Opinion: Charities, Cuts and the Big Society

It’s been a while since I last wrote a blog but this particular issue has been niggling away at me.

I’m not much of a runner, any twitter followers will know that I play for Sonning Hockey Club and the most weekends hit the badminton court with some older comrades from the Labour Party. Next month I’m running the 5k Pretty Muddy Race for Life, at which point (all being well) I will join a long line of distance running Labour Councillors such as John Ennis and Matt Rodda. Besides being a generally good thing to do, my interest in charity fundraising has been encouraged by the increasingly brutal cuts forced on to the third sector by this government.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations reported earlier this month that charities had lost over 1.3 billion pounds in the most recent spending cuts. At a local level charities will lose a significant 43% of their funding as a result of budget restrictions passed on by local councils. I am pleased to say however that in Reading at least, the Labour led council decided to protect the third sector budget.

Charities have a long history of supporting our public services and in many cases providing them. Direct cuts to the public and third sector are giving the green light to outsourcing and privatisation.

Over the holidays, Cameron claimed that Jesus invented big society and that he and his party were continuing that good work. Personally, I fail to see how cuts which disproportionately affect impoverished communities, disabled people and other vulnerable groups could possibly be a realisation of this.

The problem is that whether the cuts hit mental health, homeless provision or women’s charities, the end result is always the same. These cuts cost lives.

And naturally, here comes the fundraising plug:
http://www.justgiving.com/sophiajames

By Sophia James

Read More

Opinion: It's not about IQ, Boris

by Sophia James

This week Boris Johnson decided to show his true Conservative colours in a speech at the Centre for Policy Studies. Apparently greed is good and low IQs are bad.

Having viewed his speech, which you can see here. Boris makes it clear that those lacking in ‘raw ability’ may actually also be less valuable in terms of ‘spiritual worth’. He argues that we should do more in society to support those with high IQs and disregards other factors which hinder progress up the capitalist ladder. We live in a society where women earn on average 15% less than men due to the gender pay gap, a figure that increases to over 19% in the private sector and 21% for women of colour, where disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty and individuals with foreign sounding names are less likely to find employment. We also live in a country where 50% of young Black men are out of work and ‘gay’ is the number one playground insult.

If this wasn't bad enough, Boris goes onto to note that "16% of our ‘species’ have an IQ below 85, 2% have an IQ above 130". Before I could even contemplate his ignorance of disability, the subjectivity of IQ tests and disturbing dehumanisation of many hard working people in low paid work, I simply had to question Boris’ own intellectual prowess as he progressed this obscure argument into a metaphor about cornflakes.

Perhaps Labour MP Nia Griffith said it best when she exclaimed that ‘”the buffoon’s mask comes off”. Whilst the Mayor of London praises those scampering away with money at the top, families will be rehoused over Christmas, elderly members of the population will be unable to afford sky high heating bills and food banks will be stretched to the limit. It’s a strange thing to suggest greed is preferable in a country where 3.5 million children (that’s over a quarter of children in the UK) are living below the poverty line. One has to question what the spiritual worth is of a man who would support that.

If this is the potential future leadership of the Conservative Party, then it is even more imperative that we step up to the plate and return a Labour government in 2015.

Read More

Opinion: It's Time for Votes at 16

by Mata Durkin

 

The history of the suffrage of the electorate is long and eventful. Of course, the ones we remember the most are the Suffragettes - the women who fought and even, in some cases, gave their lives, in order for women to gain the vote in 1918 (but even then, there were a few restrictions). But that is not all - in 1867, the right to vote was extended to many manual workers, and in 1884, virtually all men - householders and tenants - could vote. That was changed in 1918, when not only did middle-class women over the age of 30 get the vote, but so did all men over the age of 21. It was changed to an equal voting age for men and women, at 21, in 1928, and finally in 1969 the age lowered from 21 to 18, which left us with what it is now. The criteria that allows people to have the right to vote has changed over the years, so maybe the next step is to lower it to allow 16 year old a chance to let their voices be heard.

One of the main arguments for lowering the voting age to 16 is that 16 is the minimum ‘legal age’ for many things. 16 year olds can have sex with their MP, live with their MP, marry their MP (with their parents’ permission), but cannot choose that MP. At 16, teenagers can choose to leave or continue their education or even decide to join the army. However, despite all this, 16 year olds still do not have the right to vote. It isn’t a question of their being irresponsible, otherwise they would not have so many responses at the moment, so the extension of suffrage is the only logical conclusion.

