Boston Labour Party
Latest in News
Posted on May 18, 2012 8:34 am by Paul Gleeson
The Government is ploughing on regardless with policies that are hurting but not working
Ed Balls MP, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, responding to yestereday’s Bank of England’s quarterly inflation report, said:
“The Bank of England has once again slashed its growth forecast for Britain, but despite this the Government says it will just plough on regardless with policies that are hurting but not working.
“With Britain pushed into a recession made in Downing Street this complacency is not good enough. Slow growth and rising long term unemployment will cause long-term damage to Britain’s economy and means £150 billion in extra borrowing to pay for economic failure.
“But the Governor is right to warn of a coming storm from Europe. That is why we warned George Osborne not to rip up the foundations of the house and choke off Britain’s recovery with spending cuts and tax rises that go too far and too fast. The Chancellor ignored those warnings and his failed policies have left us in a weaker position with Britain pushed into recession which France and Germany have avoided.
“What happens in the eurozone in the coming weeks and months will have an impact on our weakened economy. That is why David Cameron should be pushing for a proper European Central Bank firewall and a balanced plan for jobs and growth in Britain and across Europe. It’s time the Prime Minister realised that without economic growth you can’t get deficits down.”
Posted on May 17, 2012 7:27 am by Paul Gleeson
It is time to do a U-turn in the interests of disabled people.
We have reviewed how other local authorities have implemented charges to blue badge parking schemes and found that this is what happened in Lincoln twelve months ago.
Installing disability-friendly parking meters has cost taxpayers in Lincoln £199,000. The 56 new machines were installed after the Conservative controlled City of Lincoln Council decided to start charging blue badge holders to use its car parks. The controversial charges were introduced by City Hall in April last year. The new meters were brought in after some disabled motorists complained that they were unable to use the existing parking meters. The Lincoln Labour Councillors tried to get them to see common sense and not waste money at a time when every council is having to save money. Furthermore it is the contention of Disabled Motoring UK that none of the meters at present being sold as “DDA” compliant actually are.
We have always been opposed to the idea of removing free disabled parking in Boston. We find £199,000 for these machines in Lincoln to be an incredible amount of money especially as Boston Borough Council is now set to follow suit in its car parks. We have argued that the cash spent on these machines would have been better spent on keeping free services for disabled drivers, rather than installing machines that weren’t wanted.
Boston’s Conservative administration is expecting the disabled parking charges to generate significant revenue every year. But records of how many disabled people use Boston’s car parks have never been kept, making the projections a “shot in the dark”.
It works out at around £3,600 per machine in Lincoln. Peterborough City Council who were also proposing to charge blue badge holders had to drop the idea as their parking meters were not disability – friendly and rather than waste a fortune on new machines – they reverted back to free parking for blue badge holders.
All that will happen in Boston is that blue badge holders will legitimately park on our streets causing potential blockages in our town. We have also been made aware of two firms of lawyers (Unity Law and Wake Smith) who specialise in supporting disabled people in making claims against organisations who discriminate against them. They work on a no win no fee basis with successful claims normally being settled in the range of £2k to £3k. Potentially more cost to the council.
Can the cost of each meter really be worth the cost of charging disabled people for blue badge parking in Boston? So we would urge our Conservative Councillors to do a U-Turn on this ill thought out plan to charge blue badge holders.
Boston Labour Councillors wrote this story a month ago.
Then the Tory administration pushed through their car parking strategy at their cabinet meeting on 25th April. Along with another councillor, we have called in their decision, and this will be discussed on 17th May. We feel that Boston’s Tory councillors are not listening to disabled people.
Posted on May 16, 2012 8:11 am by Paul Gleeson
The public will not be fooled by Clegg’s desperate attempt to pretend this Government is fair
Stephen Twigg MP, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary, responding to the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, said:
“Nick Clegg has got a nerve talking about social mobility.
“His Government has cut education spending by the biggest amount since the 1950s.
“More than half of headteachers say they will be forced to use the pupil premium to plug holes in their budget.
“Free schools set up by this Government take far fewer pupils from deprived background than average.
