active, with young members applying for the Reading East and West MP seats and sitting on the selection panels which decided the shortlisted parliamentary candidates.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Become The First To Know
Reading Labour is currently selecting candidates to fight against Rob Wilson (Reading East) and Alok Sharma (Reading West) at the next general election. Reading Young Labour made our endorsements at our last meeting (12th October) and now we wait to find out who is going to be shortlisted.
The good news is that Young Labour members applied for both seats and there are Reading Young Labour members on both the selection panels, something that shows just how important young people have become both within the Labour Party and locally here in Reading.
Reading Labour has launched a new monthly e-newsletter (the first one should be going out in a few weeks) and you can sign up here to Become The First To Know
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Labour Party Conference 2012!
- Gaby Davies
- Richard Wood
- Will Cross
as well as Duncan Bruce and Rachael Chrisp who will be attending representing Reading East and West constituencies. We will be blogging daily as of tomorrow (Sunday 30th September) up until Wednesday 3rd October about what debates we've attended, what policies are being discussed and what generally is being discussed in relation to young people.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Opinion: An Exam Revolution
by Josh Harsant (@JoshHarsant)
A young person's education is the fundamental stepping stone to the rest of their lives. Being at school is more than getting 'good grades', but about developing the skills needed to be responsive, adaptive and dynamic in the changing landscape of employment.
We learnt this week of the radical proposals by our apparently pro-school autonomy Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to interfere with our education system at central Government level, again. For a Secretary of State who claimed he wanted less central control and more school autonomy, it's safe to say, it's not going well at all.
Gove is developing a reputation for forcing change in our education system. First it was by cornering schools into covering to academies (as was the case of Downhills Primary School in Haringey), then it was through pressure to deliver particular subjects through the English Baccalaureate and now, we learn, it'll be through changing the entire examination system.
The leaked proposals for an exam shake-up, according to the Daily Mail, call for the abolishment of GCSEs, the national curriculum in secondary schools and the requirement to obtain five 'good' GCSE grades.
Whilst I agree the exam system needs to be revolutionised to equip students with the skills to apply themselves in a continually changing world, creating a divisive two-tier exam system is not the way to do it.
Looking longer term and hypothetically taking his proposals as gospel, Gove risks creating huge disparity of value, in so far as routes to employment and the skill set required to be successful, between those young people achieving GCSEs today and those achieving these new O-levels in the future; essentially creating a culture in which GCSEs become the inferior qualification; the very culture he wanted to eradicate with BTec qualifications.
Moreover, there is a danger that the attainment gap between those from working well families to those from more disadvantaged circumstances will increase - as the educational offer to young people becomes increasingly academia-focused.
With the participation age (the age at which young people must participate in learning, be that school, college, an apprenticeship etc) being raised to 18, it also seems entirely pointless having exams at age 16. I would go as far to argue the case of removing exams at age 16 entirely; like Eton head Tony Little has done so previously.
Exams at 16 were a key determiner in a young person's life story, contributing to the decision about 'what next?' Some chose sixth form, others college and some moving directly into employment.
But, now there's a statutory requirement to stay in learning until 18. the chose at 16 is no longer so important - because you are guaranteed a place.
Therefore, everyone will progress to learning and potentially acquiring qualifications beyond level 2 - GCSE level. After which, any level 2 qualification you possess immediately becomes inferior.
Before moving away from GCSEs or introducing O-levels, we need to develop an alternative framework that enables us to measure the achievements and success of our young people in what is now a very different environment to that of previous years.
This framework needs to both apply to those young people we would deem 'more academic' and equally those who we would deem 'more vocational' - establishing an assessment framework that rules out educational imbalance and exclusion.
A framework, too, of this nature would enable us to account for the wide breadth of learning a young person experiences outside the classroom and identify skill development rather than merely knowledge accumulation, which we know Gove has actively advocated.
Josh Harsant is a Reading Young Labour member and former Member of the Youth Parliament for Reading. He blogs at http://www.joshharsant.wordpress.com
We learnt this week of the radical proposals by our apparently pro-school autonomy Education Secretary, Michael Gove, to interfere with our education system at central Government level, again. For a Secretary of State who claimed he wanted less central control and more school autonomy, it's safe to say, it's not going well at all.
Gove is developing a reputation for forcing change in our education system. First it was by cornering schools into covering to academies (as was the case of Downhills Primary School in Haringey), then it was through pressure to deliver particular subjects through the English Baccalaureate and now, we learn, it'll be through changing the entire examination system.
The leaked proposals for an exam shake-up, according to the Daily Mail, call for the abolishment of GCSEs, the national curriculum in secondary schools and the requirement to obtain five 'good' GCSE grades.
Whilst I agree the exam system needs to be revolutionised to equip students with the skills to apply themselves in a continually changing world, creating a divisive two-tier exam system is not the way to do it.
Moreover, there is a danger that the attainment gap between those from working well families to those from more disadvantaged circumstances will increase - as the educational offer to young people becomes increasingly academia-focused.
With the participation age (the age at which young people must participate in learning, be that school, college, an apprenticeship etc) being raised to 18, it also seems entirely pointless having exams at age 16. I would go as far to argue the case of removing exams at age 16 entirely; like Eton head Tony Little has done so previously.
Exams at 16 were a key determiner in a young person's life story, contributing to the decision about 'what next?' Some chose sixth form, others college and some moving directly into employment.
But, now there's a statutory requirement to stay in learning until 18. the chose at 16 is no longer so important - because you are guaranteed a place.
Therefore, everyone will progress to learning and potentially acquiring qualifications beyond level 2 - GCSE level. After which, any level 2 qualification you possess immediately becomes inferior.
Before moving away from GCSEs or introducing O-levels, we need to develop an alternative framework that enables us to measure the achievements and success of our young people in what is now a very different environment to that of previous years.
A framework, too, of this nature would enable us to account for the wide breadth of learning a young person experiences outside the classroom and identify skill development rather than merely knowledge accumulation, which we know Gove has actively advocated.
Josh Harsant is a Reading Young Labour member and former Member of the Youth Parliament for Reading. He blogs at http://www.joshharsant.wordpress.com
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Opinion: The NEC Elections
By Will Cross (@WillCross61)
The Labour National Executive Committee election results have today been published, and although there was little change in the body’s membership, there are still some interesting conclusions to be drawn from the results.
The political balance of the NEC remains the same, with 3 left wingers, 2 moderates and 1 independent, however, Luke Akehurst has lost his place to Peter Wheeler. I am particularly disappointed in this, as I have been impressed with Luke’s detailed knowledge of the history of Labour and its ideological traditions, and his loyalty and commitment to the party - however, he only narrowly won his seat last time, and he wasn’t helped this time by the negative and personal campaign against him by Left Futures, or his own tendency towards conflict those with differing political views within the party.
Another significant result is that Johanna Baxter was one of the 6 successful candidates. I couldn’t be happier with this result - the Reading Young Labour executive committee endorsed Johanna as their pick, and I told everyone who was interested and then some to vote for her. Having lost the election last time, Johanna was appointed to the NEC to fill a vacancy, but this year she has been elected in her own right - this is particularly impressive as she hasn’t had the backing of either the left or moderate slate, and is, to my knowledge, the first ever independent candidate to be elected to the NEC since it took on its present form in 1998.
