Tag Archives: gordon brown

News Corp Withdraw BSkyB Bid

Posted on by

News Corporation have withdrawn their BSkyB bid amid the ‘Hackgate’ scandal.

The move follows further claims as the fallout into phone hacking continues. With news stories about the now defunct News of the World getting worse by the day and spreading to the other Murdoch papers, the media mogul now faces fresh accusations. It would seem News Corp has forgotten the first rule of journalism: Never become the story.

People on the News of the World payroll are said to have illegally accessed Gordon Brown’s son’s medical records and, after hacking Milly Dowler’s voicemail, deleted the messages when her mailbox was full – a move that made her family, and police, believe she was still alive.

News Corporation own 39% of BSkyB and announced last year that it intended to buy the remaining 61%.

Chase Carey, Deputy Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation, commented: “We believed that the proposed acquisition of BSkyB by News Corporation would benefit both companies but it has become clear that it is too difficult to progress in this climate. News Corporation remains a committed long-term shareholder in BSkyB. We are proud of the success it has achieved and our contribution to it.”

BSKYB chief executive Jeremy Daroch added: “We are delivering on our clear, consistent strategy and are building a larger, more profitable business for the long term. We remain very confident in the broadly based growth opportunity for BSkyB as we continue to add new customers, sell more products, develop our leading position in content and innovation, and expand the contribution from our other businesses.”

The announcement comes as online petitions against News Corporation increase. Actor Hugh Grant got the ball rolling when he wore a wire and in a case of ‘the biter, bit’, taped a former News of the World journalist confessing that their paper “bugged everyone.” The piece was for an edition of the New Statesman which was being guest edited by his ex-girlfriend Jemima Khan.

Hugh Grant for Prime Minister….

Hacking Latest: Sunday Times targeted Brown

Posted on by

According to the BBC, the Sunday Times illegally targeted private personal information of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Sunday Times is also a member of Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

BBC documents suggest ‘blagging’ was used to obtain private medical and financial information. ‘Blagging’ was made illegal in 1994 and involves, ‘knowingly or recklessly obtaining or disclosing personal data without consent’. News international private investigators are thought to have targeted Brown’s police and tax records.

In one incident, someone said to be acting for the Sunday Times is accused of impersonating Mr Brown and obtaining details from his building society.

The BBC says, the Browns also fear another News International paper, the Sun, may have obtained medical records about their son Fraser. The Sun revealed Fraser had cystic fibrosis in 2006.

According to the Financial Times Gordon Brown is said to be very angry at News International, particularly for the incident relating to his son. He is expected to make a statement accusing other News International corporations of hacking.

Many are now asking how far the scandal goes? Have we only seen the tip of the iceberg so far.

In related news News Corporations bid for BskyB looked all but dead in the water as culture secretary Jeremy Hunt referred the bid to the regulator. Deputy PM Nick Clegg also urged Murdoch to abandon the takeover.

 

Blair Accused of Hushing up News of the World Hacking Scandal by Brown's Friends; Meanwhile Blair Slams Brown's Record in Office

Posted on by

 

According to friends of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair urged Brown to put pressure on his fellow Labour MP and friend Tom Watson to back off the News of the World. A spokesman for Mr Blair has said, ‘The allegation is categorically untrue’.

Watson has played a major role in uncovering the hacking scandal. His two year campaign was a major reason for the closure of the News of the World. Watson used commons legal protection to make damning allegations against the News of the World and News International executive chief Rebekah Brooks. According to the dailymail.co.uk Watson was threatened by NI in the early stages of the investigation. He was said to have been told by someone in the company, ‘Rebekah Brooks will pursue you for the rest of her life’.

But Watson carried on regardless. He successfully called for, former news of the world editor Andy Coulson, to resign as prime minster David Cameron’s communications director. He has subsequently said in the commons that, ‘Rebekah Brooks was not only responsible for wrong doing, but knew about it’.