British politics is currently facing a participation crisis. Less than two-thirds of the country voted in the last general election and the brand new Police and Crime Commissioner Elections had an incredibly low turnout with no ballots at all being cast at one polling station. This affects democracy as it undermines the government’s legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the strength of the mandate given to the government by the people and corresponds to the size of the majority (or minority) as well as the turnout. Without a high turnout, the governing party is in office against the will of the majority of the population. The lower a government’s legitimacy, the more they and the policies they introduce can be questioned as to whether it is truly democratic. By allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote, the number of those who can vote will increase, as will the turnout.

The argument that 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, or lack the intelligence to make rational political decisions is outrageous. What makes an 18 year old any different from a 17 year old? If 16 and 17 year olds are ‘immature’, an 18 year old can’t be that much more mature. If education is a problem, then it should be something to fix, and not to be used as an argument against. Instead of not allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote on the grounds of ignorance and immaturity, politicians should be concentrating on creating an education system that educates young people politically. This will help them directly, as they will need to have this knowledge for later on in life.

In fact, lowering the age could also help create a better educated electorate. If the public are learning about politics at a younger age and getting directly involved younger, overall that will create a more politically educated electorate, which can only be a good thing. Currently, many would say that the electorate and the majority of the public know nothing or very little of politics, but getting involved younger may change that. This would also have the effect of removing or at least lessening the disillusion that is generally associated with politics, which would benefit society on a whole. If there is less disillusionment with politics, then overall, that can only be a good thing for democracy.

Many feel that youth interests are currently ignored and disregarded, so having 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote would allow politicians to take their view into account more. This way, the interests of young people will no longer be that topic that politicians have as a worry at the back of their mind, as they will have to include the views of young people in their policy making decisions.

16 year olds aren’t the trouble-making hooligans that match the stereotype, and they should not be denied the vote on the grounds of mere prejudice. Instead of making hypothetical accusations about what they would do with the vote, people should just accept that we are in fact more mature than they think, and are actually ready for this responsibility. Some changes to the education system to include more political education would help, but even so, I feel that the UK is ready for this change. It is natural for things to change, and this would be a change for the better.

Read More

Opinion: Why Labour needs a hero...

by Sophia James

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Ed Miliband and the One Nation Avengers. 

Yesterday Ed Miliband was dubbed an action hero after he dived into a busy London road and rescued a 29 year old woman from a bike accident. The woman in question, Ella Phillips, hailed the Labour leader a “suave”, “attractive” and stylishly dressed man, “a bit like an action hero”. Perhaps she was still concussed... however, the gallant, superhuman image of Red Ed swooping into British politics with his tights and cape are needed now more than ever.

Let’s be completely honest, the national scene for our party has been quieter than many would hope, with members being forced to sustain themselves with piecemeal policies. Even despite Labour’s improved turnout in traditionally Conservative areas last week and the prising of several authorities from cold, blue hands, the news - like a broken record, has continually recalled the UK Independence Party’s successes at the ballot box. It would seem somewhat ironic that a party once branded “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” by David Cameron, are now tightening their choke hold on his party and causing unrest amongst the greying Tory ranks. Is this the beginning of twenty first century British politics lurching to the right?

It was easy enough for UKIP to swoop in and steal the flag. The Liberal Democrats dug their own metaphoric grave by reneging on every single promise ever made, whilst the fluffy Tory party softened up on Europe and a range of social issues. Even the BNP suffered, with their vote collapsing in places like Spalding East and Moulton where they polled 20.5% in 2009. Four years later UKIP’s new found popularity relegated them to a low of 3.9%, which just in case you were wondering, we are extremely happy about. That said, the so called rise of UKIP is not just an issue for the aforementioned parties, Labour need to be vigilant to prevent further encroachment on their patch.  

Youth unemployment figures have remained high ever since the initial crisis five years ago. The Guardian reported recently that young people are three times less likely to be employed than adults and last year, the headlines stating that 50% of Black young males were out of work have left a bitter taste in our communities. Simply put, unemployment will play a key part in the next election and provides an opportunity for the Right to play on the plight of immigrants. 

A further issue which has exposed itself recently is the contrast between the money spent on the European Union and the strain on public services. The argument is unsophisticated yet media savvy. Withdraw from the EU, save money and decrease immigration to open up the job market. The difficulty is that the more nuanced arguments of international trade, free movement and collective strength are being sidelined. 

Another problem is the extortionate cost of the housing. The earliest a young person can expect to buy a house is the not so early age of 38. Shelter’s most recent campaign argues that if the price of food had increased at the same rate as housing, a chicken would cost over fifty pounds. Labour need to be pushing hard for capital projects of affordable housing, encouraging industries to set up paid apprenticeships or training opportunities and recognising the positive impact that immigration has on British society. 