The importance of having high profile candidates can bee seen by the fact that Ken Livingstone again topped the poll for the left, despite his numerous shortcomings. The results may be somewhat disappointing for Progress/Labour First, as they have failed to make inroads against the left, and other than Ellie, Peter and Luke, their three other candidates were right down towards the bottom of the poll, suggesting that the moderate wing needs to rethink the type of candidates it puts forward next time. Indeed, the NEC came within a hair's breadth of having 4 left wingers and 1 moderate.
The gap between 6th and 9th place was extremely small, and one result that surprised me was how close the left’s Kate Osamor came to being elected, ending up just 124 votes short on her first attempt. Given the closeness of the results, one issue which concerns me is the extremely shoddy way in which the balloting process was carried out - ballot papers arrived over a week after they were supposed to, with councillors’ papers being the most delayed, some members failed to receive ballot papers at all, the deadline was moved back and yet there was only a 3 hour period on a Monday morning for members to request that their papers be reissued. Most shockingly was the fact that an unknown number of members were sent the wrong ballot papers - my South East ballot contained the PCC candidates for Hampshire, when I in fact live in Berkshire, and despite Electoral Reform Serivces pledging to send out a replacement ballot first class, I only received it after the deadline had passed, as did other local members. With such a small gap between 6th and 9th place, I think it is inevitable that some uncertainly will be cast on the result of the ballot, and Labour needs to investigate the process and consider whether ERS is the right organisation to carry out the internal elections.
The result of the election is displayed below (Red = left slate, Purple = moderate slate, Grey = independents):
The Labour National Executive Committee election results have today been published, and although there was little change in the body’s membership, there are still some interesting conclusions to be drawn from the results.
The political balance of the NEC remains the same, with 3 left wingers, 2 moderates and 1 independent, however, Luke Akehurst has lost his place to Peter Wheeler. I am particularly disappointed in this, as I have been impressed with Luke’s detailed knowledge of the history of Labour and its ideological traditions, and his loyalty and commitment to the party - however, he only narrowly won his seat last time, and he wasn’t helped this time by the negative and personal campaign against him by Left Futures, or his own tendency towards conflict those with differing political views within the party.
The importance of having high profile candidates can bee seen by the fact that Ken Livingstone again topped the poll for the left, despite his numerous shortcomings. The results may be somewhat disappointing for Progress/Labour First, as they have failed to make inroads against the left, and other than Ellie, Peter and Luke, their three other candidates were right down towards the bottom of the poll, suggesting that the moderate wing needs to rethink the type of candidates it puts forward next time. Indeed, the NEC came within a hair's breadth of having 4 left wingers and 1 moderate.
The gap between 6th and 9th place was extremely small, and one result that surprised me was how close the left’s Kate Osamor came to being elected, ending up just 124 votes short on her first attempt. Given the closeness of the results, one issue which concerns me is the extremely shoddy way in which the balloting process was carried out - ballot papers arrived over a week after they were supposed to, with councillors’ papers being the most delayed, some members failed to receive ballot papers at all, the deadline was moved back and yet there was only a 3 hour period on a Monday morning for members to request that their papers be reissued. Most shockingly was the fact that an unknown number of members were sent the wrong ballot papers - my South East ballot contained the PCC candidates for Hampshire, when I in fact live in Berkshire, and despite Electoral Reform Serivces pledging to send out a replacement ballot first class, I only received it after the deadline had passed, as did other local members. With such a small gap between 6th and 9th place, I think it is inevitable that some uncertainly will be cast on the result of the ballot, and Labour needs to investigate the process and consider whether ERS is the right organisation to carry out the internal elections.
The result of the election is displayed below (Red = left slate, Purple = moderate slate, Grey = independents):
| Candidate | Votes |
| LIVINGSTONE, Ken | 31682 |
| BLACK, Ann | 30240 |
| REEVES, Ellie | 23417 |
| SHAWCROFT, Christine | 22236 |
| BAXTER, Johanna | 20146 |
| WHEELER, Peter | 17721 |
| OSAMOR, Kate | 17598 |
| AKEHURST, Luke | 17475 |
| WILLSMAN, Peter | 16786 |
| WILLIAMS, Darren | 14641 |
| NOSEGBE, Florence | 12745 |
| SMEETH, Ruth | 10860 |
| MILLIGAN, Joanne | 10034 |
| ATKINSON, Lewis | 8968 |
| ALI, Shaukat | 6855 |
| GOODLIFFE, Darrell | 6147 |
| RICE, Lynda | 4864 |
| SIDHU, Rajwant | 4726 |
| CARR, Rob | 4386 |

Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Breaking Down The Latest YouGov Poll
by
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
Recently Labour has been celebrating some good polling results with all the pollsters agreeing that Labour is ahead, but disagreeing as to what degree. YouGov is an entirely 'online' pollster, meaning it draws its data only from its online users rather than telephone canvassing. On the face of it that sounds like a method that would not produce an accurate result but YouGov weights its data in order of sex, age, region to gain an accurate reflection of the country's voting intention, and indeed recently YouGov was the closest pollster on the 2012 London Mayoral Election and the 2012 Local Elections.
So what is YouGov saying the country's voting intention is? Well the headline figure for Labour is very good - Labour leads by 14-points on 45% with the Tories on 31%. The Liberal Democrats have collapsed from their 27% in 2010 to 9% and UKIP is now on 9%.
Labour's biggest lead is in the 18-24 year old age group where Labour has a 35-point lead over the Tories. The Tories will take a gamble with this age group (as they have previously) and presume it won't vote, I personally think that's a mistake. Young people are feeling more and more irrelevant under the coalition with no effort being made to bring down youth unemployment and young people feeling like they are saddled with debt on leaving university. The Tories' biggest problem (in their eyes) will be the 25-39 and the more important 40-59 age groups, groups that repeatedly vote in general elections. In both these age groups Labour has 50% of the vote with the Tories fighting with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green Party, Plaid and the SNP for the remaining portion of the vote. In the Tories' safest age group, 60+, they continue to win, however they've dropped from their position of over 50% of the vote with UKIP now making massive gains in this demographic.
Obviously with all polling there is a margin or error, however with a 14-point lead regardless of that margin, Labour would form the next government.
Results if the election were conducted tomorrow:
On the current boundaries:
Labour: 390 seats (+132) - Reading West would be a Labour gain, Reading East most likely a Labour gain.
Conservative: 214 (-92)
Liberal Democrats: 21 (-36)
Others: 7 (-4)
Labour majority of 130 seats
On the revised boundaries:
Labour: 365 seats (+107) - Reading West would be a Labour gain, Reading East most likely a Labour gain.
Conservative: 200 (-105)
Liberal Democrats: 12 (-45)
Others: 7 (-4)
Neither of the Reading parliamentary seats are affected by boundary changes so in both projections they are the same.
The latest YouGov poll also indicated that 61% of people asked disapproved of the government's record to date, with only 23% approving. Labour is also seen as leading on the NHS, education and schools, taxation, unemployment and the economy. The Conservatives are seen as leading on Europe, asylum and immigration, and law and order. Neither David Cameron or Ed Miliband came out of the YouGov poll looking fantastic but in the key question "in touch with the concerns of ordinary people" Ed Miliband scored 23% whereas David Cameron scored a disastrous 5% - that's right, out of every 100 people asked, only 5 would say that David Cameron is in touch with the concerns of ordinary people.
