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: 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

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

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: 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

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:

• 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.

Read More

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:

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.

Read More

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

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More