“And half of the education capital spend in the Spending Review is being spent on pet projects, rather than real need.
“With a million young people unemployed and families with children paying more than double what the banks are paying to reduce the deficit, the public will not be fooled by Clegg’s desperate attempt to pretend this Government is fair.”
Posted on May 15, 2012 5:23 am by Paul Gleeson
A week is a long time in politics
At the start of last week Boston Labour Group embarked upon two major discussions in Boston.
Wednesday 9th May
Boston Borough Council held a meeting of its Environment & Performance scrutiny committee to discuss the review of Designated Public Place Orders (DPPOs). There were presentations from Lincolnshire Police and Boston Borough Council’s Community Safety Team who gave a detailed outline of how the scheme had worked over the last couple of years. This was followed by numerous questions from members of the Boston Place Check areas.
Boston Labour Councillors have done extensive research on the Enfield proposed spitting ban, using the Localism Bill to enact it. We have also looked at Aberdeenshire’s drinking bans which are the only legal drinking bans in the UK.
It all comes down to two factors.
- How the DPPO is enforced – it is obvious to us that the tolerance of this scheme in Boston is different to the tolerance in other places such as Nottingham and other major cities and we feel this needs to be properly looked at in future.
- We believe that the people of Boston should have a say of what kind of scheme they want in Boston. Following numerous interjections from Labour councillors – we got an agreement that when the anti social behaviour survey is carried out in June, there should be some additional questions especially designed to ask people what they want. We feel that there should be a specific question asking for – Yes/No to an outright drinking ban – and then get people to sign to this effect, in order to use the evidence to pursue a drinking ban in Boston using the Localism Bill.
Thursday 10th May.
Boston Borough Council held a meeting of its Corporate & Community scrutiny committee to discuss Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs). There was a presentation from Boston Borough Council Housing Staff on what kind of issues there are with HMOs and what the effects are in Boston.
Boston Labour Councillors were delighted that from all sides of the political make-up of the council, we all agreed that we should explore a similar scheme as they have in Oxford where all HMOs are licenced and that this proposal should be put into the housing strategy and presented to Cabinet with a proviso that it has got full cost recovery and we implement it as soon as possible provisionally by 1st April 2013.
The proposal would be that:
Each licensable HMO will need its own licence. Obviously there are times when the owner of a property manages it himself, makes letting arrangements with tenants, organises repairs and collects rent. In other cases the owner of a property will engage an agent or manager to manage the property.
Both the licence holder and the person who manages the property (these may both be the same person) will both need to be a “fit and proper person“ to hold a licence. Once a licence is granted it cannot be transferred to another property or to another person. If the HMO is sold the new owner and/or manager will need to apply for a new licence. A licence will normally last for 5 years (although a suggestion was put forward that it could be paid in annual instalments).
The cost of an HMO licence will have to reflect what it costs to implement HMO licensing – staff costs including training, inspection and administration costs, including publicity, may all be taken into account. Boston Borough council will then set its licence fees on this basis.
Boston Labour Councillors believe that the review of the DPPOs and HMOs are two major issues in our town at present and we will watch how these two important recommendations work their way through the council committee structure. Ultimately we wish to see a drinking ban and licensing of all HMOs in Boston.
Posted on May 14, 2012 5:38 am by Paul Gleeson
Let’s follow Oxford’s lead and license all HMOs in Boston
Oxford Council announced their intention to license every house in multiple occupation in January 2011, and since then has issued 933 licences for three or more storey properties where five or more unrelated people are living.
From January 2012 this has been extended to require every landlord who owns a property where three or more unrelated tenants live and share facilities to get a HMO licence. Failure to do so could result in prosecution and a £20,000 fine.
The council said it was the first local authority in the country to introduce a HMO scheme that covers the whole of its area and that the policy would involve licensing approximately 5,000 properties in total.
The Cabinet member for housing said: ‘HMOs have long been recognised as being a particular problem in the city, with many examples of poor quality homes and in some cases being poorly managed. These damage the reputation of good landlords and we are determined to put this right, and stop those doing the right thing being undercut by cowboys. The private rented sector is hugely important to the residents of Oxford, not just in terms of providing much needed accommodation, but also with the impact that it can have on local communities and licensing every HMO will help drive up standards for everyone.’