Tony Blair became a long-time friend of Mr Murdoch after they made a famous alliance in 1994. Ever since that point News Internationals papers supported Blair until he left office. The support was pulled from Labour when Gordon Brown took over the party, with Murdoch’s papers switching support to the rival conservative party. Whilst Mr Blair has denied the allegations a friend of Mr Brown said, ‘There is no doubt about it, Tony wanted Gordon to intervene’.

Mr Brown himself has refused to comment.

In a remarkable coincidence two days ago Tony Blair came out and attacked Gordon Brown’s record in office. Blair warned Labour against returning to its traditional left wing support. According to the independent.co.uk Blair tore into Brown’s time in office during an address to a progress campaign group. Blair said, ‘We lost the driving rhythm which made us so successful’. He accused the party of no longer being New Labour.

 

Next IMF Head – Brown vs Lagarde: Why We Should Stop Feeling Sorry For Brown

Posted on by

As I came home on the train today, I found the Evening Standard filled with articles questioning why Gordon Brown hasn’t been put forward by Britain to be head of the IMF. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23952636-we-have-muffed-our-chance-to-lead-the-world.do

George Osborne has now backed the French favourite to secure the job, Christine Lagarde.

The paper’s tone suggests we should be being more patriotic. ‘The French know how to look after their own,” it says, referring to Lagarde. I’m disappointed with the paper’s view and the justification for it. Trying to raise nationalist feelings is a low blow, particularly in this time of crisis.

The Eurozone debt crisis is once again rearing its ugly head. We can’t afford such petty nationalist feelings. It is in fact very much in the UK’s interest that a European candidate takes the top job.

Lagarde is now the overwhelming favourite precisely because Europe has united behind her, putting common interest first. Other economic regions have failed to unite behind one candidate.

As the Standard itself even highlights, Brown has a host of failings.

Brown was heavily responsible for the recession (despite his continued efforts to blame world markets). It was he who oversaw the nation’s finances for over a decade as a chancellor. He who oversaw the colossal rise in government spending and it was he who failed to properly regulate the banking industry.

You can blame the global markets all you want, but countries such as Germany, Australia and Canada have coped perfectly well with the crisis. There’s no doubt Britain was not alone in its mistakes and many other countries have suffered as well, but in my mind that does not excuse Brown, who, we should also remember, inherited a budget surplus when he came to power.

When it was convenient, Brown ditched his famous, ‘golden rules’. Why? Because Brown was always a politician. He did it for political reasons. People forget his role in helping take the UK into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Is he partly responsible for the previous recession as well?

It’s simple really. Brown would never get the post even if Britain did back him because he has a record of failure. We should take the best and only viable European candidate we have and support her all we can.

 

Heathrow's Third Runway: The Battle for Sipson.

Posted on by

When the Labour government finally dragged its heels from 10 Downing Street in May, one of the most contentious environmental issues of its time appeared to go with it.

Prime Minister David Cameron had barely crossed the threshold in place of the departing Brown, before the coalition government promised it would scrap plans for Heathrow’s third runway – an environmental battlefield in a war that had raged for almost a decade.

The defeated British Airports Authority (BAA) announced it was withdrawing its application soon after.

For the residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth – two villages in west London that lay directly in the path of the proposed project – it was a victory long in the making.

Six months on, it would be expected that any visitor to Sipson would encounter a community bubbling with renewed enthusiasm and vibrancy after losing the dark shadow hanging over their everyday lives.

Instead, it comes as a shock to find the polar opposite. From the jaws of defeat, BAA may yet win an unlikely victory.

A potted history of the conflict reveals the Labour Government first considered building a third runway in 2002. A flawed consultation document eventually followed in 2007, which became the catalyst for heavy-hitters Greenpeace to get directly involved in the campaign to stop Heathrow expansion.

Greenpeace’s Anna Jones reflected on the mood at the time: “The public consultation didn’t allow people to say ‘no, we don’t want it’, but instead said, ‘if we‘re going to build it, how should we build it?’ she recalls.

