Michael Meacher - Labour's Future

Now that KKR has obtained access to the books at Boots, the likelihood of a private equity takeover is very disturbing after the biggest private equity company PERMIRA took over the AA and Birds Eye leading to a loss of over 4000 jobs.

I am writing today to Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State at the DTI, asking that where healthy, well-managed companies like Boots are threatened, he should establish a Takeover Commission to assess whether such bids are in the public interest or not, and to block them if an independent commission judges they are not.

I am asking him to lay down the terms of reference of such a Commission, which should specify the range of conditions which would have to be met to ensure the wider public interest is safeguarded.

One of the conditions should be that a contractual statement should have to be provided by the private equity company about how its takeover would affect the employment, the pay and terms and conditions of existing staff for a specified period.

I am proposing to the Secretary of State that the company would be legally liable for implementing, and not reneging from, the commitments made in its prior statement to the Takeover Commission.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:55 PM | Permalink

(This is from a DCH email, please forward to people who will sign the petition.)

Defend Council Housing has posted a ‘Fourth Option’ for council housing E-Petition on the 10 Downing Street website.

The DCH petition calls on the Prime Minister to “provide the 'Fourth Option' of direct investment in council housing… bring all homes up to at least the government's Decent Homes Standard by 2010 and also build a new generation of decent, affordable and secure council homes for rent”.

The ‘Fourth Option’ is supported by a broad coalition of organisations representing council tenants, the TUC and all major trade unions, councillors and MPs across all the main parties (see early day motion Funding Decent Council Housing).

The petition was launched as the well respected Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee joins in criticising government’s dogmatic obsession with private market solutions to the growing housing crisis.

The influential committee of MPs make clear that the significant amounts of public subsidy Ministers have poured into a never ending list of home ownership initiatives are neither value for money or making any contribution to tackling the growing housing crisis. The committee questions the effectiveness of the Communities & Local Government's schemes for helping low income households to own their own home.

The MPs find that: the CLG does not know how the schemes affect local housing markets; it is "unclear" whether the assistance is helping to recruit and retain key workers; and housing waiting list controls are poor, meaning that three quarters of those gaining assistance have incomes above £25,000.

Defend Council Housing today welcomed the report from the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee on ‘Low Cost Home Ownership Assistance’. Alan Walter, DCH chair, said:

“All the evidence shows that the quickest and most effective way of tackling growing housing need in 21st Century Britain would be for government to invest in improving existing and build a new generation of first class council (public) housing.

Ministers should drop their dogmatic insistence on privatisation and the private market. Subsidies for home ownership don’t create one extra home for those who need them – it just increases profits for lenders and developers and pushes more people into debt.

Pouring public subsidy into home ownership schemes only inflates house prices and doesn’t benefit those on low incomes.

Nearly 3 million council tenants want the ‘Fourth Option’ of direct investment in council housing and if local authorities were once again given the ability to build new council homes they could provide decent, affordable, secure and accountable housing for the 1.6 million households on council housing waiting lists.”

Read latest twelve page DCH newspaper (published March 24)

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:42 AM | Permalink

In yesterday's Budget, Gordon Brown pre-empted the Tories by, in effect, doing their work for them - cutting corporation Tax and cutting the basic income tax rate. What he has not done is produce a real Labour Budget which would dramatically cut growing inequality by ending glaring tax loopholes that favour the rich. (E.g. non domicile tax status for the super rich and the taper relief exemption for private equity investors) while at the same time raising the basic State pension to pensioner credit level as of right for all pensioners and linking all future increases in the pension to earnings.

He has not tackled environmental issues adequately. His policy of bringing the airlines into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in several years time will not deter the fastest rising cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Bringing in a carbon entitlement for individual households in 2012 is far too late. He has done nothing to increase the pathetically low level of electricity generation in UK from renewable sources of energy, still stuck at 4% when the rest of the EU level is 20-25%. Building standards and energy efficiency still remain disappointingly low and he has refused, wrongly, to earmark all green taxes for expenditure on better green alternatives (e.g. bus rail and smaller engine cars).

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:41 PM | Permalink

From

The recent cabinet agreement in Baghdad on the new draft oil law was hailed as a landmark deal bringing together the warring factions in the allocation of the country's oil wealth. What was concealed was that this is being forced through by relentless pressure from the US and will sow the seeds of intense future conflict, with serious knock-on impacts on the world economy.

The draft law, now before the Iraqi parliament, sets up "production sharing partnerships" to allow the US and British oil majors to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years. While Iraq would retain legal ownership of its oil, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP that invest in the infrastructure and refineries would get a large share of the profits.

No other Middle Eastern oil producer has ever offered such a hugely lucrative concession to the big oil companies, since Opec has always run its oil business through tightly-controlled state companies. Only Iraq in its present dire condition, dependent on US troops for the survival of the government, lacks the bargaining capacity to resist.

This is not a new plan. According to documents obtained from the US State Department by BBC Newsnight under the US Freedom of Information Act, the US oil industry plan drafted early in 2001 for takeover of the Iraqi oilfields (after the removal of Saddam) was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, calling for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oilfields.

This secret plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. However, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. As Ariel Cohen of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation later told Newsnight, an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oilfields.

Now the plan is being revisited, or as much of it as can be salvaged after the fading of American power on the battlefield made enforced sell-off impossible. This revision of the original plan has been drafted by BearingPoint, a US consultancy firm, at the request of the US government. Significantly, it was checked first with Big Oil and the IMF and is only now being presented to the Iraqi parliament. But if accepted by the Iraqis under intense pressure, it will lock the country into weakness and dependence for decades. The neo-cons may have lost the war, but they are still manipulating to win the most substantial chunk of the peace when and if it ever comes.

It isn't difficult to see why. The super-giant oilfields of south-eastern Iraq, particularly the Majnoon and West Qurna, together with the East Baghdad field, are the largest concentration to be found anywhere in the world. Oil exploration costs are among the cheapest globally, with the current cost estimated at around 50c per barrel compared with the current retail price of about $60 a barrel. Petroleum geologists have discovered 73 major fields and identified some 239 as having a high degree of certainty. Yet only 30 fields have been partially developed and only 12 are actually on stream. Undrilled structures and undeveloped fields could represent the largest untapped hydrocarbon resource anywhere in the world. While most other Middle East countries are fully exploiting their reserves, large parts of Iraq are still virgin.