Link to the YouGov data
Seat projections were compiled using UK Polling Report's Seat Calculator
Graphics are courtesy of the BBC.
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
Labour's biggest lead is in the 18-24 year old age group where Labour has a 35-point lead over the Tories. The Tories will take a gamble with this age group (as they have previously) and presume it won't vote, I personally think that's a mistake. Young people are feeling more and more irrelevant under the coalition with no effort being made to bring down youth unemployment and young people feeling like they are saddled with debt on leaving university. The Tories' biggest problem (in their eyes) will be the 25-39 and the more important 40-59 age groups, groups that repeatedly vote in general elections. In both these age groups Labour has 50% of the vote with the Tories fighting with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green Party, Plaid and the SNP for the remaining portion of the vote. In the Tories' safest age group, 60+, they continue to win, however they've dropped from their position of over 50% of the vote with UKIP now making massive gains in this demographic.
Obviously with all polling there is a margin or error, however with a 14-point lead regardless of that margin, Labour would form the next government.
Results if the election were conducted tomorrow:
On the current boundaries:
Labour: 390 seats (+132) - Reading West would be a Labour gain, Reading East most likely a Labour gain.
Conservative: 214 (-92)
Liberal Democrats: 21 (-36)
Others: 7 (-4)
Labour majority of 130 seats
On the revised boundaries:
Labour: 365 seats (+107) - Reading West would be a Labour gain, Reading East most likely a Labour gain.
Conservative: 200 (-105)
Liberal Democrats: 12 (-45)
Others: 7 (-4)
Labour majority of 130 seats
The latest YouGov poll also indicated that 61% of people asked disapproved of the government's record to date, with only 23% approving. Labour is also seen as leading on the NHS, education and schools, taxation, unemployment and the economy. The Conservatives are seen as leading on Europe, asylum and immigration, and law and order. Neither David Cameron or Ed Miliband came out of the YouGov poll looking fantastic but in the key question "in touch with the concerns of ordinary people" Ed Miliband scored 23% whereas David Cameron scored a disastrous 5% - that's right, out of every 100 people asked, only 5 would say that David Cameron is in touch with the concerns of ordinary people.
Link to the YouGov data
Seat projections were compiled using UK Polling Report's Seat Calculator
Graphics are courtesy of the BBC.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Opinion: Tory “Omnishambles” Extends To Reading
by
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
Last night myself and a few other Reading Young Labour members decided to attend the Full Council meeting at which the decision on the Civic Centre would be taken. On paper it seemed like it may be a controversial decision, after all, as Councillor's on all sides pointed out, who gets into politics to decide which £60m pound building to move to? However the arguments were presented well and I would say the key issue on which the decision was made was value for the taxpayer.
The three options presented were:
A) Remain at the Civic Centre
This option was the most costly at £93m. The Civic Centre is riddled with asbestos and due to its design no longer fits the requirements of the council. To remain in the Civic Centre would require major work as well as continued expensive upkeep. The Councillors were also informed that even if the building was refurbished it would not have full disabled access.
B) Move to the RG2 Building (Yell Building)
This option would cost £64.4m. Buying the RG2 building would cost £29.3m with annual costs of £3.6m over 25 years. RG2 would also need a great deal of refurbishment prior to council staff being able to move in. The borough would own the freehold of this option after the 25 year period.
C) Move to the Plaza West Building
This option would cost £59.6m. Purchase of the Plaza West building would cost £25.4m and would have an annual running cost of £3.17m, which includes £1.75m of repayments. The building has the advantage of having disabled access as well as the opportunity to open a nursery/creche for staff members. The borough would own the freehold of this option after the 25 year period.
The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Mark Ralph who sits as an independent, supported a move to the Plaza West Building. It represented a far better option both in terms of value (Cheaper to buy, cheaper to upkeep) and in long term needs (Can take more staff than the RG2 building, Once the council own the freehold of the property the value for Plaza West would be higher, representing a better investment of taxpayer's money).
No party supported staying in the Civic Centre although The Green Party did indicate it would be their preferred choice had the cost not been so high. The Labour Group also proposed that the old Civic Centre would be knocked down to make way for the area to be regenerated, and in doing so support both the Broad Street Mall and the Hexagon. Cllr Jo Lovelock also indicated that the Council had been working to facilitate the movement of the Civic Centre Post Office into the Broad Street Mall (which is by far the most popular reason to visit the Civic) so as not to reduce footfall in the Mall.
However as with everything the Tories decided to show up unprepared and rather that talk about the issues of moving and what impact it may have, they decided to play politics with an attempt to pass this amendment:
1. Deplores Labour's public statement of a decision in favour of Plaza West in advance of tonight's Council debate and
2. Calls for the Labour Group to apologise to the people of Reading for their arrogance and the traducing of the cross-party democratic process, which had existed through the Civic Board
3. Notes the comments of a Labour Cabinet members that "when in power you can do what you like".
Unsurprisingly the amendment was viewed as childish and voted down, the Tories gaining no support from any party. It was probably at that point that myself and my Reading Young Labour colleagues realised that instead of trying to create debate or propose an alternative they simply wanted to play opposition politics. The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Ralph ignored the comments of the Tories and moved onto the serious matter, with Cllr Daisy Benson proposing an amendment which was happily received by all parties (not the Tories) calling on proper scrutiny to be in place so that Councillors can be kept a breast and Cllr Ralph (Former Tory) speaking in favour saying that the Plaza West option represented the best value for the Taxpayer and that was very important in his decision making. We then proceeded to the final vote with The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Mark Ralph all voting in favour of the move. The Tories abstained, refusing to vote, with Cllr Richard Willis commenting that the Tories would have supported the move but instead weren't going to because Labour had announced they supported Plaza West before the meeting.
As several people have said to me since, the move by the Tories was the wrong one to make. When it came to making a decision they were absent, and move importantly the voters in their wards who elected them were left without a voice. And, as Matthew Dent pointed out to me afterwards, wouldn't it be interesting if Labour (who are in opposition nationally) simply said they were not going to vote or take part because the Tories have announced a preference towards something before hand?
Clearly the Tory coined word "Omnishambles" has begun to spread...
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
The three options presented were:
A) Remain at the Civic Centre
This option was the most costly at £93m. The Civic Centre is riddled with asbestos and due to its design no longer fits the requirements of the council. To remain in the Civic Centre would require major work as well as continued expensive upkeep. The Councillors were also informed that even if the building was refurbished it would not have full disabled access.
B) Move to the RG2 Building (Yell Building)
This option would cost £64.4m. Buying the RG2 building would cost £29.3m with annual costs of £3.6m over 25 years. RG2 would also need a great deal of refurbishment prior to council staff being able to move in. The borough would own the freehold of this option after the 25 year period.
C) Move to the Plaza West Building
This option would cost £59.6m. Purchase of the Plaza West building would cost £25.4m and would have an annual running cost of £3.17m, which includes £1.75m of repayments. The building has the advantage of having disabled access as well as the opportunity to open a nursery/creche for staff members. The borough would own the freehold of this option after the 25 year period.
The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Mark Ralph who sits as an independent, supported a move to the Plaza West Building. It represented a far better option both in terms of value (Cheaper to buy, cheaper to upkeep) and in long term needs (Can take more staff than the RG2 building, Once the council own the freehold of the property the value for Plaza West would be higher, representing a better investment of taxpayer's money).