“The public opposition then really began to develop and it was around that time that we had the idea of Airplot.”

Pulling in a cross-section of political figures, celebrities and environmentalists, Greenpeace trumped the Government’s highly controversial green-lighting of the project in January 2009, by revealing their own purchase of a field directly in the runway’s proposed path.

Christened Airplot, the site soon became a focus for resistance to the runway, both directly and indirectly, with Greenpeace offering the opportunity for people to become beneficial owners of the site.

“In the first week, it was crazy and amazing,” says Jones. “A thousand people an hour were signing up to become owners at one point. And I think it really gave people hope and something concrete to do to stand in the way of the plans.”

Residents too, welcomed Airplot with open arms.

“We wrote to every single person in the village letting them know we were there,” she adds. ”Everyone was very supportive.

“There were some people who were feeling trapped by the blight situation and some who felt they just wanted to give up. But all the work the action groups and Airplot did, really boosted the morale of the local community and made them feel even stronger.”

Also joining the fray were activists Transition Heathrow.

The group swooped on a local derelict market garden site in March 2010 during the height of the fight against the runway and were determined to stay.

After removing 30 tonnes of rubbish and surviving an early court battle by the landowner to remove them, they have transformed the area into Grow Heathrow, which has become a community hub in a short space of time, visited by a number of Sipson’s home owners every day.

Transition Heathrow’s spokesman, Paddy Reynolds, explains: “We wanted to start something in the village that would capture some of the radical energy roused by the third runway campaign.

“They wanted tarmac and planes, and we wanted a sustainable, grass roots level, democratic community, that can look after itself in the face of local and global challenges.

“However, we didn’t want to just storm in,” he explains. “We knew a lot of people in the area through the campaign and spoke to everyone we knew about this site.”

“It had been used by an outfit that got evicted by the council. It was very unpopular, because there were noise abatement orders, illegal scrapping of cars and a lot of rubbish dumped, with people going in and out all the time.

“So we thought, ‘this is a very anti-social site, let’s make it very social. We’ll occupy it, clean it up and turn it into a community market garden’.

“It’s one of the last standing of these old market garden greenhouses, so it’s symbolic.”

Since March, the site has altered beyond recognition, becoming a genuine window into Heathrow’s past as prime arable land.

Airplot too, continues to grow – with a thriving orchard and returning wildlife – and with Greenpeace’s presence in the area now much reduced, Anna Jones believes the village is enjoying some quiet time.

“I think everyone’s very happy now just to be able to live their lives and breathe – which they haven’t been able to do for so many years,” she suggests.

“That’s fair enough when you’ve been at the centre of controversy for so long.”

But the truth appears to be much less rosy.

The centrepiece of the village, the listed, 400-year-old King William IV pub became an unofficial meeting place during the fight for survival, but a Friday lunchtime visit gives the impression that all is not well.

Close to 1pm, the pub is empty. A passer-by drops in for a quick pint and eventually three or four residents drift in. The mood is not optimistic.

Landlord Shaun Walters, after leaving Sipson in 1996, returned to the uncertainty in 2006.

“All that time, it’s been ‘is it or is it not coming’, but certainly in the last four years, it’s been more in the public eye.

“For me, it’s been a nightmare, business-wise. I’ve sold my house today, but when the guy came round to sign off everything, he said there are 32 houses unoccupied, all bought through BAA’s Bond Scheme. Some have been empty for four months, so I’ve lost revenue.

“For the businesses left in the village, it’s just devastation,” he adds. “I can see me being out of business after Christmas.”

And the government-approved Property Market Support Bond Scheme has proved to be BAA’s ace in the pack.

With buyers shunning a potentially doomed village, BAA offered residents a way out with the scheme, buying their properties at 2002 prices.

The coalition’s stance has since led BAA to limit residents to a deadline of June 22 to opt in, but a caveat in their letter advisees residents to continue to register their interest, in case of a future planning application.