This prize is cast in even greater relief by recent assessments of the looming imminence of global peak oil production. The International Energy Agency now estimates that world production outside Opec has already peaked and that world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. Optimists who project large reserves remaining of over 1 trillion barrels base their figures on three illusory premises - inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands whose exploitation would entail colossal economic and environmental costs, exaggeration by Opec countries lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel, or new drilling technologies which may accelerate production but are unlikely to expand reserves. In contrast, the pessimists are steadily gaining ground, and against this background Iraq remains potentially the last remaining major breakthrough.

Nevertheless, on every count the latest US plan to get control of Iraqi oil at almost any cost is profoundly misconceived. Even from the point of view of America's own self-interest, its security is imperilled more by the failure to develop alternative energy options than by the lack of capabilities of its weapons systems. Yet the US government continues to spend about 20 times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former. It is still the case that funding the import of oil represents about 40% of the current US trade deficit, yet no vigorous programme in renewable technologies is being supported.

As Senator Richard Lugar and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, said prophetically in 1999 about growing US dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil, "our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonisingly through developing nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change - or through all of them".

Secondly, in neo-conservative eyes Iraq was also required as an alternative to Saudi Arabia to provide a military base for the US to police the whole of Gulf oil. It was no longer possible for the US to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia for that purpose without risking the collapse of the dictatorial Saudi regime and its giant oil assets falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. The removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia was the principal demand contained in Osama bin Laden's fatwa of 1996. This was why, shortly after invading Iraq, the US announced that it was pulling its combat troops out of Saudi Arabia, thereby meeting Bin Laden's principal pre-9/11 political demand. But unfortunately for the US, al-Qaida is now seeking the removal of US troops from Iraq as well.

Above all, the policy is flawed by its extreme short-sightedness. Even if the US were to win its war in Iraq, which now looks virtually impossible, its incremental gain before the oil runs out would be short-term, while its exposure to intensified and unending insurgency because of perceived US seizure of Iraqi oil rights, especially if extended to Iran, would be disproportionately enormous both in the Middle East and maybe also at home. It is diametrically the opposite of the policy to which the whole world will be forced ineluctably by the accelerating onset of climate change. Perhaps the single greatest gain of the west learning this lesson of weaning itself off its oil addiction is that it would end this interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries simply because they happen to have oil - the central cause of world conflict today.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:02 PM | Permalink

Michael's speech to the People's Assembly against the War, yesterday evening in Westminster.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 07:14 AM | Permalink

I'm hoping to meet workers from the AA and NCP tonight, just before the adjournment debate I've been able to secure.

Private equity firms are now going after healthy, well-managed companies, looting them in the interests of huge personal gains for themselves at the expense of enormous job losses for employees and crippling the companies with debt.

Examples include AA - where within months of buying it the private equity owners Permira and CVC Capital had cut 3,400 jobs and reduced front-line services for motorists drastically. Birds Eye - where Permira pledged to keep workers’ employment terms for at least 3 years, then within 5 months closed a plant in Hull at the cost of 600 jobs.
Debenhams - where the private equity partners increased the firm’s debt from £100m to £1.9bn, paid themselves a dividend of £1.2bn, sold the freehold of the stores for £500m and leased them back, and then floated the business and took another £600m, thus making 3 ½ times their investment in a little over 2 years and leaving Debenhams with huge interest payments and rent on stores it once owned.

Private Equity is now lining up Sainsbury’s and Boots for the same treatment. As Roberto Italia, then of Warburg Pincus, now of Cinven private equity, has said: “Of course we’re out to shaft the companies we invest in.”

I want to see six major changes in Wednesday's budget:

1 The taper relief loophole in capital gains tax for private equity firms should be immediately ended.

2 Tax incentives should be ‘staircased’ to encourage long-term investment of 10 years or more, and to discourage short-term in-and-out asset-stripping.

3 The restructuring of company pension schemes to increase personal gains for private equity partners should be blocked.

4 There should be much greater transparency required from private equity operations, in particular the requirement to provide full quarterly reports in the same way as publicly quoted companies.

5 The provision of tax relief for leveraged buy-outs should be ended.

6 Private equity firms should be required beforehand to provide a public interest statement of the expected and intended impacts of the takeover on jobs, debt, investment, and the longer term future of the target company, and this statement should be contractually binding for a stated period at least as far as employment is concerned.

The engine for this private equity plundering comes from three tax changes made in the last ten years. First, in 1998 the Government introduced ‘taper relief’ on capital gains, slashing capital gains tax for people owning shares in their own companies or in unlisted businesses from 40% to just 10%, provided they had owned the asset for 10 years. The real bonanza started in 2002 when the Government, amazingly, changed the rules again so that people only needed to own shares for 2 years to qualify for the hugely valuable 10% tax concession. Then when all companies with highly-paid employees started setting up elaborate ‘share-based’ pay schemes designed to disguise income as capital gains, the Government in 2003 changes the rules yet again to require that shares received as part of a pay package be declared as income. The private equity gravy train nearly ground to a halt. However, unaccountably, the Government then exempted private equity from the new rules. The gravy train rolls on as a special deal for private equity.

This loophole is costing the Treasury a fortune. From a mega-fund buy-out of £10bn such as is being put together for Sainsbury’s, the private equity partners might expect to walk away after a few years with perhaps £2.8bn. If that were taxed as income, the Government would get £1.1bn in tax. But taxed as a capital gain, the effective tax rate might be as low as 7.5%, or just £210m. The Treasury thus loses £900m. Official figures show that this loophole is costing the Treasury a fortune, with taper relief costing the Government £4.5bn this year, up from £550m in 1998.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:09 PM | Permalink

Speaker list

Register to participate

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:46 PM | Permalink

This piece on the outcome and effects of last night's vote appears on the New Statesman website, as does an article from a Trident supporter, Tom Watson MP.

Whatever the arguments over the wisdom of retaining nuclear weapons, he and I both seem to agree that the way in which the matter was handled within the PLP and indeed the Labour Party as a whole needs to change drastically if we are to see Labour regain electoral support.