An annual fee is needed to license an HMO with the money used to pay for the scheme. The council said it would not make a profit from the fees.
Every HMO will be inspected before a licence is issued and the council is able to specify conditions on the licence that the licence holder must comply with or face legal action.
If problems occur with poor management or unsafe conditions, legal action can be taken which may result in the licence holder losing their licence and their ability to run HMOs.
Those landlords who have already been found guilty of relevant offences will not be able to hold a licence for an HMO and will have to find someone else, such as a reputable letting agent, to run their properties for them.
There are additional charges for landlords who try and avoid licensing their properties and where complaints from tenants or residents result in extra visits by officers being necessary. There are also fee reductions for good landlords, including those who own multiple properties.
Boston Labour councillors, at last night’s corporate & community scrutiny committee meeting called for licensing of all HMOs in Boston, whether it is a bungalow, a two or three tier house – all should be licensed. Boston HMO scheme should also have full cost recovery, so the landlords are paying for the service and not being subsidised by the council. We have been talking to the Labour administration in Oxford who has told us of the benefits to their town. We believe we can and should have the same benefits. It is crucial that we protect all of our private sector tenants in Boston.
Posted on May 11, 2012 5:17 am by Paul Gleeson
Queen’s Speech response – Ed Miliband
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Opposition, said in response to the Queen’s Speech which sets out the Government’s priorities:
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have died in Afghanistan since we last met:
Guardsman Michael Roland of 1st Battalion, the Grenadier Guards. Corporal Andrew Roberts, and Private Ratu Silibaravi of 23 Pioneer Regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps.
We pay tribute to their courage and bravery, and our thoughts are with their family and friends.
We support our mission in Afghanistan and we will also support the Prime Minister in the important efforts that he’s making to secure a political settlement there for after our troops leave.
As is customary, I would like to pay tribute to those Members of the House who have died since the last Queen’s Speech.
First, Alan Keen. He was hugely popular on all sides. A football scout turned MP, he was someone with faith in the power of sport and politics to change lives. He is missed sorely by his wife Ann and his family and friends.
I also want to pay tribute to David Cairns. Someone who was only able to enter this House because the law was changed to allow a former Catholic priest to sit in Parliament. Funny, warm, and principled, his death one year ago today was a tragedy in particular for his partner Dermot, his family and his many friends.
And in this her Diamond Jubilee year, I’d also like to pay tribute to her Majesty the Queen. We are reminded yet again of her tireless service to the people of this country, and we are all looking forward to the national celebrations later this year.
By tradition the gracious speech is proposed by a rising star of the governing party, who is thrusting his way forward onto the rungs of the ministerial ladder.
I think members on all sides can therefore agree that there could be no better choice than the Honourable Member for Stratford-on-Avon. He spoke eloquently, movingly, with confidence, and I congratulate him on his remarks. He is the first Member of the House to have been born in Iraqi Kurdistan. He has said:
“What Britain gave my family was freedom and opportunity… to my family they weren’t just words, they changed our whole life.”
He brings to this House a perspective that enriches us all. He also has the distinction of being the founder of the polling company YouGov. I’ve spent much of the last eighteen months thinking that he and they have a lot to answer for. And no doubt after recent weeks the Prime Minister feels much the same way.
Finally, let me say, I am used to seeing the Honourable Gentleman as an enthusiastic backbencher braying at me with particular vigour from a sedentary position during Prime Minister’s Questions.
So I am happy to give him the endorsement he no doubt craves and recommend unequivocally that the Prime Minister gives him ministerial office whenever the reshuffle comes. It would be his gain, and mine.
Let me also congratulate the seconder of the Gracious Speech, the Rt Hon Member for Gordon. He brought his years of distinguished service and wisdom to the job. It was a witty and excellent speech. The Honourable Member brings great skill and experience to the House, and is an assiduous chairman of the International Development Select Committee. I must say in doing research on his background, I got really excited when someone in my office turned up a biography from the internet which said: ‘Malcolm Bruce also worked early in his career with Ozzy Osbourne and recently performed at a Jimi Hendrix Birthday tribute.’ Sadly for me, and him, it turned out to be a different Malcolm Bruce.