And the inescapable irony is that, since the election, many residents have taken up the offer.

The legacy is rows of empty houses, while others are rented on short-term lets to migrant workers who have no stake in the long-term future of the community.

“I think a lot of people had had enough over the last couple of years and just wanted to go,” offers Walters.

“They wanted to go and live the dream somewhere else, and never have the heartache and grief of waking up in the morning, and thinking is it or isn’t it going to happen?

“But the big change is that it’s no longer a community. I don’t know a third of the people in this village now.”

One resident, speaking anonymously, agreed. “It’s dying from the inside,” she said. “I’ve sold my house to BAA. My neighbours have gone. Nobody wants to be here anymore.”

Transition Heathrow’s Reynolds is also well aware of the malaise that is creeping across Sipson.

“The Bond Scheme is self-perpetuating and causes more blight,” he says. “People who have been stuck in their houses for ten years have suddenly been given a small window of opportunity where they can sell at a good market rate at a time when the market’s crashing.

“It’s ‘take it or leave it’ and if you leave it, you might not get a better offer ever again.

“It’s meant that a lot of people have left en masse and that’s not good for any village. It’s especially unhealthy for the power dynamics, because BAA now own a lot of property here.

“The loss of long term residents is not helpful for the general well-being of Sipson. Families who know the history of this village is what binds this place together. That’s been lost.”

And most telling is that a number of people directly involved in the campaign have taken the opportunity to go.

Linda McCutcheon, the former chair of the Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association, is perhaps the biggest loss to the area.

“I knew Linda really well,” says Reynolds. “She was tireless in her support of us and anyone opposing the campaign.

“She was also on the committee for the No Third Runway Action Group (NoTRAG) which closed recently, but she’s moved out to enjoy her retirement.

“The previous chair of the residents association had family losses directly related to worsening health and stress caused by campaigning.

“Some of them sacrificed their retirement years, while some of them literally sacrificed their health – and ultimately their lives.

“Fair play to Linda. She deserves it, but the combination of circumstances means that it feels like a big change at the moment and we don’t know how that’ll develop.”

Despite coalition assurances that the third runway is dead in the water, leading Labour figures and business figures are still in favour.

Anna Jones agrees that political circumstances can change, but remains quietly cautious.

“I hope that’s it,” she says. “We will fight tooth and nail if it comes back onto the table because we know it’s a completely bonkers plan.

“If you were to let this go ahead, BAA wouldn’t rule out a sixth and seventh terminal and that’s just ridiculous.

“You can’t just continue to grow and grow and pollute, and take people’s homes away.

“But what we’ve seen with this most recent plan is that now society is mobilised. It knows how to come together and fight together in a united way. That’s why we won and that’s why we’ll continue to win.

“I think we’ve actually turned a corner now and I really don’t believe it’ll go ahead.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the people who live on the airport’s doorstep are more pessimistic.

“I think they’ll get it in the end,” says Shaun Walters. “The third runway will come and this’ll be flattened. No doubt about it.

“There’s been too much money invested. When they were doing Terminal Five, the workmen who came in here said they’d seen plans for Terminal Six and Terminal Seven.

“They’ve had investment offers to build it in the Thames Estuary, but they don’t want to know. They want it here.

“If they’re willing to go through cemeteries, with people still being buried, they want it at all costs.

“At the end of the day, they’ll get all the houses and it’ll be a dead-end village.

Harmondsworth resident, John Power agrees. “They need it. It will happen.

“It’s just a matter of time. It’s all money, jobs, jobs, jobs and people lose their homes because of jobs.”

In the meantime, Transition Heathrow face a microcosm of the bigger picture, as they look to their own future in Sipson.

“We want to secure the site long term, ideally by coming to some agreement. We’ve put in an offer to buy the land, or potentially we may rent it.

“Failing that, we will resist all efforts to get rid of us without any kind of reasonable negotiations.