So the UK will now be going overdressed into the negotiating chamber. At the preparatory session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva next month, countries facing international criticism over their nuclear programmes will naturally look askance at calls from the UK not to continue down the weapons development path. “You claim that in an uncertain world you need these weapons,” they will say. “What makes the situation any more certain for us?” Of course there is no adequate answer.

The risk is that instead of multilateral moves towards disarmament to make the world a safer place, we will see a cascade of nuclear weapons development and proliferation. Rather than going to the Geneva conference armed with proposals to demonstrably reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, we will be uncomfortably denuded of any moral or political case that could lead to wider disarmament.

A total of 95 Labour MPs voted for the amendment rejecting Government approval for renewal. The strong efforts made to reduce the size of the backbench rebellion, not least remarks ahead of the debate from Gordon Brown about his success in persuading MPs to vote with the Government, belie the claims that taking the decision now was a favour from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown (or any indeed other successor), in order to avoid such a divisive vote in the future. Indeed, Des Browne said as much on the Today Programme yesterday, when he admitted further decisions on submarines, warheads and delivery systems would be taken by Parliament in future years.

This makes it all the harder to understand why the Government opposed Frank Field’s amendment, which deleted nothing from the government motion but merely added a call to ensure a vote in Parliament ahead of the money being committed.

Thatcher made a virtue out of her perceived refusal ever to compromise. Blair’s attempt to appear similarly determined has been far less successful. It is this aspect which is most worrying for the future of the Labour party – an unwillingness to build bridges to MPs dissenting because their constituents express strong concerns. It’s a failure of parliamentary work that we last saw over the debate on detention without charge. Charles Clarke agreed to consult MPs further and see if a new consensus was possible. Blair’s determination to stick to the original 90 days proposal generated much disquiet amongst backbench Labour MPs and was a significant cause of the government’s defeat. The letter from Margaret Beckett and Des Browne circulated to MPs yesterday had a similar effect and magnified the size of the vote for the “case not proven” amendment.

The knock-on effects of yesterday’s vote will be seen most dramatically among party activists, causing immense disquiet. The sad fact is that we can expect to see fewer people out campaigning for Labour in the regional elections in May. Despite the repeated avowals of “respect” Tony Blair offers members who disagree with him, they would be more interested in taking part in a real debate.

In his speech yesterday, Gordon Prentice rightly described the lack of consultation as “a disgrace,” from the point when all motions discussing Trident at Labour Conference last September were ruled out of order to the truncated timetable for debate that ended yesterday. I have already said that if elected leader I would re-open this question entirely, not just on the timing, but on the principle. The Government has avoided an opportunity for promoting multi-lateral disarmament now and greater security for decades to come. We must continue to campaign so that future promised votes have a more positive outcome.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:11 PM | Permalink

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab): One cannot but draw encouragement from the fact that when occupants of both Front Benches come together in agreement there must be a good deal to be said for the opposite argument. So it is today. Like others, I do not believe that the Government have adequately or convincingly answered certain fundamental questions about renewing Trident, in particular its true cost, why a decision has to be taken now, whom it is meant to deter, and how it is genuinely compatible with non-proliferation.

Nor has there been a real opportunity to obtain fuller answers, because the process of consultation has been unjustifiably squeezed. There is an unmistakable sense in this latest exercise that both Parliament and the electorate are being bounced into this decision. I still believe that there is a strong case for further and fuller consultation of the electorate before such a momentous decision—which will cost taxpayers some 6 per cent. of GDP—is made.

The argument against renewal of Trident is extremely strong—

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): I think that my right hon. Friend meant 6 per cent. of the defence budget, not 6 per cent. of GDP. He may wish to amend the record.

Mr. Meacher: No, I am referring to a cost of £75 billion—I shall discuss that further in a moment—which is roughly 6 per cent. of GDP. It is substantially higher as a proportion of the defence budget.

The post-cold war environment today is, of course, utterly different from 20 years ago and even the Ministry of Defence cannot plausibly identify an enemy—either currently or in future—against whom Trident might be necessary. I will come on in a few moments to the uncertainties of future events in the world and to what I believe to be the central issue of the debate.

Mr. Borrow: My right hon. Friend mentioned his concern for the views of the electorate as against those of the House. Should he be successful and become the leader of our party in the autumn—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—will he give an undertaking to reverse the party’s policy of multilateral nuclear disarmament. If he fails to do so, will he abide by party policy?

Mr. Meacher: I am pleased to see the widespread support that I receive—at least on one side of the House! I would certainly reopen this decision, as I believe that consultation has not been adequate. I would like to see a consultation along the lines of the first strategic defence review, which lasted for a year—1997 to 98, I believe—as nothing less would be right now. On that basis, and taking account of all the relevant options—they have not all been put sufficiently to the electorate—I believe that we should have a further two-day parliamentary debate. I give an absolute commitment that I would abide by the result. I believe that it would provide a fresh and genuine mandate.

If we are talking about the threats that our country faces today, we know that they are primarily terrorism, climate change and long-term energy security—against all of which, of course, nuclear weapons are useless. Furthermore, this is not an independent British nuclear deterrent, since the platform, the delivery system, the warheads, and even the onshore support, are all dependent on our US relationship. The Trident II D5 missiles are leased from the US missile pool under a system known in the trade as “rent a rocket”.

Not only are the warheads designed by the US, but several crucial components without which the system could not work are manufactured in the US, and the system is also reliant on US software for all aspects of targeting. What is even more serious in respect of our over-dependence on the US is that the US provides this kit to us not because they believe that we are necessary to the defence of the west, but because it makes us subservient to US foreign policy. We have already seen that with Iraq and Lebanon, and could well see it again over Iran. I, for one, believe that that is a political price far too high to pay for the next 30 or 40 years.

The enormous cost, of a distinctly vague and uncertain role, has already been touched on. Even MOD officials have admitted that the lifetime costs of Trident renewal could be two to three times the £15 billion to £20 billion figures mentioned in the White Paper—and that covers only the initial building of the system. That is close to the £75 billion I mentioned earlier, which is the amount arrived at by the independent think-tank, the British American Security Information Council.

Figures of that magnitude starkly expose the recently highlighted funding gap within the MOD’s current procurement plans beyond 2012. That includes some major equipment procurement such as two carriers, the joint strike fighters and possibly a third tranche of Typhoon Eurofighters. The budget means that we cannot have both those and Trident together: we have to make a choice. I would submit that those systems are likely to be far more relevant and valuable for our defence capability in future than nuclear weapons.