He continues to serve the Liberal Democrats in important ways, not least as their President in Scotland. No doubt he will be playing a crucial role in the inquest into the local election result in Edinburgh where the Liberal Democrat candidate was beaten by a penguin. I would gently say to him that he will have to do better than the explanation offered locally that “it wasn’t a target ward”.
The Honourable Member for Gordon has had a long and distinguished Parliamentary career. A career which under normal circumstances would end up with service in the House of Lords, were it not for his leader’s determination to abolish it.
Mr Speaker, let me turn to the Gracious Speech.
We will work with the government on the Green Investment Bank, on the defamation bill, and on flexible parental leave, all of which sound remarkably like Labour ideas.
Because they are.
But this is the speech that was supposed to be the government’s answer to the clear message from the electorate last week. But on today’s evidence, they still don’t get it.
For a young person looking for work, this speech offers nothing.
For a family whose living standards are being squeezed, this speech offers nothing.
For the millions of people who think the Government is not on their side, this speech offers nothing.
No change, no hope. That is the real message of this Queen’s Speech.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor believe the public are turning against them because they haven’t yet understood the Government’s economic policy. The truth is, the public turned against them because they have understood it only too well.
What did the Government promise two years ago? The Chancellor could not have been clearer in his emergency Budget. This is what he had to say:
There would be, he said, “a steady and sustained economic recovery with low inflation and falling unemployment… A new model of economic growth.”
And what has he delivered?
The worst unemployment in 16 years. A million young people out of work. And the first double dip recession for 37 years.
They promised recovery, but they delivered recession. A recession made in Downing Street.
They have failed. And as if a failing plan wasn’t bad enough, they added insult to injury in the Budget by making millions pay more so that millionaires could pay less. And there is no change on this in the Queen’s Speech either.
The Prime Minister should listen to people like Linda Pailing, the deputy chair of Harlow Conservative party. She says this about her constituents:
“They don’t like the fact that he didn’t keep the 50p tax… people feel here that he is not working for them, he is working for his friends…[these elections are] to do with what Cameron and his cronies are doing…”
It comes to something when even lifelong Tories don’t believe the Prime Minister is on their side.
So last Thursday, the British people delivered a damning verdict on the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and their economic strategy. The Prime Minister now says he gets it. But if he really gets it, the first thing he should have done in this Queen’s Speech is drop his tax cut for millionaires.
But he hasn’t. They’re carrying on with a Finance Bill to put the 45p tax rate into law. That’s because they really do believe that their problems are not those of policy, but of public relations.
And what did the part-time Chancellor say at the weekend?
“I know the way the Budget was presented meant the message wasn’t heard.”
And the Deputy Prime Minister, always quick on the uptake, had this to say:
“…An impression has formed that this was a budget for the rich…”
Mr Speaker, it’s insights like that which got him where he is today.
They just don’t get it. It’s not the presentation of a tax cut for millionaires. It’s the reality. £40,000 for every millionaire in Britain.
It’s not the presentation of cuts in tax credits. It’s the reality.
The granny tax, the churches tax, the charities tax – the whole budget omnishambles – it’s not the presentation, it’s the reality.
Yes, they do have a communication problem. The electorate have spoken, and they’re not listening.
But to solve his communication problem, the Prime Minister’s got a new way of explaining his policy.
To the police man or woman being fired,
To the young people looking for work,
To the small businesses going under.
What was his message yesterday? “You call it austerity, I call it efficiency.”
So here it is from the Prime Minister, Cameron Direct, to the hundreds of thousands of people being made redundant:
The bad news is: you’ve lost your job. The good news is: you’re a key part of our efficiency drive.
In two years, this Prime Minister has gone from David Cameron to David Brent.
Even if they didn’t have the courage to reverse their Budget, they should have put an economy that works for working people at the centre of this Queen’s speech. But they have not.