“We’re confident, and even if we lose, we want to make so much publicity in losing that we set an example not only for this area, but lots of other land-based projects in the communities around Britain.

“It’s a time to hold on tight really, because the shit’s going to hit the fan.”

And that may be a crude, but apt, metaphor for the future of Sipson.

“The Third Runway won’t happen,” says Reynolds emphatically. “The aviation industry is not strong.

“If they had built it, it would have been a complete white elephant.”

“But I think there’ll be renewed applications in a couple of years or less, or with a new government and then it’ll start off again.

“It led to an unprecedented campaign that was like an Iraq-type situation for Gordon Brown. It became a national and international issue.

“It’ll be like a civil war.”

Unfortunately, despite Reynolds’ and Jones’ willingness and readiness to resume the fight, the low morale and BAA’s expanding property portfolio suggests it could be too late for Sipson.

Their enemy are already within the walls.

The Look from the left: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

Posted on by

A Look from the Left at the muddle in the middle by Richard Wright

Week 2: GORDON! Back in a flash to save every lefty one of us!

This week the commons saw the return of Gordon Brown to public life. Oh how we have missed thee. And just in time for the upcoming release of the final Shrek film on DVD and Blu-Ray. Former PM Brown used his speech to support the two aircraft carriers and if there is anyone who knows about taking over a sinking ship its Gordon. I’ve missed Gordon I really have. Sure he looks like a living toby jug and has, roughly speaking, the same personality as one. But you knew where you stood with Gordon. He wasn’t a horrible political clone. He was unique. There will never be another Prime Minister like him. Half of me is saddened by that but sadly that half is being drowned about by the party that’s going on in my other half. As it always has been Gordon stands defeated by show over substance. And no, that’s not a fat joke.

But Mr Ed if you are reading this, and you’re not, Gordon may have a broken leg politically speaking but that’s no reason to put him down. Did you the like the horse metaphor? And the Mr Ed thing? That was intentional. That’s right I’m a classy writer. For this writers money Gordon can still be very useful. The coalition government is lacking a little experience and that could well play into Labours hands in the long run. Well lacking experience if you don’t count Teresa May who is old as Medusa and similar looking into the bargain. And there goes the class out of the window. Also the truthfulness of the piece because as an A-level political student she was the closest thing I could find to attractive at Westminster. But at the time I thought Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t bad looking so I question my sanity there a little. This was all in 1999 and that was quite some time ago. I might be sliding off topic slightly. Back on point: Gordon Brown – party statesman. The Ken Clarke of the Labour Party if you will. Only far less annoying and pointless.

The problem was Gordon Brown is fundamentally unlikeable. However as a Labour Party elder statesman, a background player, a consultant he could be very useful indeed. The man was in the two most important positions in British Political life and that has to count for something. Much like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a super sub for Man Utd so Gordon could play a blinder from the back bench. He could create a role for himself that augments and strengthens Labours agenda. After last week’s spending review the Labour Party has taken a lead over the Government in two separate polls. Now I am a massive sceptic when it comes to polling data as the only real poll that matters is a general election. And Labour is, to be fair, a good way off winning one of those. However polls do help shape public perception at least a little and this in encouraging for Mr Ed. The joy for Mr Ed is that because Gordon was such a failure as Prime Minister he really doesn’t have to do that much to look impressive. Basically look like he has a pulse and the battle is half won. But that should also lessen the intimidation factor. Yes Mr Ed I get it, you want to create a new Labour to replace New Labour but Gordon was never New Labour so why not make him a part of your new Labour. It’s getting complicated again.

I think Gordon Brown would be excellent as some kind of Party Chairman, something akin to the way they work in America only with less power. A Howard Dean for the Labour Party. Gordon if you’re reading this, and you’re not, then your party needs you still. I know it’s like watching your girlfriend making out with another bloke but forget it Gordon she left you. Leave it she’s not worth it Gordon she was never the right one for you. And that’s not actually a bad analogy. Gordon Brown and being leader of the Labour Party was like a relationship that was destined to never work. It’s the girl you long for, the girl you wish was yours and when it finally happens it’s not the way it should have been. It’s like Ross and Rachel on Friends.