No party supported staying in the Civic Centre although The Green Party did indicate it would be their preferred choice had the cost not been so high. The Labour Group also proposed that the old Civic Centre would be knocked down to make way for the area to be regenerated, and in doing so support both the Broad Street Mall and the Hexagon. Cllr Jo Lovelock also indicated that the Council had been working to facilitate the movement of the Civic Centre Post Office into the Broad Street Mall (which is by far the most popular reason to visit the Civic) so as not to reduce footfall in the Mall.
However as with everything the Tories decided to show up unprepared and rather that talk about the issues of moving and what impact it may have, they decided to play politics with an attempt to pass this amendment:
1. Deplores Labour's public statement of a decision in favour of Plaza West in advance of tonight's Council debate and
2. Calls for the Labour Group to apologise to the people of Reading for their arrogance and the traducing of the cross-party democratic process, which had existed through the Civic Board
3. Notes the comments of a Labour Cabinet members that "when in power you can do what you like".
Unsurprisingly the amendment was viewed as childish and voted down, the Tories gaining no support from any party. It was probably at that point that myself and my Reading Young Labour colleagues realised that instead of trying to create debate or propose an alternative they simply wanted to play opposition politics. The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Ralph ignored the comments of the Tories and moved onto the serious matter, with Cllr Daisy Benson proposing an amendment which was happily received by all parties (not the Tories) calling on proper scrutiny to be in place so that Councillors can be kept a breast and Cllr Ralph (Former Tory) speaking in favour saying that the Plaza West option represented the best value for the Taxpayer and that was very important in his decision making. We then proceeded to the final vote with The Labour Party, The Liberal Democrat Party, The Green Party and Cllr Mark Ralph all voting in favour of the move. The Tories abstained, refusing to vote, with Cllr Richard Willis commenting that the Tories would have supported the move but instead weren't going to because Labour had announced they supported Plaza West before the meeting.
As several people have said to me since, the move by the Tories was the wrong one to make. When it came to making a decision they were absent, and move importantly the voters in their wards who elected them were left without a voice. And, as Matthew Dent pointed out to me afterwards, wouldn't it be interesting if Labour (who are in opposition nationally) simply said they were not going to vote or take part because the Tories have announced a preference towards something before hand?
Clearly the Tory coined word "Omnishambles" has begun to spread...
Monday, 21 May 2012
Analysis: Reading Local Elections 2012
by
Will Cross (@WillCross61)
There were a lot of really good results for Reading Labour in this month's council elections, in which we regained majority control of the council. Labour replicated the successes of the previous year by winning Redlands, Church and Katesgrove wards, the latter seeing the Liberal Democrat vote collapse to the extent that they nearly came third to the Tories.
But as well as winning those target seats, Labour also succeeded in wards which had not been the focus of central Reading Labour campaigning. In Kentwood ward, Daya Pal Singh managed to win on his third attempt, and in Caversham ward, Richard Davies managed to beat the incumbent Tory with almost 50% of the vote. I'm particularly proud of the Caversham result, as the activists for the campaign were almost entirely Reading Young Labour members, and we achieved the best swing to Labour of the night (13.1% compared with the Borough-wide average of 5.7%). In 2010 Labour came third with under a quarter of the vote, which we have now doubled.
Labour managed to increase its vote in every ward it won in 2011, with Norcot becoming Labour's safest ward with 68.8% of the vote. It's interesting to compare Norcot now to as it was in 2008 (the last time a local election has taken place without a general election/referendum also taking place), since then there has been a huge 17.5% swing to Labour from the Conservatives.
While Labour is very pleased with the results, Tory MP Rob Wilson must be bitterly disappointed; out of the 11 wards up for election in his constituency, his party won only three (Thames ward, which saw a drop in Tory vote of 9.7%, Mapledurham, which saw a swing against Isobel Ballsdon, and Peppard ward which had a huge 23.8% swing against the Conservatives due to Jamie Chowdhary standing as an independent - you can find more details of the issues in that ward by clicking here). As well as only managing to win Thames, Mapledurham and Peppard, Rob Wilson and his team were crushed by the Liberal Democrats in Woodley who managed to win in the seats they had lost to the Tories in 2011.
In Reading West the Conservatives also suffered badly with the Tories being pushed out the Borough, failing to hold or gain any seats.
Naturally it would be foolish to suggest that these results will mean Labour will necessarily gain the parliamentary seats in Reading, but the results do suggest the Tories will be in for a tough fight, and I know myself, Reading Young Labour and Reading Labour Party will be taking that fight to them.
Will Cross (@WillCross61)
While Labour is very pleased with the results, Tory MP Rob Wilson must be bitterly disappointed; out of the 11 wards up for election in his constituency, his party won only three (Thames ward, which saw a drop in Tory vote of 9.7%, Mapledurham, which saw a swing against Isobel Ballsdon, and Peppard ward which had a huge 23.8% swing against the Conservatives due to Jamie Chowdhary standing as an independent - you can find more details of the issues in that ward by clicking here). As well as only managing to win Thames, Mapledurham and Peppard, Rob Wilson and his team were crushed by the Liberal Democrats in Woodley who managed to win in the seats they had lost to the Tories in 2011.
In Reading West the Conservatives also suffered badly with the Tories being pushed out the Borough, failing to hold or gain any seats.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Press Release: 'This Government Has Been A Disaster For Working Women' - Rachael Chrisp
Reading Labour Party Women's Officer, and Park candidate, Rachael Chrisp has labelled the Tory-led Government "a disaster for working women" in a message issued to mark International Women's Day.
Ms Chrisp points out that one of the first cuts George Osbourne made was in help with paying for childcare, and goes on: "And then Mr Osbourne froze Child Benefit, made women work longer before reaching pension age, and cut Tax Credits - 450 working women in Reading will lose £75 a week as from April 1st because they are working less than 24 hours a week. And those that want to work longer hours are often being frustrated because the Government is offering big retailers the chance to use people on 'work experience' instead, people pushed into putting in the hours without getting the pay.
"Mr Cameron promised that this would be the most family-friendly government ever," she says, "but as with so much else he promised it has been anything but. The truth is that working women who did not cause the banking crisis are being made to pay for it. There are twenty-two male millionaires in the Cabinet and only 49 women among 305 Tory MPs, so perhaps that's hardly a surprise."
ENDS.
Ms Chrisp points out that one of the first cuts George Osbourne made was in help with paying for childcare, and goes on: "And then Mr Osbourne froze Child Benefit, made women work longer before reaching pension age, and cut Tax Credits - 450 working women in Reading will lose £75 a week as from April 1st because they are working less than 24 hours a week. And those that want to work longer hours are often being frustrated because the Government is offering big retailers the chance to use people on 'work experience' instead, people pushed into putting in the hours without getting the pay.
"Mr Cameron promised that this would be the most family-friendly government ever," she says, "but as with so much else he promised it has been anything but. The truth is that working women who did not cause the banking crisis are being made to pay for it. There are twenty-two male millionaires in the Cabinet and only 49 women among 305 Tory MPs, so perhaps that's hardly a surprise."