Utility bills, water bills, the cost of getting to work – that’s what is worrying families up and down the country. And what have the government got to say about it? Absolutely nothing.
An energy bill with nothing to help people struggling to make ends meet. No legislation this year on water. No legislation on train fares. Nothing to relieve the squeeze on ordinary families.
And what about excesses at the top? Executive pay. Multimillion pound bonuses.
A few months ago, the Prime Minister was outraged. He told us he was grossly offended by crony capitalism. Such was his strength of feeling that in the entire Queen’s Speech, it did not merit a single mention.
What he should do is accept the recommendation of the High Pay Commission to put an ordinary worker on the remuneration committee of every public company. If you can’t look one of your employees in the eye to justify that you’re worth it, then you shouldn’t be getting the salary.
Come to think of it, why doesn’t he start with the government? And I have the ideal candidate to be the employee on his board. Standing ready to serve is the honourable member for mid-Bedfordshire. And let’s remind ourselves why she’s so well-qualified. This is what she said:
“They are too arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to understand the lives of others.”
She’s only saying what so many are thinking: it’s high time the shareholder spring came to the Conservative Party.
On all the major issues, the government has shown that it is out of touch.
And if we needed any further proof, look at what he’s already done on crime. Taking police off the streets with 20% cuts. Stripping back their powers on antisocial behaviour.
Let me turn to one of the biggest omissions from this Queen’s Speech. There is no bigger challenge facing families up and down the country than care for elderly relatives. And there was no clearer promise from this government than that they would legislate on this.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister signed the foreword to the Health White Paper and it said very clearly there would be, and I quote, “legislation in the second session of this Parliament to establish a sustainable legal and financial framework for adult social care.”
And instead we have nothing. There is nothing to stop the Government speeding up the process, committing to legislation in this session, nothing at all. But they have chosen not to do so.
There is room, however, in this Queen’s Speech for House of Lords reform. I am a supporter of House of Lords reform with a referendum. But I thought a Queen’s Speech was supposed to define a government’s priorities.
So there is a mystery which the Prime Minister needs to answer in his reply. The Chancellor said at the weekend about House of Lords reform: “it is… certainly not my priority, it is not the priority of the government.” So it’s not the Conservative priority.
But the mystery deepens because the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday there were many other things he cared about more – so apparently it’s not his priority either.
So I’m bound to ask, how on earth did it make it into the Queen’s Speech? And what about things that didn’t make it into the speech? How about the Tory manifesto promise to enshrine in law spending 0.7% of national income on aid.
And what has happened to something which used to be a big priority of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said in 2010 that “lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
He was right. It did happen. To him.
Adam Werrity, whose lobbying caused the downfall of the Defence Secretary. Peter Cruddas, Tory party treasurer, offering Downing Street dinners.
And Fred Michel, and his 163 pages of emails. Three lobbying scandals.
And still no Bill.
Last week he applied to have prior access to the evidence of Leveson as a core participant. I have to say he is one of the few people left who didn’t already think he was a ‘core participant’ in the whole News Corp Scandal. He hired the editor, he sent the texts, he even rode the horse, and his Culture Secretary backed the bid. It doesn’t get much more core than that.
This isn’t just a Westminster story because it shows whose side he’s on. What did he say to Rebekah Brooks after she was forced to resign following revelations that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked?
“Sorry I couldn’t have been as loyal to you as you have been to me.”
That goes to the very heart of the problem of this government and this Prime Minister: They stand up for the wrong people.
Two years ago in the Rose Garden they promised change. Yesterday in the tractor factory all they could offer was more of the same.
The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. Two leaders.
Out of touch with the country. Out of touch even with their own parties. Locked together not on principle, not on policy, but in determination to hang onto office for another three years.
So half way through this government, and particularly after last Thursday, isn’t it time this Government stopped governing for the few and started listening to the many
Posted on May 10, 2012 7:07 am by Paul Gleeson
Is it time for a spitting and drinking ban in Boston?
Boston Labour Councillors have been looking closely at Enfield, a London council who would like to fine residents up to £80 for spitting in public after asking the government for permission to ban what it described as a “truly disgusting habit”.