The truth is that none of our wars have been won with nuclear weapons and none of our enemies deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, even though we had nuclear weapons and he did not. The US had nuclear weapons, but that did not prevent them from being defeated in Vietnam and now in Iraq. The French had nuclear weapons, but that did not prevent them from being chased out of Indo-China and Algeria. Israel, of course, had nuclear weapons, but that did not prevent them from being evicted from Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000 and again last year.

The only argument that the Government and the Opposition fall back on is that we might one day in the hypothetical future, in a worse-case scenario, face a rogue state. However, the logic of the “rogue state” argument, as has rightly been pointed out, is that if we need nuclear weapons against such an eventuality, so does everybody else—not just Iran but the 40 or so technologically advanced states that are already capable of producing nuclear weapons. The question that then arises, which we need to answer tonight, is whether British will really be a safer place if we trigger a spate of nuclear proliferation across the world leading to regional arms races and a world of 40 or more nuclear states. Far from the risk of nuclear war being diminished, I submit that it is far more likely to be enhanced—whether from miscalculation, terrorist acquisition or another cause.

There is no question that renewing Trident will undermine the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty. There has been a lot of discussion about that, but let us be clear that the deal in that treaty is that the non-nuclear countries will not seek nuclear weapons, on condition that nuclear countries move steadily and in good faith to full—I emphasise the word “full”—nuclear disarmament. If we decide to renew Trident, that will be a clear message that the nuclear states—although I entirely concede that they are making some important reductions in their nuclear weaponry—are nevertheless still baulking at the end process of nuclear disarmament. That is all too likely in time to lead to a steady growth of further proliferation among a whole swathe of non-nuclear states. Ultimately, that could prove unstoppable.

No one—certainly not me—supports the view that Britain can unilaterally bring about nuclear disarmament worldwide. That is a complete canard. Of course we cannot, but there is a window of opportunity. Most experts agree that there is no requirement for an immediate decision to be taken on this issue before at least 2014. That gives us an invaluable opportunity to take the lead, which is what I think we should do, in trying to set up a multinational, multilateral nuclear disarmament conference embracing not only the existing nuclear states but also the non-nuclear states who might be tempted to go down this route, in order to give a decisive multilateral push to halting nuclear proliferation.

Mr. Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I do not have the time. I believe that what I have described is a much better route to a safer world, and we are in pole position to take a global lead.

Finally, let us not forget that over the past generation more nations have given up nuclear weapons than have developed them. None of those countries—Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, other former Soviet states and South Africa—regard themselves as less safe than they were before—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman’s time is up.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:10 AM | Permalink

BBC Online are running an poll on whether we need to build a new generation of submarines to carry Trident D5 missiles. Show your opposition to this premature and politically misguided proposal by voting in this poll.

So far, 4000+ people have voted, more than doubling the numbers of votes cast in a period of about two hours.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:57 PM | Permalink

I think there are four key challenges now facing the EU. First, Europe's economic problems cannot be solved with supply side reforms alone. Weak domestic demand in many cases, made worse by the constriction of the Stability and Growth Pact, should be tackled by setting up a counter cyclical European Recovery Fund and by developing ECOFIN as a real political counterpart to the European Central Bank.

Second, the EU's response to the global economy should be smarter than simply posing a choice between liberalisation and protectionism. It should seek to stabilise exchange rates and prevent speculative capital flows from destabilising healthy economies through a Tobin tax. It should press for an international clearing union to smooth trade imbalances by requiring countries to recycle their surpluses to maintain global demand. And it should take the lead in benchmarking social and environmental standards into world trade rules.

Third, the EU should give its social model a more distinctive European form. To deal with collapsing corporate provision, it should set up a European social fund into which companies should contribute a proportion of their profits to meet at least some of the spending needed to guarantee security in retirement as well as providing at least minimum standards for a European childcare guarantee.

Fourth, it must democratise EU politics so as to enable Europeans to feel involved in a common political debate about their future. Maybe a new Preseident of the European Council should lead on Europe-wide elections so that electors voted more as Europeans.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:54 PM | Permalink

We are quite right to aim at global leadership over climate change, but we will only get it if we earn it. And at present we’re not. We have been at great risk of covering up our failure to reach even modest targets by taking on ever more ambitious ones, while kicking them ever further into the future. At the EU Summit in Brussels on Saturday the heads of government did exactly that – ratcheting up the targets for 2020 while failing to deliver the lesser targets for 2010.

The EU is way off track to meet its 8% cut in CO2 emissions by 2010. In the UK emissions have risen in 6 of the last 7 years, when they should have fallen by 12%. Air travel and car emissions continue to rise sharply. The UK target for electricity generation from renewables was 10% by 2010. We are currently at 4% and will be lucky to reach 6%, when the average for the original EU 15 is nearly 20%. Higher targets are fine, but without serious enforcement the plaudits are vacuous.

The test for the Climate Change Bill on Tuesday is clear. Does it have an explicit strategy to deliver 60% cuts by 2050, as the scientists require? What exactly are the mechanisms proposed to deliver this? Are they all enforceable? Will the Government set binding annual targets to achieve the cuts required, monitor progress and publish the results and bring in whatever changes or new mechanisms are necessary to keep Britain on track? Anything less is a cosmetic palliative in the war on Climate Change.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 11:05 AM | Permalink

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:24 AM | Permalink

The consultation on Trident has been a sham. By fixing a vote in the House of Commons for next Wednesday, No 10 is bouncing us into a momentous decision years before expert opinion says it is necessary.

As leader, I would re-open this decision. I would arrange a full and proper consultation lasting at least six months, embracing all the relevant options and making sure public opinion is properly heard, followed by at least a two day debate in Parliament, ending with a fresh and much more authoritative vote.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Getting agreement today to a binding 20% renewables target at the EU summit in Brussels is crucial. But the rhetoric has to be delivered. Britain already has a renewables target of 10% by 2010, but is failing to get anywhere near it.

While Germany, France, Italy and Spain generate 10-25% of their electricity from renewable sources of energy and Sweden and Denmark 25-35%, for Britain the figure is just 4%. This is pathetic, given that around Scotland and the North Sea, we have more wind power and wave and tidal power potential than any other country in Europe.