The public waited a long time for them to get it together and the public waited a long time for Gordon Brown to be PM. But imagine if you had waited all that time on Ross Gellar and Rachel Greene kissing and then after the kiss Ross developed erectile dysfunction and Rachel decided she was really a nun. This happened to Gordon. Sort of. I hope you get what I am trying to say with this cause I’m not even sure I do. Gordon the relationship is over. You’ve moved on, she’s moved on and we’ve moved on. But Gordon there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it’s called political experience. You might lack any gravitas, emotional or charismatic authority and you may look an awful lot like Shrek but you can still play a role. Mr Ed is going to need all the help he can get and I’m sorry but Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and the grumpy old umpire of the front bench aren’t gonna be enough. Gordon – your party needs you. Sort of. You can indeed save everyone one of us. Sort of.

The Ed Miliband Wagon by Richard Wright {Politics}

Posted on by

So Labour has a new leader. Ed Miliband. Never mind that he’s 40 years old and he looks like he’s just a work experience party leader getting to try it out for a bit. He’s true Labour. “Red Ed” is how they opposition are choosing to tarnish him. Oh no, socialism in the labour party who would have though such a thing would happen again. Why it’ll be the end of middle Britain as we know it. But Mr Miliband has a tough balancing act to perform and a mighty job to perform. But he’s has the job 5 minutes I don’t need to make my mind up about him just yet do I? Cause I don’t really know that much about him. And there is a reason for that.

This wasn’t how it was meant to go. David Miliband was the Miliband that was meant to be leader, not Ed. But Ed played the game of politics well. With endorsements from Labour Party luminaries such as Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley, the younger Miliband was making sure of a traditional support base within the party, a support base that had been ignored by the two previous Labour Leaders and Prime Ministers of our country, trade union members. And what endorsements they are because if it’s one thing Neil Kinnock knows its winning elections. Well, sort of.

As for experience Bob a Job Ed, another age joke there. If not as good an age joke, can boast a record as cabinet minister. He was Secretary of State for Climate and Energy Change, Or Energy and Climate Change. Whichever one has to come before the horse on that particular front. He also spent time as Minster to the cabinet office and Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster. And if you think that job makes him sound like something out of Dickens then you’re not alone. He has spent time around such winners as Gordon Brown and former US Presidential Hopeful John Kerry. So clearly that’s where he picked up his charisma. Or at least realised the importance of it.

His speech to the Labour Party Conference, his first as Leader of the Labour Party, was impressive but if you can’t tell from the tone of this article I’m quite definitively hedging my bets. Because he says we are optimists in this country, and I honestly don’t think we are. I think we like to complain and I think we are ultimately quite pessimistic, and it was fears and pessimism that lead to the Government we have now rather then hope of change. I applaud optimism, I applaud a call for a grown up debate in this country and his comments on the War in Iraq are measured and, I feel, correct. Can Ed Miliband bring about a political atmosphere at Westminster that will lead to grown up debate? I very much doubt it, but we will see over the next 6 to 12 months if Ed Miliband can indeed create a Miliband Wagon and if he can I will be more then happy to jump on it.

Richard Wright

The Great Political Debate: Part 3: Conservative – Why You Would be Mad to Vote For Labour and Why I’m a Conservative

Posted on by

By James Yardley

A response to Alain Lewis

Thanks for the article as a Conservative supporter voting for the first time it’s really interesting to know how supporters of other parties think. I guess I feel a bit like you did in 1987 and 1992 at the moment. I wonder how people can still vote for Labour after the last 13 years. However reading your article helped me understand a bit better.

You are right there are some good things Labour has done, giving the bank of England independence, introducing the minimum wage and investing more heavily in health and education but this was all introduced when Labour first came to power. Everything since has been a complete disaster and I can’t believe anyone would vote for them with the record they have.