ENDS.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Opinion: So Whats Reading Young Labour All About?
by
Richard Wood (@richard28wood)
Founded in 2010, Reading Young Labour was set up to be the youth wing of the Reading Labour party taking in all people under the age of 31 in the two CLPs. We aim to promote young people and their interests in the party and council while also representing Labour to young people in the wider electorate. We also set clear aims, to be a strong voice for young people in the Labour movement, to be a campaigning machine that engages with the public in new and effective ways and to promote young people to officer roles and elected office. We do this alongside Reading Labour Students but they include students in Reading who normally live outside Reading's two CLPs. Ian Stevens is the current Chair of RYL, Will Cross is the Vice-Chair and I'm the newly elected Secretary.
As young people in the party we use Young Labour to engage with people like us who have a passion for the Labour movement and who look to the party to promote our views and interests. To a young person, agendas, AMMs, ECs and minutes can all sound a bit too much, Young Labour is there to ease young people into the party and support them. Rather than formal meetings we have informal socials and occasional discussions which have no minutes or agendas to provide a relaxed atmosphere where young people can take about Labour and other issues. In turn we use our influence in our branches, the AMM and our seat on the EC to try and influence the party on issues important to us. A founding target of RYL is also to encourage wards to endorse young people as candidate, as only a demographically representative Council group can truly stand up for young people, something we hope to start achieving in 2014.
We also put campaigning as an important pillar of our organisation, it's what we enjoy after all, why should the party take us seriously if we don't pull our weight? A recent get-together of our members voted to set wards including Park and Church as our priority wards, valuing Park's endorsement of Rachael Chrisp (aged 28), while Church includes the University and is a marginal seat. In these seats we will show young people we are a campaigning force to be reckoned with, producing literature for young people, leading youth campaigns and joining in canvasses. We are also encouraging young members to help in their own wards when needed. We pride ourselves in our innovative campaign ideas and feel our presence has already been influential in the campaigns of 2011 and on-going 2012 campaign.
We hope over the coming years we continue to be an effective voice of young people in the party, and that our campaign activities continue to help elect Labour councillors, win overall control on the council and to win back Members of Parliament. Young people are returning to Labour, their natural home, when we set up Reading Young Labour we had 56 members today we have over 150, let's hope this continues and young people are given a strong voice in this party and in Reading.
(Note: This blog was originally produced as part of our guest blog series on Cllr Sarah Hacker's blog http://www.cllrsarahhacker.blogspot.com)
Richard Wood (@richard28wood)
As young people in the party we use Young Labour to engage with people like us who have a passion for the Labour movement and who look to the party to promote our views and interests. To a young person, agendas, AMMs, ECs and minutes can all sound a bit too much, Young Labour is there to ease young people into the party and support them. Rather than formal meetings we have informal socials and occasional discussions which have no minutes or agendas to provide a relaxed atmosphere where young people can take about Labour and other issues. In turn we use our influence in our branches, the AMM and our seat on the EC to try and influence the party on issues important to us. A founding target of RYL is also to encourage wards to endorse young people as candidate, as only a demographically representative Council group can truly stand up for young people, something we hope to start achieving in 2014.
We also put campaigning as an important pillar of our organisation, it's what we enjoy after all, why should the party take us seriously if we don't pull our weight? A recent get-together of our members voted to set wards including Park and Church as our priority wards, valuing Park's endorsement of Rachael Chrisp (aged 28), while Church includes the University and is a marginal seat. In these seats we will show young people we are a campaigning force to be reckoned with, producing literature for young people, leading youth campaigns and joining in canvasses. We are also encouraging young members to help in their own wards when needed. We pride ourselves in our innovative campaign ideas and feel our presence has already been influential in the campaigns of 2011 and on-going 2012 campaign.
We hope over the coming years we continue to be an effective voice of young people in the party, and that our campaign activities continue to help elect Labour councillors, win overall control on the council and to win back Members of Parliament. Young people are returning to Labour, their natural home, when we set up Reading Young Labour we had 56 members today we have over 150, let's hope this continues and young people are given a strong voice in this party and in Reading.
(Note: This blog was originally produced as part of our guest blog series on Cllr Sarah Hacker's blog http://www.cllrsarahhacker.blogspot.com)
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Opinion: The Green Council Tax Rise - Wrong For Reading, Wrong For Park
by
Rachael Chrisp (@rchrisp)
One of the main stories of last month's budget in Reading was the Greens' proposal to raise council tax by 3.5% (around £40 each), arguing that the extra money this would raise could be spent on funding for vulnerable people. In the end, Labour secured a cross-party agreement with the other groups, and passed its budget, securing a freeze in council tax for the next year. Reading has been faced with a huge cut in central government funding but Labour has managed to protect almost all front line services, while restructuring the council to save hundreds of thousands of pounds, such as abolishing the chief executive position or removing backroom inefficiencies. This is something I as a Labour member am proud of.
The Greens' budget amendment to rise Council Tax 3.5% offered no specifics, no suggestion of what new services would be funded or created, simply referring to "vulnerable people". This for me is gesture politics of the highest level, there are vulnerable people that need help and Labour has worked incredibly hard to protect them, reducing Daycare costs, restoring bus passes before 9am for the disabled and their carers and increasing the number of beds for the homeless; for the Greens to simply stroll into a budget making council meeting and present an amendment with no plan of what it will do, where the money will be spent or what impact it will have was poor, they knew that without a coherent plan the other parties wouldn't vote for it but they didn't care because they simply wanted a headline for their next newsletter. Labour has prioritised the funding of services that help vulnerable people, without having to resort to raising the council tax. Had Labour accepted the Greens' amendment, the council would have lost the government's £1.7 million freeze grant, and out of the extra £2.4 million in council tax would only have kept £700 thousand of it to spend in Reading.
To put this into perspective:
Rachael Chrisp (@rchrisp)
The Greens' budget amendment to rise Council Tax 3.5% offered no specifics, no suggestion of what new services would be funded or created, simply referring to "vulnerable people". This for me is gesture politics of the highest level, there are vulnerable people that need help and Labour has worked incredibly hard to protect them, reducing Daycare costs, restoring bus passes before 9am for the disabled and their carers and increasing the number of beds for the homeless; for the Greens to simply stroll into a budget making council meeting and present an amendment with no plan of what it will do, where the money will be spent or what impact it will have was poor, they knew that without a coherent plan the other parties wouldn't vote for it but they didn't care because they simply wanted a headline for their next newsletter. Labour has prioritised the funding of services that help vulnerable people, without having to resort to raising the council tax. Had Labour accepted the Greens' amendment, the council would have lost the government's £1.7 million freeze grant, and out of the extra £2.4 million in council tax would only have kept £700 thousand of it to spend in Reading.
To put this into perspective:
- Out of the £40 per household tax rise, £30 would go straight to central government, leaving only £10 for Reading
- Labour is protecting services by restructuring the council, not by raising taxes.
- The Greens' amendment was presented without any detail, no details of what services it would fund of what the impact it would have, it was just gesture politics.
When Labour regained minority control of the council the Greens told everyone that they would hold the balance of power and be able to get the best deal for Park ward residents - a year on I see very little evidence of this. The Greens have resorted to gesture politics, you can see this in their lack of coherent vision for Reading, for example in Park ward the Greens are campaigning to have the Cemetery opened up to make it a walkthrough (at a cost of £10,000 I should add), whereas in Caversham the Greens are campaigning against the amount of cyclists that ride through a local cemetery, saying it shouldn't be used a shortcut.