Kicking targets another decade into the future to conceal the failure to deliver in the shorter term is not good enough.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:06 AM | Permalink

Meacher: why Spectator readers should vote for me

A leadership election opens up, uniquely, the opportunity to debate and decide on the future course of a government. I am standing because I believe there are several areas of policy where a fundamental change of direction is now needed. And though Spectator readers may initially be sceptical about the relevance of my policies to them, I believe that if they read on with an open mind, they'll find much that they agree with. I'm sure they'll agree, for instance, that New Labour and Tory policies have become similar, almost overlapping, which means that politics has become increasingly fixated on personalities, as though a blanket consensus on policy had been achieved. This is ridiculous. Old-style Toryism was rejected in 1997, and now New Labour - the continuing moving-right show - has clearly faded. It's time, not for Old Labour either, but for a mainstream Labour approach - which may well represent majority opinion within the electorate but has been suppressed for over a decade - to be reasserted as a modern progressive politics with new solutions to today's profound problems.

First, we need a foreign policy which asserts our fundamental British interests and is not cringingly subservient to the US. We must stop being America's glove puppet - over Iraq and Lebanon, and now even more worryingly over Iran. Britain should insist that the nuclear stand-off against Iran must be resolved by negotiated means or through UN-imposed sanctions, not militarily, and should strongly discourage and oppose any US or Israeli attack, the longer-term consequences of which are incalculably dangerous.

To try to end the horrendous daily carnage in Iraq and to speed up our troop withdrawal from Basra, where our own military are openly saying our presence is actually exacerbating the security situation, we should, with EU partners and hopefully the US, be seeking to initiate a wider international peace conference bringing together all the relevant actors for a joint settlement of the interconnected Middle East issues of contention which experience has painfully shown cannot be settled singly. Such a conference would best be held under the auspices of the UN and involve the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus all the relevant power-brokers in the Middle East.

The outline of such a settlement can reasonably be envisaged. For Iraq itself, a federal structure may be the only solution, but on condition of an agreed allocation of the oil revenues. Clearly such a settlement must involve the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian state, broadly in accordance with the 1967 borders, together with an international guarantee of Israel's frontiers, with a demilitarised zone along its borders with the Palestinian state and Lebanon patrolled by an adequate UN force. A nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, involving both Iran and Israel as well as other nuclear aspirants within the region, should be a goal for the conference, though it may not be reachable. However, if it cannot be achieved, a much wider and very dangerous nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East probably cannot be prevented.

Economically, the suspension of the customs union between Israel and Palestine needs to be ended, and once reactivated, it should be extended to Lebanon and Jordan to establish a Middle East common market.

Another major issue in current British politics is the breakdown of government accountability. Power is increasingly concentrated at the top and key decisions taken, such as on Trident replacement and nuclear energy, before even a formality of democratic consultation. Within Parliament itself, decisions are forced through by a ruthless combination of patronage and whipped discipline, while the often thoughtful and sensible proposals of Parliamentary select committees are publicised but then ignored.

Parliamentary authority, which has withered in recent decades, needs to be urgently revived. The appropriate select committee could adopt the right to ratify (or not) nominations to the Cabinet made by the Prime Minister. Parliament could determine to set up its own committees of inquiry where the government refuses to do so, such as recently over rendition flights. It could also demand the right to ratify the membership and terms of reference of committees of inquiry where the Prime Minister does set them up. To ensure a more robust independence in select committees, their members could be elected by ballot of the whole House, not selected by the Whips. And the Liaison Committee, composed of chairs of all the select committees, could demand the right to table a motion for debate and vote on the floor of the House at least, say, once a month. In addition, the Royal Prerogative should be ended so that Parliament, not the Prime Minister unilaterally, decides whether to declare war, make international treaties and authorise military action.

Climate change is now the overarching issue facing the world. Tackling it should permeate every aspect of government - not just energy, but transport, industry, building standards, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy. Though we are happily endowed with more renewable sources of energy, especially wind-power, than any other country in Europe, we are utilising only a minute fraction of it - only 4 per cent of our electricity generation comes from renewables compared with 10-25 per cent in Germany, France, Italy and Spain, and 35 per cent or more in Scandinavia.

We should be shifting away from massive old-fashioned power stations to decentralised energy systems, together with much more ambitious investment in large-scale offshore wind farms. We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce year by year their emissions, which are the fastest growing source of global warming. We should increase VED (vehicle excise duty) massively for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, plus give large rebates to smaller-engine car owners. We should require industry to measure and make public their carbon imprint, and report on how they are annually reducing it. We should incentivise local food production which would regenerate British agriculture, dramatically cut air miles, and protect security of supply.

We should also tighten building standards so that all new construction at least meets the most energy-efficient standards already met in Europe and Scandinavia. We should give each family, according to its size and structure, a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year in such a way as to reward the conscientious and penalise the wasteful. And in order to meet the target set by scientists of at least 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 compared with 1990, government should set a target of 3 per cent annual reduction in overall UK emissions. Underpinned by this comprehensive policy, Britain should gain the moral and political authority to lead the way internationally in pressing other countries, especially the US, China and India, to commit to an enhanced and extended new climate change policy beyond 2010.

There are of course many other important issues I intend to raise in this campaign, not least public-service reform and the enormous and growing inequality in our society which, incontrovertibly from the evidence of other countries, is clearly a major factor in increasing the social pathology we have been witnessing - increasing violence, worse health among poorer families, and higher teenage birth rates. But reasserting British independence, re-establishing government accountability, and taking a world lead on climate survival are central.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:09 AM | Permalink

Tonight's vote today in favour of having an all elected chamber represents a huge step forward. It was good to see all the options where there would have been a majority appointed element being rejected so decisively.

Now we must have legislation to act on the will of the Commons – because we voted as we did to reflect the weight of public opinion, which wants a 21st century bicameral parliament, not a 19th century one. We have to see the government commit itself to a bill that will turn tonight's vote into law and give us a properly elected second chamber, where the elections are run on an open list system and places on that list are decided by party members, not by party apparatchiks and the leadership.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 07:36 PM | Permalink

(From the Independent)

Labour leadership contender answers your questions, such as 'Why not sell your flats to help fight against poverty?' & 'What's your guilty pleasure?'
Published: 05 March 2007

Are you a socialist? What does that mean today? MIKE WOODBRIDGE, Brighton

Yes, I am. A socialist believes that while the market has its proper place, the fundamental principles underpinning society should be equity, social justice, equality of opportunity, and democratic accountability. Even where the market is a dominant force, socialists believe it should be regulated to ensure high environmental, social and labour standards.

