Wrong, Ed

Prime Minister Under Fire as Minimum Pricing is Dropped

The Prime Minister David Cameron is under increasing pressure to reveal the conversations, if any, which took place between himself and his election guru, Lyton Crosby in what has been the continuation of the controversial lobby scandal.


In what was a rowdy session of Prime Minister's question time, the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Milliband was on the attack, continually pressing the Prime Minister to give an answer over the accusations.

Rowdy scenes at PMQ's today.

'He has caved into big tobacco... in a disgraceful episode', Milliband shouted over the dispatch box this afternoon, with the Prime Minister responding by clarifying that Mr. Crosby had never sought to lobby the government on anything.

Later on today, the Home Office Minister, Jeremy Browne MP confirmed that the proposed minimum pricing for alcohol would not be implemented along with plans to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes, which have been put on hold.
This has led to the eruption of a political row in which the government has been accused of rolling over as a result of the pressure from the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Firstly, we must review the situation at hand, the Labour opposition are supposed to be doing much better at the moment, are they not? They are an opposition party tasked with holding to account a government in the mid term, but yet they are the ones who are being held to account. The influence of the trade unions in rigging candidate selections and chosing the official policies o
f the Labour Party.

In a time where unemployment is falling, the deficit has come down and the outlook for the economy as whole is looking better, where are their alternative policies?

What we are indeed faced with is a desperate opposition party in which their shadow ministers have become the story instead of creating the story. They have become the embarrassment instead of creating the embarrassment and they are the ones being held to account when they should be holding ministers to account. This is an attempt to push the spotlight and the blame away from where it is desperately needed right now.



Minimum pricing for alcohol has been dropped

I personally welcome the decision taken by the government to drop the minimum price of alcohol and the plain packaging of cigarettes because I have always felt that it has been another example of the state 'getting too big for it's boot', so to speak.
We should avoid at all costs a state in which ordinary hard working people are hit with an increase in alcohol per unit in the super markets when all they desire is a bottle of wine or some cans of lager after a difficult day at work. It is another classic case of punishing the many for the behaviour of a few.
As for the plain packaging of cigarettes, for those who actually believe that plain packets for cigarettes will actually improve the state of public health are, I am afraid, misguided. People are already addicted to tobacco and I am sure the last thing which gets people smoking in the first place, is the artistic and enticing designs on the packaging.

These plans were right to be dropped, they wouldn't work and hit those in the pocket who like a casual drink after work. This is common sense, not the work of some inside adviser who has ties with the tobacco industry. Nice try Mr. Milliband, but this is convincing nobody.

Prime Minister's Questions: 17 July 2013

Pay Rise for Politicians?

After the darkest of periods in history for our politicians in Westminster over their expenses, the perception of many that members’ of Parliament are there to line their own pockets returns to the minds of those not easy to impress, the Great British Public of course.

MP's currently earn £66,396 per year.

The Commons expenses Watchdog, IPSA, has proposed that members’ of parliament should receive a pay rise of around £6,000 or a 9.26% hike taking effect from 2015. This is part of wider changes to be implemented by the regulator in the wake of the 2009 expenses scandal.

The Chairman, Sir Ian Kennedy made clear that it was simply ‘wrong’ that MP’s should continue to receive low pay and also went on to comment about the previous expenses scandal in which too much restraint was the root cause of the abuse of expenses, or in other words, MP’s were paid the low pay which MP’s received in 2009 led them to claim on expenses in order to almost ‘top up’ their salaries.
Sir Ian has been subject, quite rightly, to criticism even from MP’s over the proposed rise in pay, it is a move that will seem out of touch, further damaging the confidence that the public have in our Westminster politicians.

All three major party leaders have also condemned the move by IPSA, a statement was released from Number 10 earlier today expressing the view of the Prime Minister in which it stated that 'the cost of politics should be going down and not up.' A perfect reflection you might think to everything else going on around the country. The cost of most things must come down, especially in the public sector where cuts are being made to reduce the budget deficit. It would seem only fair that MP's feel some of the pressure.

All three party leaders condemn the proposal.

Labour Leader, Ed Miliband said 'I don't think MP's should be getting a 10% pay rise when Nurses and Teachers are facing either pay freezes or very low increases and people in the private sector are facing similar circumstances' 

Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg added that this was simply the worse time to be advocating a double digit pay increase for MP's.


The Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, however, has publically supported the proposal, saying that members' of parliament are paid around the same as primary school head teachers and there are many of them around my constituency. 'I cannot think of another job where there are only 650 of these roles in the whole of Great Britain that are paid this sort of money.'  As controversial as this argument is at a time of cuts and pay freezes, does Mr Bridgen have a point? Of course I am only playing the devil's advocate but what sort of people would we attract if there was a pay increase? Would we attract more highly qualified people who currently earn more than an MP, who could perhaps do a better job than most of them? Everyone will no doubt come to their own conclusions, but I can safely say that at a time where people are struggling, it would not be in the interest of the public to press ahead with such an increase.

Prime Minister's Questions: 10 July 2013

Miliband Vows To Weaken Union Influence.



The leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband has today made a very daring move for any Labour Leader as he vows to change the relationship between the Trade Unions and his party.

In his speech today, Mr. Miliband outlined how he seeks to reform a system in which the Unite Union could have exercised so much influence over the selection process of parliamentary candidates.

        So what did he propose to do?

·         Trade Union members will no longer be automatically affiliated with the Labour Party and candidates will have to obey a new code of conduct.

 

·         Spending caps to be introduced for would-be candidates and organisations, such as Trade Unions backing them which would apply in domestic and European elections.

 

·         Constituency agreements with unions which would ensure that there is a consensus that no one involved in the selection process will be subject to any undue pressure.

·         Primaries, similar to those in the USA will be favoured to choose parliamentary candidates, a move which could be used to select Labour’s candidate for the office of Mayor for London.



In addition, Ed Miliband has also stated that he wishes to see a limit on outside earnings obtained by Members of Parliament if he wins the next general election in 2015.

Ed Miliband vows to end current relationship with unions.

This move is nothing short of a gamble which could lose the Labour Party a substantial sum of money when it comes to trade union subscription fees in which some money is donated to the Labour Party. This would see an ‘opt in’ mechanism created in which union members could voluntarily pay the £3 in donation to the party.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has also today backed the announcement by Mr. Miliband as a ‘defining moment’. However, the problem with this endorsement from the former Prime Minister is that I do not believe that Blair regrets never introducing such measures which could potentially see a fall in party income. The General Secretary of the Unite Union, Len McCluskey has described the move as ‘very brave’ which indicates that even he was not expecting such a bold move from the Labour Leadership.

Labour Party funding by Trade Unions. Source: Sky News

The Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps MP has described the plans weak and meaningless, and of course, Mr. Shapps makes a good point in that Miliband was able to become the Leader of the Labour Party due to the trade union votes cast in the leadership race. So just how far is Mr Miliband prepared to go in ensuring a weakening of trade union influence over the affairs of the Labour Party?

Much to the surprise of many, Ed Miliband took the opportunity to criticise those Members of Parliament who undertake work outside of Parliament. We at the Adjournment disagree with this criticism; we believe that Members of Parliament are entitled to a second job which will endeavour them to bring expertise in debates.

If there is an important piece of legislation which comes before the House of Commons regarding reform of the law around criminal justice, the public would not only wish to see those members with legal expertise to contribute to the debates, but we wish the public wish to see the practising barristers and solicitors who are also Members of Parliament contribute in intense debate so that we have confidence that those with the expertise and those who have up to date knowledge are scrutinising proposed legislation in our name with very analytical minds.

 

Shadow Foreign Secretary Targeted By Unite

The Adjournment has learned that in addition to the controversy in Falkirk, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander MP was targeted by the Unite Union in a bid to ensure that he lost his seat at the next general Election.

In leaked minutes of the Unite Unions governing Council, it revealed that the Union wished to oust the Shadow Foreign Secretary in a boundary review proposal that would see his Paisley and Renfrewshire South constituency merged with the neighbouring Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency which is held by Jim Sheridan MP, who quite funnily enough is the chair of the Unite Parliamentary Group.

Unite Planned to unseat Douglas Alexander MP.

According to Labour sources, the proposal to create a merged Paisley and Renfrew seat saw Unite increase its membership activity in the area in the hope that Sheridan would be selected over Alexander for the new constituency.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander has always be associated as a member of the Blairite faction and this proposal which would ultimately have seen his constituency abolished and himself unseated is yet more evidence of the Unite Union wishing to purge the Labour Party of all Blairites and replace them with members who will deliver that all important left wing general election campaign which Len McCluskey wishes to see.