The next election should be about the future and young people are the future. The Labour Party must reach out to disgruntled, dispirited voters and present an inspirational alternative to the ConDem attack on the young, the disadvantaged and the impoverished. Over the next few weeks we will be out in Reading surveying the youth population about concerns they have. We know this election cannot be won on rhetoric and here at Reading Young Labour, we will put the issues affecting our community at the heart of our campaigns. We only hope our caped crusaders in Labour Party HQ will be doing the same.

Read More

Analysis: The Rise and Rise of the House of Farage

by Alex Chalmers
Everyone expected the UK Independence Party to perform well in Thursday’s elections, but few accurately predicted the scale of their apparent surge in support. Almost a quarter of those who voted, seemingly disillusioned with all three main parties, turned out to vote for a party that had previously been dismissed as a collection of “fruitcakes, loonies, and closet racists”, as well as “clowns”. However, in many ways, the government have only themselves to blame for this high protest vote. Whilst it is important not to dismiss UKIP, it is equally foolish to interpret these results as a fundamental realignment of British politics or an end to the three-party system. Such shock results are not without historic precedent and as parties such as UKIP become more successful, greater scrutiny can bring internal problems and divisions to the fore.

Read More

Labour's EU hopefuls in the South East region

Peter Skinner is standing down after nearly 20 years of service as Labour's MEP for the South East but there are ten fantastic Labour candidates who all want to follow in Peter's footsteps.

Read More

Opinion: The Conservatism of the Left

by Alex Chalmers
When the Labour Party loses an election, as it did in 2010, it usually retreats into its shell. Instead of trying to re-engage with the public, refresh its image, and present a credible alternative to the new government, it embraces a toxic mixture of complacency and factionalism. Many in the party adopt the attitude that the electorate 'got it wrong' and will not repeat the mistake, whilst others descend into divisive battles about whether it is time to tack to the right or lurch to the left. Either way, this results in Labour being perceived as the party of 'no change', pursuing the same course as when the electorate rejected them, unrealistically hoping that they can pick up where they left off five years ago. 

Read More

Press Release: Reading Labour Supports Equal Marriage And Calls On Reading's Two MPs To Do The Same

Press Release - 3rd February, 2013

Reading Labour are calling on Conservative MP's Alok Sharma and Rob Wilson to vote in favour of the Equal Marriage Bill coming before Parliament this Tuesday (5th February), which allows same sex couples the right to get married.

"This Bill is about letting couples who want to make a long term commitment to each other get married regardless of sexuality or gender" comment Richard Wood, Reading Labour LGBT Officer. "This is something that the LGBT community has long campaigned for, and it's something that Reading Labour has been proud to support, in the press and with petitions on our stall at Reading Pride."

The Bill expands on the Civil Partnerships legislation introduced by the last Labour government in 2004 by providing for same sex couples to get married, while protecting religions and faith groups who may not wish to conduct a same sex marriage. Thanks to Labour lobbying, the Bill also allows churchs and groups that do wish to conduct same sex marriages (such as Quakers, Unitarians and Regorm Judaism) to do so.

Ben Zielinski, Chair of Reading and District Labour Party, adds "Labour has always had a proud history of supporting LGBT rights, whether its Civil Partnerships, ending the ban on LGBT people serving in the armed forces, giving LGBT couples the right to adopt children, or scrapping the homophobic Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act - we believe firmly that if a same sex couple wishes to get married they should have the right to do so".

Victoria Groulef, Labour candidate for Reading West comments "My support for marriage equality is clear. The right to marry is an issue of equal rights and that's why if I was MP for Reading West, I would be voting yes".

Matt Rodda, Labour candidate for Reading East comments "I would vote in favour of the Bill, I think it is very important people are treated equally and I hope there will be all party support for the legislation".

ENDS.

Read More

Labour candidates for Reading East and Reading West selected!

Members from Reading East and Reading West met last Sunday to select who will be our Parliamentary candidates for the 2015 general election.

The candidates selected were:


Reading West - Victoria Groulef
Reading East - Matt Rodda

We congratulate them both.

Read More

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:

 



Read More

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.

Read More

Become The First To Know

by Joe Barker (@Joe_Barker1)

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

Read More

Labour Party Conference 2012!

Labour Party conference is upon us again. Reading Young Labour will be sending three Young Labour members to conference:

- 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.

Read More

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

Read More

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):

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



Read More

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)

Labour majority of 130 seats

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.

Read More

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...

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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)

Read More