Enfield council’s proposed bylaw would make spitting an offence – the first such law in England for 22 years. The north London council said it had gone to a local government minister to ask for the bylaw to be approved after more than 3,700 borough residents signed a petition. If the move is allowed, the council plans to have the ban in place within a month. It says the legislation would cover joggers in parks and on streets, but not people playing sports on public fields.
Council enforcement officers would have the power to hand out fixed-penalty notices – expected to be around £80 – to anyone caught spitting, and warning signs would also be erected around the borough. Those refusing to pay could face prosecution and a potential fine of up to £5,000. “Joggers should not be able to spit in the road,” Enfield council said. “Exceptions are outside areas which are used for the purposes of organised sport.”
The council said the legislation was “obviously subject to amendment because the department for communities and local government may recommend changes”.
The council said Enfield had originally taken up the concerns of older residents with the Ministry of Justice last year, but had been told a petition was needed to prove public support before an application was resubmitted to the department for communities and local government. A ban on spitting was first brought in after the first world war to stop the spread of TB. However, the ban – which came with a maximum fine of £5 – was dropped in 1990 when TB rates were far too low to warrant its enforcement on health grounds.
An Enfield council member said: “Spitting is a truly disgusting habit and the vast majority of people are in favour of us banning it. It is now up to the government to decide whether or not we can ban spitting in this borough, and I’d urge them to listen to the views of people living here and give us the ability to tackle this foul practice once and for all.”
Boston Labour Councillors believe that we could also use the new localism bill to explore whether we could bring in a proper drinking ban as well as a spitting ban. Interestingly the Scottish Parliament has recently allowed both Fraserborough and Peterhead in Aberdeenshire to bring in a drinking ban.
We are now asking whether we should organise a similar petition as the one undertaken in Enfield to stop spitting, to allow Boston to introduce a drinking ban on our streets as well as a spitting ban. Both of these bans would enhance the quality of lives of people in Boston. We believe the people of Boston would support us in this action.
At this week’s Environment & Performance Scrutiny meeting they are receiving a report on the Designated Public Place Order otherwise known as DPPOs, which is currently used as a method of reducing anti social behaviour caused by drinking in our town. We believe that this needs some serious discussion and that people would prefer an outright ban rather than the present arrangements. In the meantime we feel the area covered by the DPPOs needs to be extended as well and regularly reviewed.
Posted on May 9, 2012 5:30 am by Paul Gleeson
Ed Miliband: It’s time for change… and we must too
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, in the Sunday Mirror, said:
While politicians have spent the last couple of days thinking about the local elections that happened on Thursday, I’m fairly sure that’s not what has been top of most people’s list of concerns.
They are worried about the squeeze on living standards, about a country that seems to work for a few at the top but not for them.
I am in politics to change that, to make Britain work for you.
More and more people are seeing through David Cameron – the tax cuts for millionaires, the failed economic experiment, the Government that listens to the banks or Rupert Murdoch, but not to you.
More and more people are putting their trust in Labour. But in the elections last week many people stayed at home… they think all politicians are the same, that none of us will keep our promises.
My mission is to show you that we can be different. I’m not going to try and convince you by promising the Earth then failing to deliver.
I want to offer change you can believe in. This week the Government will set out their priorities for the new laws to be brought before Parliament this year.
I fear there will be little in the programme for working families.
If Labour was in power we would be standing up for you. Cheaper energy bills for over-75s. Stopping train fare rip offs. Standing up to the banks. Making fair choices on tax.
And we would be take action to get our economy moving, bringing in a five-point plan for jobs and growth, especially for young people.
Labour lost badly two years ago. We had lost touch. We are coming back because we have listened. We have heard the message that our country isn’t working for ordinary people, just a few at the top.
I know we have further to go. People want to know how we are standing up for them, for those who don’t have special access or privileges.
In the weeks and months ahead, I am determined to show how Labour is changing so we can change the country and serve the people once again.
Posted on May 8, 2012 7:55 am by Paul Gleeson
Back on Tuesday
Posted on May 4, 2012 5:00 am by Paul Gleeson