More on this particular story as it develops.

Labour embroiled in Trade Union Scandal

The Labour party have this week been embroiled in a scandal which has resulted, in what has been a questionable issue for some time, a review into the relationship between the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement.

Falkirk MP, Eric Joyce is to step down at next election.

This has originated from the decision of the Falkirk MP, Eric Joyce, not to stand at the next election in 2015. As it stands at present, Falkirk is a very safe Labour seat and therefore, when it comes down to the local constituency Labour Party and their selection process, the successful candidate is almost guaranteed to become the next Member of Parliament for Falkirk. A big responsibility, you may think, but where there is opportunity on this scale, there is always room for skulduggery.

Unite is the biggest donor to Labour.

It has come to light this week that the General Secretary of the Unite Union, Len McCluskey very much has an agenda of his own. In a leaked statement, the Unite Union have been exposed as wishing to see more candidates, approved by the Union, to stand at the next general election and that furthermore, Labour Leader Ed Miliband should seek to lead a left wing general election campaign.

So what has this to do with Falkirk? The local Labour Party was actually swamped with Unite Union members who then sought to vote for the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, and if you had not have guessed, the candidate approved by the Unite Union won the ballot. The vote in Falkirk was in effect rigged by the United Union. Although any talk of the incidents in Falkirk have not been able to be asked on the floor of the House of Commons due to the Speaker’s ruling that this is purely a party matter, it does raise an important issue in which a man such as Len McCluskey, who as the chief of the biggest donor to the Labour Party can exercise so much influence over the selection of candidates as well as raising the question of just how long such an arrangement has been going on for.

On the Andrew Marr show on Sunday 7^th July 2013, Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party denied that there was a ‘public spat’ between the Labour Leadership and the Unite Union, although from the exchanges that we have seen between the two, The Adjournment believe that this is a very ‘public spat’.

 

General Secretary, Len McCluskey.

In a statement, Len McCluskey wrote;

…“Simply a ‘stitch-up’ designed to produce some evidence, however threadbare, to justify pre-determined decisions taken in relation to Falkirk CLP.

“Even on the basis of this flimsy report, it is clear that these decisions cannot be justified. There is no emergency which would justify imposing these undemocratic restrictions, since any real problems could easily be addressed before embarking on a parliamentary selection process.

“The report has been used to smear Unite and its members. Even if the allegations of people being signed up to the Party without their knowledge were true, this had nothing whatsoever to do with my union.

“It is noteworthy that members of the shadow cabinet have been in the lead in initiating this attack upon Unite. Have they had sight of this report while I, the leader of the union put in the frame, has not had the courtesy of a copy?



Tom Watson MP stepped down as Labour election Chief.

“The mishandling of this investigation has been a disgrace. I, however, am obliged to uphold the integrity of Unite, and I can no longer do so on the basis of going along with the activities of a Labour Party administration in which I can place no trust.”

Notice at the end of his statement, he clearly states he has no trust in the administration of the Labour Party. Mr Miliband hit back, accusing Mr McCluskey of defending "malpractice" and demanding he "face up to his responsibilities" as he sought to counter Tory efforts to exploit the controversy. Leading, inevitably, to the resignation of the election coordinator of the Labour Parliamentary Party Tom Watson MP who had done so because he had ‘become the story’. His resignation came much to the delight of Jeremy Clarkson who wrote in The Sun that he had resigned in disgrace.


This will be a big test for Miliband's leadership.

An opposition party, however, which in the mid-term of a government, should be riding high in the opinion polls and exposing failures of ministers as well as proposing new and exciting policies to entice voters and hit the headlines are now stuck in what will be a very difficult time for the Labour Party. Unite Union give the Labour Party around £8 Million in donations and now, following this, will that be put at risk? This close to the next General Election?

There comes a time in the career of a leader of the Opposition where their leadership is tested, along with their ability to think quickly to deal with the internal issues of their party. I think this will be a true test to Ed Miliband’s leadership, if he fails, the chances of him becoming the next Prime Minister will diminish ever further.

Prime Minister's Questions: 3 July 2013