Why, as a socialist, do you own so many houses? GARY BROWNE, Glasgow

As I have regularly stated in the register of Members' interests, I own four flats. I have saved throughout my life, and put my savings into property. I don't think [that] is contrary to socialism.

Given your views on poverty, why not sell some of your houses and give the money to charity? Or are you just another hypocritical politician? V AHMAD, Birmingham

I already give a significant amount to charity . I agree there is an urgent need to build much more social, affordable housing but selling my flats which are already occupied would not contribute one iota to that.

Isn't it delusional of you to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership? MAURICE BURKE, Birmingham

No. There should be a contest because only an election enables us to debate the real policy issues. I also believe that members of the Labour Party should have the right to choose their own leaders. I believe, too, that as New Labour, of which Gordon Brown is perhaps the main architect, has moved continually ever further to the right, the mainstream majority of the party has been left disenfranchised and without a voice. It is not sensible to assume the results of any election before the electors have had a chance to deliver their opinion which may sometimes come as rather a shock to the chattering classes. Not too many people I guess expected David Cameron to come from behind and win the Tory Party leadership.

Don't you think Gordon offers Labour the best hope of winning the next election? VALERIE EVANS, Cardiff

Have you seen the last two polls? Both put the Tories 11 per cent ahead, and one poll found that if Gordon was leader, the Tories would be 13 per cent ahead.

I am a Labour supporter, but I despair that Gordon Brown has been such a coward over the war, talks nonsense on 'Britishness' and seems so in love with Rupert Murdoch that he will hand the next election to Cameron. Do you agree - and if not, which bits do you disagree with and why? DAVE FISCHER, Sheffield

Cameron has certainly, at this stage at least, improved the Tories' poll ratings, but not, I think, for the reasons you give.

A majority on the Labour left support John McDonnell and see your campaign as a spoiler which will only split the vote and stop a contest. Will you stand down if John has more nominations when Blair resigns? SUSAN PRESS, Calder Valley

There is no evidence whatever that a majority of people on the Labour Party left and the affiliated trade union movement support John McDonnell for leader. I have a great deal of respect for John, but I don't believe he can get the necessary 45 nominations, whereas I believe I can. I am not splitting the vote, but rather giving the centre-left the chance, to run a candidate who can pass the nominations threshold. But I do agree that whichever of the two of us has the larger number of nominations, the other should stand down when Tony Blair resigns.

Why not use that photo of you on Blackpool beach (very Daniel Craig) for your campaign posters? CONOR MURPHY, Reading

Good try. At least it shows I'm healthy.

Do you think Blair should stand down now?STEVE HARRISON, Bolton

The sooner he stands down, the better.

Why did you vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq?DEAN PALMER, Norwich

I made the biggest mistake of my political life when I supported the war, on the grounds that the Prime Minister repeatedly gave chapter and verse about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and assured us that if only we knew all the intelligence available to him, we would have no doubts about the necessity for this action. I still find it deeply disturbing for democracy that a prime minister can so massage and fabricate the evidence in order to push through a preconceived war plan.

Do you think Blair lied to his MPs and lied to the country over Iraq?JEFF TERRY, Dundee

I think the highly selective manipulation of such evidence as there was, together with the highly prejudicial use to which it was put, was deeply dishonest.

You claim you were misled that Saddam had a WMD programme. Yet you say the West has no right to tell Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't you being rather inconsistent over Iraq and Iran?JIM ROLAND, London NW11

No, these are two quite separate arguments. Yes, we were certainly misled over Saddam's alleged WMD programme. While we should try to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons by negotiation and UN sanctions, we cannot say that nuclear weapons are indispensable for our own security, and then say Iran does not need them for their own security, especially when Iran (unlike the West) is surrounded by seven states which are nuclear-armed and some very hostile.

Do you truly believe that the US government knew about 9/11 but failed to prevent it?CHRIS QUIGLEY, by email

Clearly the US government did not know the precise time and location of the al-Qa'ida attack, but equally clearly there was a great deal of intelligence beforehand which, for whatever reason, it seems that they did not follow up.

You have suggested that the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks (which is pretty obvious I reckon, but fair play to you nonetheless). How complicit do you believe the UK Government was in 7/7? PAUL HUGHES, by email

Not at all.

Do you also believe that the FBI shot John F Kennedy, that Princess Diana was murdered and the US government has covered up the landing of aliens?BEN TROTTER, Cirencester

No. Such allegations are cheap and rather silly.

What steps will you propose to counter global warming? DR GEORGE BLAIR, by email

We should rapidly increase our use of renewable sources of energy (windpower, solar, and micro-generation in people's homes). We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year. We should increase vehicle excise duty sharply for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, and smaller-engine cars. We should give each family a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year.

How often have you flown in the past 12 months? FIONA MILLS, Edinburgh

Not at all.

You criticise the 'Westminster bubble' but said you spent the last two months talking to MPs about your campaign. Does this not show you have the same disrespect for people's views as the rest of the Westminster bubble? MARSHA JANE THOMPSON, by email

I said that when people around the country come to vote, they may well take a quite different view of things from the inward-looking Westminster scene, and should be listened to. But I also extensively canvassed my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party because they alone are the ones who make the nominations.

Why did it take you so long to announce your intention to stand for the Labour leadership when John McDonnell has been campaigning up and down the country for months?MAX MITCHELL, by email

I have been told that John McDonnell announced his candidature without consulting his colleagues. I thought it right first to consult extensively to confirm that my candidature would have the necessary range of support.

What are your guilty pleasures (apart from homeowning)?ALICE SHERWOOD, Tadworth

Wouldn't you like to know! Dropping childish comments in the waste paper basket is one of them.

