Peter Kenyon

Tory toffs in extremist diversion to protect own wealth

Cities of London and Westminster CLP voted in favour of the abolition of leasehold as a form of property ownership at its GC on Tuesday. I'm kicking myself for having failed to alert the No.10 Political Unit to add this to the armoury of measures for the Manifesto to cement the differences between Labour and Tory over wealth, income and privilege before yesterday's false allegations that Labour in government was funding extremism in schools.

The Labour Party's targets should include absentee landlords - symbols of our class-ridden society. This is not just an issue in Mayfair and Marylebone, but throughout many of our industrial cities too where absentee landlords are also profiteering. While prominent parts of the media continue to give air time to Tory toffs seeking to divert attention from their real policies, congratulations are due to the Mirror for highlighting personal gains for the Shadow Cabinet from their inheritance tax proposals, if the Tories won the next election..

Shame on the BBC for giving so much airtime to Tory education toff Michael Gove's poorly researched claims as evidenced eventually here, and here .

Ed Balls deserves a slap over the wrist for failing to make sure his boss was properly briefed before PMQs. But that should not detract from the extreme measures the Tory toffs are now going to protect their wealth and privileges.

The Labour Party has a simple calculator anyone can use to work out how much they could benefit from the Tory's flagship tax proposal to distort Inheritence Tax. We now need one to calculate how little it could cost to buy out your absentee landlord with leasehold reform. Why anyone with a leasehold property would want to vote Tory is a bit of a mystery to me.

UPDATE: I see Luke Akehurst has also featured the Greedy Tory Shadow Cabinet.

Saving the world banking system - Hansard's version

Yesterday Conservative members of parliament mocked Gordon Brown, the British ruling Labour Party's leader, for answering a question at Prime Minister's question time. Their normal tactic is to accuse him of not answering at all.

As promised in my post yesterday  here's the Hansard account: 

The Prime Minister: The first point of recapitalisation was to save banks that would otherwise have collapsed. We not only saved the world— [Laughter . ]—saved the banks and led the way— [ Interruption. ] We not only saved the banks— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Not only did we work with other countries to save the world’s banking— [ Interruption. ] Not only did we work with other countries to save the world’s banking system, but not one depositor actually lost any money in Britain. That is the first thing. The second thing is to get the banks into a position in which they can resume lending, and that is why interest rates have come down by 3.5 per cent.—something that the Opposition said was not possible, but which actually happened. The third thing to do is to work to remove all the barriers to interest rates and to the lending of money by the banks, and that is what we are doing in discussion with the banks now. The Opposition may not like the fact that we led the world in saving the banking system, but we did.

Quite so.

In defence of saving the world...banking system?

Apparently Labour's Gordon Brown is alleged to have made a gaffe in prime minister's questions today. Conservative members of parliament rolled about laughing. In the light of what we know from the Governor of the Bank of England, the state of the world banking system was extremely fragile despite US efforts to buy up toxic assets until GB stepped in with a bank recapitalisation plan. So I have no problem with his remarks. The Tories should be ashamed of themselves. Schoolboy antics in the House of Commons should not mask the deadly seriousness of the situation the world banking system was/is in, nor the Labour Party's commitment in government to do whatever is necessary to held the economy through. And yes, Mr Cameron that will involve borrowing now and paying money back later. Grow up.

(Today's Hansard when published tomorrow will no doubt be read very closely to see how a broken sentence has been recorded for posterity.)

BTW I was sorry I missed the live broadcast, but I was lobbying trade unions about the London Living Wage ahead of a Corporation of London Joint Consultative Committee. The Corporation has declined to apply to be a London Living Wage employer, which has some of us wondering, when City firms are signing up.

In praise of checks and balances - boom and bust

Briefly, political debate between the ruling Labour Party and Britain's opposition parties about the wisdom/folly of ending boom and bust seems to have been mangled by the pressures of the 24-hour news cycle. When Gordon Brown as CHX set out to end role of government in creating conditions of boom and bust, it seemed to me his error was presuming that the checks and balances in regulation, and sound banking practice were sufficient to sustain the integrity of the banking system. That is what has been found wanting in the extreme, not the need for prudent government borrowing/spending, which is now being used as a rod for his back as PM. What are the messages coming from the National Economic Council and its regional offshoots? I think we should be told. I can't believe they are urging Labour not to borrow more to help ease recession and get the economy moving again. The golden rules were relevant when the banks were banks, and not casinos risking everyone's savings. When the Tories say they want an Office of Budget Responsibility, perhaps what they should be asking for is an Office for the Prevention of Reckless Banking Practices - that's the real cause of the current crisis not Brown's management of the British economy.

Political lessons for Labour - the Olympics

Basking vicariously in the joys of Britain's continuing Olympic successes, as I hope we all are, the role of Lottery funding is being extolled by media commentators. Sir John Major is being granted plaudits for his prescience in setting up the scheme to create a new funding stream for sport and the arts. Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme earlier he explained how as Chief Secretary to the Treasury he learned that national budgets for both were never going to survive in a public expenditure squeeze.

Too true, that's because the greedy Tories will never use progressive taxation to fund the public realm, preferring gambling instead. I wonder if the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury will clock that one as the 'fairness' agenda is developed through the latest public expenditure round and the Autumn Statement.

Isn't it time we in the Labour Party were able to lock in sports and the arts into mainstream public expenditure just as we have done for health and education? Better still isn't it time for an honest debate with the electorate about the current NI and income tax system and fairness? That would flush the Tories out and wipe that smugness off their faces.