My party is making the tough decisions in a fair way that is right for Reading, the Greens may believe that it's fair to ask everyone to pay an extra £40 per year in council tax, but I know for a lot of families that's a weekly shopping trip and in this economic climate people can't afford to be £40 out of pocket - I hope that at the local elections the voters of Park ward choose to elect a Labour councillor to stand up for Park in a Labour-controlled council.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Analysis: Thursday, 1st March's By-elections
by
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
In what may become a regular feature I will be looking at some of the by-elections that occur every Thursday around the country and see what those results may mean for Labour and whether it could indicate a national or regional trend.
This week there we two by-elections, Castle ward (Cumbria County Council) and Abbey ward (Shropshire County Council, the most interesting of the two being Castle ward as it features all three major political parties vying for control.
The by-election in Castle ward promised to be a showdown, the seat was fairly safe for the Liberal Democrats but in 2011 they were hit with a massive swing against them, and Labour gained it the City Council seat. The question for Carlisle Labour was would that trend hold? and would they be able to gain the County Council seat in the ward?, the results are in:
Labour: 407
LibDem: 369
Conservative: 93
Green: 54
UKIP: 22
Based on the County Council elections of 2009, thats a huge 8.2% swing from Liberal Democrat to Labour, but when you take into account the 2011 Carlisle City election you find that its actually just over 2% swing back to Liberal Democrat from Labour. This is fairly in keeping with by-elections, Labour tends to poll lower because our vote, partially due to demographic, only votes when there is a town/city/country-wide election.
What is also interesting about the result is the poor Tory showing. The Conservatives in Carlisle have a problem, in 2010 they did what many said was impossible and gained the Carlisle MPs seat, a seat which had been held by Labour since 1964; However all is not perfect as their victory was small, they gained the seat by a little over 800 votes making it one of Labour's top targets to gain in 2015 and making it almost impossible for them to hold. As well as this the Conservative control of Carlisle City Council has begun to fade, Labour currently has 24 Councillors with the Tories on 22 and the Liberal Democrats on 3 - The Conservatives are currently hanging on to minority control of the council with the 'unofficial' support of the Independents and the Liberal Democrats.
The other by-election was for Shropshire County Council and saw the Liberal Democrats win a seat off the Conservatives. The reason I am not going to focus on this one is that simply its hard to form an analyses without having Labour in the mix, however one thing that does appear to be developing which could be a factor in 2015 is that when its Labour vs. LibDem, Labour almost always win, but when its Tory vs. LibDem the LibDem vote does tend to hold (although that did not happen here in Reading in Tilehurst ward). The results:
LibDem: 550
Conservative: 542
Green: 123
A swing of 10.2% to the Liberal Democrats from the 2009 election.
Graphics courtesy of the BBC.
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
This week there we two by-elections, Castle ward (Cumbria County Council) and Abbey ward (Shropshire County Council, the most interesting of the two being Castle ward as it features all three major political parties vying for control.
The by-election in Castle ward promised to be a showdown, the seat was fairly safe for the Liberal Democrats but in 2011 they were hit with a massive swing against them, and Labour gained it the City Council seat. The question for Carlisle Labour was would that trend hold? and would they be able to gain the County Council seat in the ward?, the results are in:
LibDem: 369
Conservative: 93
Green: 54
UKIP: 22
Based on the County Council elections of 2009, thats a huge 8.2% swing from Liberal Democrat to Labour, but when you take into account the 2011 Carlisle City election you find that its actually just over 2% swing back to Liberal Democrat from Labour. This is fairly in keeping with by-elections, Labour tends to poll lower because our vote, partially due to demographic, only votes when there is a town/city/country-wide election.
 |
| 2010 Carlisle General Election Result |
The other by-election was for Shropshire County Council and saw the Liberal Democrats win a seat off the Conservatives. The reason I am not going to focus on this one is that simply its hard to form an analyses without having Labour in the mix, however one thing that does appear to be developing which could be a factor in 2015 is that when its Labour vs. LibDem, Labour almost always win, but when its Tory vs. LibDem the LibDem vote does tend to hold (although that did not happen here in Reading in Tilehurst ward). The results:
LibDem: 550
Conservative: 542
Green: 123
A swing of 10.2% to the Liberal Democrats from the 2009 election.
Graphics courtesy of the BBC.
Monday, 27 February 2012
Opinion: The NHS Reforms, How Do We Get Young People To Care?
by
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce) and Gaby Davies (@binarysolo)
"The NHS will last as long as there are folks left with the faith to fight for it", so said Nye Bevan, but from a young person's point of view, why should we care about the NHS reforms? It's a serious question, and one that we encounter almost every time we canvass a student household or talk to a young person about the bill. We begin talking the NHS from the prepared briefing sheet, and watch as their eyes begin to glaze over, clearly thinking "I don't care" or "When will this person leave?"
So why do we fail to connect? Partially it's to do with terminology; let's face it, when you talk about PCTs, Strategic Health Authorities and GP Consortiums you may as well be speaking Klingon for all most people care. Another reason why the NHS tends not to be a key topic for young people is that most of them haven't yet had the need to use it seriously. They haven't started families yet, or have frail parents that need medical care, so the NHS seems like a distant service that many take for granted and presume will just be there waiting when they need to use it.
Of course the irony is that the proposed changes to the NHS may impact on young people more than others. It will be young people who have to deal with the new competition in the NHS, and it will be young people who discover that while the coalition government is claiming that "choice" is the main aim of the new system, in the end, the decisions made by hospitals under the new privatisation plans will simply boil down to which provider is cheaper.
Young people may find it hard to care if they haven't relied on the NHS before, but the majority of them will discover just how important it is in the future. If the reforms happen, it will lead to the NHS becoming a free market with profit prioritised over patient care. The bill is dangerous; the start of a slippery slope to total privatisation, and it is also, at a time when every penny of public funds is precious, a waste of money.
So how can we make young people more aware of the changes to the NHS? And more importantly, how can we inspire them to get involved with the campaigns and to take a stand against these changes? Take a look at this:
Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce) and Gaby Davies (@binarysolo)
So why do we fail to connect? Partially it's to do with terminology; let's face it, when you talk about PCTs, Strategic Health Authorities and GP Consortiums you may as well be speaking Klingon for all most people care. Another reason why the NHS tends not to be a key topic for young people is that most of them haven't yet had the need to use it seriously. They haven't started families yet, or have frail parents that need medical care, so the NHS seems like a distant service that many take for granted and presume will just be there waiting when they need to use it.
Of course the irony is that the proposed changes to the NHS may impact on young people more than others. It will be young people who have to deal with the new competition in the NHS, and it will be young people who discover that while the coalition government is claiming that "choice" is the main aim of the new system, in the end, the decisions made by hospitals under the new privatisation plans will simply boil down to which provider is cheaper.
Young people may find it hard to care if they haven't relied on the NHS before, but the majority of them will discover just how important it is in the future. If the reforms happen, it will lead to the NHS becoming a free market with profit prioritised over patient care. The bill is dangerous; the start of a slippery slope to total privatisation, and it is also, at a time when every penny of public funds is precious, a waste of money.