You always look a bit boring. Are you? ROB JACKSON, by email

No. Why? Are you?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:28 PM | Permalink

It is essential that House of Lords reform, being debated today and tomorrow in the Commons, ends with a clear decision to have a fully elected second chamber. Any extension of Prime Ministerial patronage, which is already far too pervasive and corrupting, over admissions to the Lords would reinforce the gross over centralisation of power which is one of the most damaging trends in Britain today. The power of the Prime Minister has grown, is still growing, and needs to be cut sharply back.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Watch Michael on tonight's edition of Dispatches where, in the light of the recent deferment of the Climate Change Bill, he is interviewed by George Monbiot on the priority given to climate change within government and the importance of addressing ourselves to the need for a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

You can also watch online here but you will need to register/log in.

If you missed it, there are two ways to watch it again;
For insomniacs, the terrestrial repeat is on Channel 4 at 3.15am on Friday morning. It is also available on the Ch4 On demand serivce. Go to the 4OD website to register if you would like to rent (for 99p) the programme this way.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:11 PM | Permalink

(Tribune, 2 March 2007)

Perhaps if we continue as we are, we can still win the next election, although the latest Guardian opinion poll putting labour at 29% and the Tories at 42% suggests otherwise. What is incontrovertible is that we are hugely more likely to win if we now make the big changes necessary to win back the four million votes and half our membership that we have lost since 1997. That is why I am standing for the Labour Party leadership.

If elected, I would first speed up our withdrawal from Iraq, taking the advice of our own military commanders in Basra, not of the Bush Administration in Washington. We have been America’s puppet for too long; we need an independent foreign policy dictated by our own interests, not the US. We should be using whatever political clout remains to us to initiate a multilateral peace conference of all the main actors in the Middle East to negotiate a joint settlement of all the main outstanding issues together which from experience cannot be resolved one by one. That must include the future of Iraq, a Palestinian State, an international guarantee of Israel’s security along roughly its 1967 borders and a negotiated settlement with Iran not a military one . I would strongly reject, and give no support whatever to a US or Israeli attack on Iran.

Domestically, I would reverse the “new” Labour obsessions of replacing the public service ethos by the market. Equity, equal rights according to need, public accountability, a professional standard of care and integrity are being replaced by targets, cost cutting, PFI top slicing of public expenditure, a service fragmentation by private interests. This is the case of health and education housing, pensions, probation, rail, the Post Office and local government. There are even threats against public service broadcasting. Privatisation of our public services should be stopped and reversed.

Britain is now a more unequal society than under Margaret Thatcher. The average pay of chief executives of the FTSE top 100 companies, at over £46,000 a week is now 250 times the minimum wage – 500 times the state pension. Such grotesque divisions between rich and poor are known to generate much of the social pathology currently afflicting Britain –violence, worse health among poorer families, lower life expectancy, and higher teenage birth rates. I would raise the national minimum wage quickly to £6 an hour and then soon to £7 an hour. I would also establish a pay commission to advise what would be a fair ratio between top and bottom pay, bearing in mind that wealth creation is not an individual achievement but a team effort, so that any further increases in pay at the top would draw up the pay of those beneath.

I also want a government which listens to the party and the electorate, consults and does not disregard the results when they are inconvenient and respects conference decisions - or at least, if it loses the vote, sets up a joint body made up of members of the National Executive Committee and the sponsors of the resolution to flesh out a compromise. I want to see the Party chair elected by the party, not appointed by the PM and accountable exclusively to the party in conveying the opinion of the membership within the Cabinet.

I want a Government that genuinely treats planet survival as the greatest threat to human survival and the biggest challenge facing the world. That means making tackling climate change an absolute priority not only in energy policy, but in transport, industry, agriculture, building standards, public expenditure and foreign policy. Industry and power generation should be required annually to lower their greenhouse gas emissions while individual households should be allocated, according to their size and structure, an equal carbon allowance for all their activities including air and car travel.

Civil employment rights need to be strengthened. The balance of power in industry is very unfairly tilted against working people. I would want workers to have employment rights from the start of their job, to have rights in smaller companies below the current threshold of 20 employees to have a right of reinstatement where a tribunal rules for them in a dispute, to have equal rights where they are part time or agency workers, to be able to gain union recognition rights on the basis of a 50% vote, not on the basis of having also to win 40% of the eligible vote (on which criteria no post war government would ever have been elected).

There are so many other issues too where I would change the Government’s present course. But none is more important immediately than Trident. This would cost some £65 billion when even the MOD admits there is no foreseeable enemy against whom it might be needed. It is not an independent British nuclear deterrent. Getting the kit from the US would make us politically subservient to them again for the next 30-40 years, a price I would not pay. Replacing Trident would breach the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and act as a trigger to nuclear proliferation among the 40 countries (not just Iran) now technologically capable of producing nuclear weapons.

Peace, social justice, climate survival – these are the issues I am determined to put centre stage for the left.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:56 AM | Permalink

The really big question about Northern Rock is still not being asked. It’s not just about £25bn loans and £30bn guarantees from the taxpayer and how they can be redeemed, nor even about whether temporary public ownership at the outset would have been a better solution. It’s about what caused this systemic failure in international financial markets, and how it must now be put right.

Northern Rock’s specialty had been its use of well-stocked wholesale markets to fund its huge expansion in mortgage lending, and then using the same markets to offload dodgy loans which had been worryingly granted to borrowers even at a 6:1 debt-to-income ratio. The mortgage loans were sold off in exchange for a lump sum via complex financial investments such as structured investment vehicles (SIVs) and collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) – a process known as securitisation. The scale and intensity with which Northern Rock pursued this strategy turned it from being less a conventional bank than an SIV itself, selling its loans forward through its Granite offshore operation. The plan failed when the commercial markets on which it depended for its funds dried up in the credit crunch induced by the US sub-prime housing market collapse.

There are several aspects of this saga which show how systematic the breakdown of financial market operations has now become. First, the new exotic securities in bonds and derivatives were generated because they offered the prospect of turning property lending, previously seen as a long-term business, into a short-term business with instant profits. Instead of waiting 20-25 years to recoup the loans, SIVs enabled banks to regain their funds straightaway so that they could lend them out again and make even more money. This process was repeated endlessly, with hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies joining in frenzied rounds of buying and selling re-bundled mortgages, and thus widening the repercussions of the crisis when it finally broke.