The Wars – Lies for going to war in Iraq (Al Qaeda justification, WMD), trying to fight two wars on a peace time budget, a lack of proper equipment and vehicles leading to greater casualties than there should have been. No planning for after the war.

NHS computers systems – A waste of £12 billion which makes peoples job harder

Schools – Only teach the test, standards are no better exams have got easier, teachers have no power, schools are run as democracies.

ID cards and a massive national database – A waste of billions with absolutely no purpose other than to centralise power and exert greater control over the individual, quite frankly dangerous and bad for our democracy

Needing a licence to protest and building millions of CCTV cameras, Arresting people for shouting out the names of the dead outside number 10 – Fascist, dangerous and undemocratic

Brown and Mandelson unelected – It’s a disgrace that Gordon Brown thinks he has the right to govern having not been elected by either the British people or his own party. Even worse is that Mandelson, twice embroiled in major corruption scandals, also unelected is somehow the second most powerful man in the country. Are we living in a democracy? Are people really just going to accept this?

Spin The whole 13years have been characterised by image, deception and spin. Every attempt has been made to hide the real truth.

Numerous broken manifesto promises – Completely unforgivable broken promises about tuition fees and a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. There are tens of others as well some though not all of which can be attributed to the financial crisis.

Economy – The Golden rules proved to be more spin and were broken at the first test, borrowing and spending far more than was affordable. In 1997 the deficit was 6 billion, today it is 160 and the national debt has doubled.

Policing – The police waste hours filling out endless paper work. As a result you never see them on the street.

Reforming benefits – Millions of people on incapacity benefits who shouldn’t be

What is worst and most shocking of all is that Labour has completely abandoned the very people it is supposed to represent. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has grown considerably. There is less social mobility than ever before. Labour has done nothing to break the cycle. Those who most need help getting into work have not been helped effectively. The 10p tax initiative summed up the whole situation. This is why I respect Richard Wright who wrote the first article because although I disagree with his politics he won’t settle for the Labour party as it is today.

Alain argues that David Cameron is trying to force private schools into the state sector. But that’s not David Cameron that’s a Labour policy. The government academy scheme (which Cameron does support and wants to expand). That says it all. The Labour party is not representative of its supporters but because they won’t vote for anyone else and Labour knows they can get away with it.

How can anyone vote for this party when they so clearly have no morality or integrity whatsoever? It is blatantly obvious that the Labour party cares only about itself. It will always put themselves first before the interests of the country. This is where our politics has gone so wrong. It’s time to start putting the people first again.

I’m a Conservative because I believe in giving power to the individual. Letting people live their own lives but still supporting them when they need help. We need to devolve power to a local level, allowing local communities to make their own decisions instead of some bureaucrat in Whitehall. That’s why I’m supporting David Cameron’s big society.

The Labour party has always sought to expand the power of the state. Every decision is controlled from the centre. They’ve tried to bring in ID cards and national databases. Everyone is treated as a statistic. This is not only inefficient and wasteful but it is also dangerous. An overly powerful state is bad for our democracy. The state has a role but it should be there to support you not to tell you how to live your life.

Budgets have seen huge increases, that’s a good thing, but only a small proportion has made it onto the frontline. In the last 13 years the government has created huge numbers of managers and administrators. It has become overly obsessed with its endless targets. This obsession is profoundly damaging. For example school exam results may be improving but does anyone really believe students are more intelligent or skilled. The real test is in the number of people being employed and youth unemployment is at around an astonishing 20%. That’s the only real statistic which matters in my eyes.

Conservatism is also about enterprise. Encouraging everyone to achieve their goals. Taxing people less. Helping small businesses by making it easier to employ people and cutting the ridiculous amounts of red tape that exist at the moment.

It’s time to get rid of this tired, inefficient and dishonest government. It’s time for people to take power back in to their own hands. That’s why I will be voting Conservative.

James Yardley