So how can we make young people more aware of the changes to the NHS? And more importantly, how can we inspire them to get involved with the campaigns and to take a stand against these changes? Take a look at this:
Can you imagine anything more confusing? It looks like a technical readout from the Death Star rather than a workflow. If we are going to get students and young people engaged with these issues then we need to break the NHS reforms down to a much more simple level. This is not because young people can't understand them but because they will more often than not want clear and concise facts and none of the traditional party political rhetoric.
So here are three tips for canvassers to follow when talking to young people or students"
1) No talk about the "reforms". The word might also be used to refer to welcome efficiency improvements rather than these destructive proposals, so the term 'privatisation' might better represent the NHS bill. Also, don't use a confusing graphic like the one above.
2) Break it down for them simply - most will what to know core facts; what the bill does and why people are against it - but don't be condescending.
3) Play down Labour - when you say 'Labour are against it' most will simply think Labour are against it because the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are for it, instead be clear about the reasons for the Labour Party's opposition and mention that respected NHS organisations are also against it, such as The British Medical Association (BMA), The Royal College of Nurses, The Royal College of Paediatrics, The Royal College of Practitioners, and so on.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Opinion: The Labour Difference In Reading
by Cllr Rachel Eden (@racheleden)
Last night we took more than 10% - 12.6 MILLION out of the council's budget. That followed on from the previous year's cuts of £19 million (according to last year's Conservative press release), so decisions were always going to be painful - We might have expected so unpalatable decisions and the opposition groups lining up to attack our budget, that's what happened last year with a budget which was described as 'cutting everything but the grass'.
Instead I woke up this morning to hear that according to BBC Berkshire, we and Labour-controlled Slough had frozen council tax, protected frontline services through back office savings and made 'the usual' increases in other fees. What a contrast to the Conservative-run councils that surround us.
In fact I was shocked that the most contentious issue of the debate appeared to be a disagreement between the two smallest parties about whether or not an extra dog warden would solve the issue of dog fouling.
So what is the Labour difference?
The Conservatives believe that 'Conservative polices are working' - tell that to the library users in Tory-run Oxfordshire, elderly people in West Berkshire, or young people in Bracknell (and don't get me started on Wokingham). The whole group spent their speeches talking about what dull accountants like me think of as the 'top half' of the budget - the income, how pleased they were that council tax was being frozen and that purely based on that they would support our budget. Well yes, your income matters but it also matters what you do with that money, last year's Conservative budget and the Conservative budgets from around the 'Royal County' and elsewhere showed what happens if you just look at the top half and the kind of decisions you end up with. Labour in contrast has agonised about each and every cost and saving - working together as a cabinet to protect services.
The LibDems showed what they like to think of as 'flexibility' and voted with 'any party' that would give them a small item off their wish list, in this case oddly enough a key request was a reversal of their own previous year's cut in the graffiti team! I think it's clear that the LibDems are increasingly an irrelevance in Reading and hardly work the effort of voting for, if you want a champion for your local area or a real say in how decision are taken it's got to be Labour.
The Greens proposed we increase council tax by approximately £45 for the average household only to hand over about £30 of it the government for no benefit. They had no particular proposal of what to do with the remaining cash, which would be less that £700,000 when we were saving £12,600,000. This is gesture politics at its most pointless made more problematic by comments made before the meeting so misleading that the non-partisan Director of Education and Children's services took the unusual step of writing an open letter to him correcting his factual accuracy. The residents of Park ward deserve better than this.
Only Labour is standing up for Reading, keeping our promises (remember the Green bin tax?) and put the needs of our whole community before politics.
----------------
Cllr Rachel Eden is Lead Councillor for Housing and Neighbourhoods on Reading Borough Council. This blog post was re-produced in an edited form with her permission, if you'd like to read the full blog post please visit http://www.racheleden.blogspot.com
Instead I woke up this morning to hear that according to BBC Berkshire, we and Labour-controlled Slough had frozen council tax, protected frontline services through back office savings and made 'the usual' increases in other fees. What a contrast to the Conservative-run councils that surround us.
In fact I was shocked that the most contentious issue of the debate appeared to be a disagreement between the two smallest parties about whether or not an extra dog warden would solve the issue of dog fouling.
So what is the Labour difference?
The Conservatives believe that 'Conservative polices are working' - tell that to the library users in Tory-run Oxfordshire, elderly people in West Berkshire, or young people in Bracknell (and don't get me started on Wokingham). The whole group spent their speeches talking about what dull accountants like me think of as the 'top half' of the budget - the income, how pleased they were that council tax was being frozen and that purely based on that they would support our budget. Well yes, your income matters but it also matters what you do with that money, last year's Conservative budget and the Conservative budgets from around the 'Royal County' and elsewhere showed what happens if you just look at the top half and the kind of decisions you end up with. Labour in contrast has agonised about each and every cost and saving - working together as a cabinet to protect services.
The LibDems showed what they like to think of as 'flexibility' and voted with 'any party' that would give them a small item off their wish list, in this case oddly enough a key request was a reversal of their own previous year's cut in the graffiti team! I think it's clear that the LibDems are increasingly an irrelevance in Reading and hardly work the effort of voting for, if you want a champion for your local area or a real say in how decision are taken it's got to be Labour.
The Greens proposed we increase council tax by approximately £45 for the average household only to hand over about £30 of it the government for no benefit. They had no particular proposal of what to do with the remaining cash, which would be less that £700,000 when we were saving £12,600,000. This is gesture politics at its most pointless made more problematic by comments made before the meeting so misleading that the non-partisan Director of Education and Children's services took the unusual step of writing an open letter to him correcting his factual accuracy. The residents of Park ward deserve better than this.
Only Labour is standing up for Reading, keeping our promises (remember the Green bin tax?) and put the needs of our whole community before politics.
----------------
Cllr Rachel Eden is Lead Councillor for Housing and Neighbourhoods on Reading Borough Council. This blog post was re-produced in an edited form with her permission, if you'd like to read the full blog post please visit http://www.racheleden.blogspot.com
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Press Release: Working Tax Credits cuts this April will cost 450 Reading families £4000 a year
They are among more 212,000 families nationally, earning less that £17,700 a year who will lose all of their Working Tax Credits unless they can increase their working hours for a minimum of 16 hours a week to 24 hours a week. Between them those families have almost half-a-million children.
Rachael Chrisp says: 'The Tory-led Government has been raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast. Unemployment is rising and the economy is going in reverse: nineteen out of every twenty employers are cutting people's hours, not increasing them. And from April, 450 Reading households, with 900 children, will be losing almost £4,000 a year, or £75 a week".
"It tells you everything you need to know about David Cameron and George Osbourne that, while the banks are getting a tax cut this year, and the bankers are getting bonuses, their Government is making life harder for parents in the squeezed middle who are working and trying to do the right thing. As we've been saying, this financial crisis was created by the bankers, and is being paid for by women and children".
ENDS.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Opinion: LGBT History Month, Same-Sex Marriage and the Conservatives
by Duncan Bruce (@duncanqbruce)
As many may know its LGBT history month, a chance to reflect on the often too difficult journey equality has taken in Britain but also celebrate the achievements made in the last 15 years. I don't think many would argue that LGBT rights took a leap forward in Labour's 13 years of power with the introduction of adoption for LGBT couples and civil partnerships; but Labour left power in 2010 with still much to do and recent press seems to suggest that the Conservatives are not as keen to push forward LGBT rights as Labour were.