Second, SIVs and the labyrinthine CDO pooling structures which contained them were not understood even by those who dealt in them, and perhaps were devised precisely with that intent. Repeated repackagings left what were always complex instruments bearing little or no value comparable with the original asset taken as collateral. Moreover many SIVs have been set in offshore havens with a reputation for secrecy and light controls. Yet no regulatory agency demanded transparency and no auditor condemned the securitisation process on the grounds that it confounded the valuation of risk.

The crisis has also exposed the financial industry’s relentless drive for quick profits, irrespective of long-term security, in an environment woefully lacking in public accountability. Speculation has been carried to new heights without apparently any thought as to how newfangled complex instruments might fail. The present dominant enterprise culture locks remuneration for chief executives, directors, markets and investors to short-term gains and creates perverse incentives for reckless behaviour. The rewards of Northern Rock’s directors over the last five years are a case in point: the £30 millions they made in salaries, share incentives and bonuses were profit-driven, though the losses are now accruing to the taxpayer.

This crisis is not, as some have sought to make out, a temporary glitch which can be got over as soon as a satisfactory buyer can be found for Northern Rock. The monumental scale of the losses, present and future, belies that. Bernanke, the chairman of the US Fed, has already estimated the losses from bad mortgage loans at $150bn, and that may grow given that a staggering $1.3 trillions of sub-prime loans were set up in the two years to 2006, of which nearly half may be unrecoverable. In the UK, HSBC has already announced losses from its sub-prime business of nearly £1bn, and other British banks have yet to make clear their write-downs which must foretell a tightening of credit. When the British economy has long been kept afloat by easy credit – mortgage and credit card debt now amounting to some £1.35 trillions, greater than the country’s entire GNP – the knock-on effects of this crisis will stretch far beyond the perpetrators in the financial sector.

Finally, as the enumeration of actual and potential losses reveals, the de-regulatory, light-touch, unfettered markets regime that underpins the neo-liberal ideology that has dominated the international economy since the 1980s has sustained a severe reverse from which it will take long to recover, if ever. It may be seen as a repetition, writ even larger, of the secondary banking crisis of 1974. The lessons of that have clearly not been learnt, and have now returned with a vengeance – lack of prudential controls, regulatory capture, obscure accounting, absence of auditor independence, and an economic elite driven by reckless short-term profit-making at the expense of the taxpayers who have to bail them out.

No doubt intense lobbying from the City, the dominant arm of today’s financial capitalism, will exert every sinew to minimise reform. But the risk downsides of unregulated markets have now been shown to be far too great, and it is clear the market cannot of itself establish the necessary supervision. Investors in loan-backed securities have not sought tougher monitoring because they were captured by the allure of the yields on offer, which Alan Greenspan has compared to cocaine abuse. Auditors have been only too happy to offer a clean bill of health to companies in which they may have an interest. The Financial Services Authority, it has emerged, does not have inspectors dedicated to the regulation of banks or to monitor potentially worrying investments or to test financial products against risk of serious public detriment.

In view of this systemic failure in the financial sector and its kickback across the whole economy, what is now needed is a Committee of Inquiry into the governance, accounting and auditing of the banks. This should investigate offshore structures, complex derivatives, the lack of accounting transparency, and the overriding need to align commercial incentives with public accountability. Otherwise the same problems will recur again, only with the adverse consequences ratcheted up still further.

This article appeared in The Tribune on 29 February 2008.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The public sector pay increase announced yesterday is unduly harsh pay settlement for the million public sector pay workers who are being told they can only have a 1.9% increase when inflation is now running at 4.2% - in other words, they are getting a 2.3% pay cut.

The reasons given are, firstly the state of the public finances, which is of course the Chancellor’s responsibility, but I don’t see why nurses should have to bail him out. If there are to be stringencies I don’t think nurses should only get an increase of less than 10 pounds a week, when junior doctors are getting nearly 20 pounds a week, senior civil servants 40 pounds a week extra and judges 80 pounds a week extra.

The second reason given is the need to keep inflation under control. But the Treasury itself said the inflation increase has been a blip and inflation will fall this year anyway. I don’t see why a temporary blip should be used as an excuse to impose a real terms pay cut on some of the poorest and most needed workers in our society.

This is bound to play badly on the chancellors standing with the unions. They expect him to be fair and equitable in the way he settles public sector pay and I don’t think this increase meets that criterion. This pretty miserable settlement should be reconsidered.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:10 PM | Permalink

I really wanted to attend tonight's rallies in support of the Trade Union Freedom Bill to be published by John McDonnell tomorrow and the Agency Workers Bill that Paul Farrelly is presenting tomorrow, but I have a speaking engagement outside London about opposing Trident renewal that makes it impossible.

Britain in the 21st century is a country where the rights of workers to fair and equal treatment - and for those workers to organise themselves to fight for fair and equal treatment - are under severe attack. It is absurd to the point of farce that we should have to demand equal rights for agency staff who doing the same or similar job for the same employer as their permanent co-workers. And it is indefensible to place multiple obstacles in the way of trades unions organising to win those rights.

So the playing field is at present tilted grossly against workers and unions and the Trade Union Freedom Bill must be supported to balance things out. It is right that workers on strike should not face the threat of sacking, right that employers should not be able to use injunctions to prevent industrial action, right that employers should have to provide relevant information to unions, just as unions go through a - currently – over complicated notification procedure when industrial action is expected.

The Trade Union Freedom Bill if enacted, as I hope it will be, simply provides for a level playing field on which workers can organise in unions to protect their jobs, their employment rights and those of their fellow union members. The government opposes restoration of trade union rights and the Agency Workers Bill too. That just underlines the importance of a change of policy direction so that workers cannot not be treated as employment fodder any longer.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:08 PM | Permalink

We learnt today that the Trident renewal vote will take place on March 14th. There is no way a genuine consultation can take place under such an unwisely truncated timescale. Taking a decision to buikld a new generation of nuclear missile capable submarines now is, in the words of nuclear weapons expert Dr Richard Garwin, “premature ... I see no reason why they should not last 45 years.”

Dr Garwin was speaking to the Defence Select Committee in January. Forcing us into an unnecessary vote now will undermine the important work of the committee in considering the arguments and informing the public and MPs. The government is bouncing us into taking an expensive £65bn decision - to take the MOD estimate - by deliberately preventing a real debate in the country.

UPDATE: CND have called an emergency lobby of Parliament on that day - download and forward the flyer to build the lobby.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:24 PM | Permalink