Plans by the coalition to bring forward legislation to allow same-sex marriage were first put in doubt when, in an article in The Independent, Conservative MP David Burrowes indicated that he was 'cautiously optimistic' of a defeat for the government and insisted that there was a 'Strong opposition to gay marriage across the Conservative Party spectrum'. Since then its been reported that several Conservative MPs have written to David Cameron asking him to drop the bill as it will damage the 'sanctity of marriage'.
How Reading's two Conservative MPs will vote when the time comes is hard to say, certainly in the past Reading East MP, Rob Wilson has not been particularly pro-LGBT rights, voting against the 2007 Equalities Act. Maybe its because I am young, but I really can't understand why the Conservative's can't support the issue of same-sex marriage, we live in a world where the marriage rate is on a decline and the number of divorces are on the rise, if two people, no matter what sex what to spend the rest of there lives together and are willing to make a commitment in terms of marriage we should be celebrating it, not suggesting that it would be damaging.
The coalition's position on LGBT rights has been further muddied today (19th February 2012) by the announcement by Michael Gove that it is okay for faith-based schools to use text books which contain homophobic discrimination. Personally I was raised Catholic, and still consider myself to be one, but I want my government to take a firm position that discrimination is not acceptable in any form in any school in this country; it can never be acceptable for young people who may be gay to feel that they are abnormal or deficient because they happen to attend a faith-based school.
Both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have indicated that they support same-sex marriage but neither have made comments on the issue of homophobic textbooks largely due to the story only breaking this weekend, David Cameron has indicated he will put legislation forward to allow same-sex marriage but hasn't yet indicated whether he will make it a 3-line whip or whether it will be a free vote allowing Conservative MPs to vote how they choose. For me this could be a decisive moment for the Conservative Party, they are burdened by the past and seen as out of touch, Cameron throughout the 2010 election desperately tried to distance himself from the party of Thatcher and insularism, if he cannot move his party forward into the twenty-first century and accept that half the country supports both same-sex marriage and LGBT rights then the Conservatives will crumble into parody of themselves.
Plans by the coalition to bring forward legislation to allow same-sex marriage were first put in doubt when, in an article in The Independent, Conservative MP David Burrowes indicated that he was 'cautiously optimistic' of a defeat for the government and insisted that there was a 'Strong opposition to gay marriage across the Conservative Party spectrum'. Since then its been reported that several Conservative MPs have written to David Cameron asking him to drop the bill as it will damage the 'sanctity of marriage'.
How Reading's two Conservative MPs will vote when the time comes is hard to say, certainly in the past Reading East MP, Rob Wilson has not been particularly pro-LGBT rights, voting against the 2007 Equalities Act. Maybe its because I am young, but I really can't understand why the Conservative's can't support the issue of same-sex marriage, we live in a world where the marriage rate is on a decline and the number of divorces are on the rise, if two people, no matter what sex what to spend the rest of there lives together and are willing to make a commitment in terms of marriage we should be celebrating it, not suggesting that it would be damaging.
The coalition's position on LGBT rights has been further muddied today (19th February 2012) by the announcement by Michael Gove that it is okay for faith-based schools to use text books which contain homophobic discrimination. Personally I was raised Catholic, and still consider myself to be one, but I want my government to take a firm position that discrimination is not acceptable in any form in any school in this country; it can never be acceptable for young people who may be gay to feel that they are abnormal or deficient because they happen to attend a faith-based school.
Both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have indicated that they support same-sex marriage but neither have made comments on the issue of homophobic textbooks largely due to the story only breaking this weekend, David Cameron has indicated he will put legislation forward to allow same-sex marriage but hasn't yet indicated whether he will make it a 3-line whip or whether it will be a free vote allowing Conservative MPs to vote how they choose. For me this could be a decisive moment for the Conservative Party, they are burdened by the past and seen as out of touch, Cameron throughout the 2010 election desperately tried to distance himself from the party of Thatcher and insularism, if he cannot move his party forward into the twenty-first century and accept that half the country supports both same-sex marriage and LGBT rights then the Conservatives will crumble into parody of themselves.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Opinion: What exactly is the Minister for Women and Equalities doing?
by Gaby Davies (@BinarySolo)
With unemployment at a 17 year record of 2.67 million, it's clear that the coalition government is failing in its plan to create more jobs, especially for the thousands of young people who are unable to find employment after leaving school or university. The fact that the government is trying to fund these problems with empty apprenticeships instead of taxing bankers' bonuses shows just how out of touch they really are. Long term youth unemployment doubled in the last year, and it's abundantly clear that unless the coalition government gives up on its Welfare to Work programme and starts to create real solutions, this generation will be scarred by joblessness.
However, it's the women of Britain who are being hit hardest by unemployment; they represent two-thirds of the increase and eighty per cent of the 710,000 public sector workers about to be made redundant. It was announced on Wednesday (15th February 2012) that female unemployment is at a 25 year high. Cuts are also having a huge impact on women, and the soaring price of childcare is often making it impossible for women to work.
Of course, with youth unemployment currently standing at 1.04 million, it's the young women who are really under pressure. Women who leave university with a reputable degree and the hope of entering the job market are finding that perhaps because of their lack of experience, employment is being offered to older women or men. In fact, women of a certain age can sometimes be sneakily passed up, as employers are concerned that they will soon require maternity leave, even though this is illegal.
The government must have realised that their cuts are affecting young women so badly, as David Cameron has urged departments to follow women-friendly policies. So why then is everything still so awful for women? The pay-gap looks set to widen, many women have to accept working part-time simply to stay in the employment market, and although, obviously, unemployment and cuts are affecting everyone, women are already the most vulnerable in terms of employment, and the government is doing nothing to ensure that they are not hit disproportionately hard. There are people in this government whose job it is to ensure equality. What's happening? Where (and I never thought I'd ask this) is Theresa May when you need her? Is she sitting at her desk munching Ferrero Roche and admiring her thousand pound shoes? She's certainly not doing her job as Minister for Women and Equalities.
However, it's the women of Britain who are being hit hardest by unemployment; they represent two-thirds of the increase and eighty per cent of the 710,000 public sector workers about to be made redundant. It was announced on Wednesday (15th February 2012) that female unemployment is at a 25 year high. Cuts are also having a huge impact on women, and the soaring price of childcare is often making it impossible for women to work.
Of course, with youth unemployment currently standing at 1.04 million, it's the young women who are really under pressure. Women who leave university with a reputable degree and the hope of entering the job market are finding that perhaps because of their lack of experience, employment is being offered to older women or men. In fact, women of a certain age can sometimes be sneakily passed up, as employers are concerned that they will soon require maternity leave, even though this is illegal.
The government must have realised that their cuts are affecting young women so badly, as David Cameron has urged departments to follow women-friendly policies. So why then is everything still so awful for women? The pay-gap looks set to widen, many women have to accept working part-time simply to stay in the employment market, and although, obviously, unemployment and cuts are affecting everyone, women are already the most vulnerable in terms of employment, and the government is doing nothing to ensure that they are not hit disproportionately hard. There are people in this government whose job it is to ensure equality. What's happening? Where (and I never thought I'd ask this) is Theresa May when you need her? Is she sitting at her desk munching Ferrero Roche and admiring her thousand pound shoes? She's certainly not doing her job as Minister for Women and Equalities.
