News
Kingston hosts Palestinian and Lebanese community activists - 10 days ago
Earlier this month Kingston and Surbiton Labour Party hosted a group of Palestinian and Lebanese civil society figures in the UK as part of the British Council sponsored Active Citizens Programme.
Under the initiative locally minded groups are brought together with British organisations who work at the local level to swap ideas and approaches whilst building links and friendships.
Kingston and Surbiton CLP was pleased to be asked to give a talk on the methods and techniques we've used to lay solid foundations as we continue to build Labour in Kingston and Surbiton.
There is some divide between the manner in which local political groups work in the UK and how they do so in the Arab World, the most notable perhaps being the direct involvement of Arab political parties in the provision of services to their local community.
We hope in the future to build further on the friendships that we have developed, both in assisting the development of healthy civil society and political organisations overseas and in doing our bit to extend understanding of British politics abroad.
by Alex Griffiths
Coombe Hill By-election 2012: Labour comes second beating the Liberal Democrats - 13 days ago
The Liberal Democrats went into the Coombe Hill by-election with their usual claim that it was "a two horse race". The results show that it was they who were "two-headed donkeys trying to run a two-legged Derby". Labour beat them into third place!
The local election results for Coombe Hill since 2002 show that Labour is the only party consistently increasing its share of the vote. The Liberal Democrats would have to increase its vote by 27 per cent in 2014 (when there is a full borough election) to reach the Labour vote. No chance! They have the 2nd highest council tax in London, local authority housing in Kingston is a disgrace after ten years in power, and they cannot even add up the number of children coming up to school age.
Fantastic work by everyone who gave time helping the campaign. Dave Cooper did sterling work in organising us and keeping the work going. We know a lot more about the voters of Kingston. Now we must build on this work, leading up to the Kingston Council elections in 2014. If we can come second in Coombe Hill in 2012, there are many wards where we can come first in 2014.
Hunt and Picnics - 19 days ago
Jeremy Hunt, the Culture, Media and Sport Minister, must be squirming. He had the legal responsibility for making the quasi-judicial decision on whether the Murdoch empire should be allowed to take over BSkyB fully. It appears that his special adviser had a close liaison with the Murdochs' lobbyist. The special adviser appears to have been given the role of liaison officer between the government department and the Murdochs. He even told the Murdochs what Jeremy Hunt would tell Parliament before he said it. Even he agreed it went beyond bounds and resigned.
Call me old fashioned, but if someone is making a quasi-legal review, the only kind of conversations with the interested parties ought to be those which sought clarification or further information. This seems to me to be something that civil servants can do with the greatest of ease. A special adviser communicating with an interested party - in this case the Murdochs - on a regular basis, it does not need.
Ministers, under the Ministerial Code of Conduct introduced by the last Labour government, are responsible for what their advisers say and do. There is an established process and an official to look into breaches of the Code at the request of the Prime Minister. Prima facie there is a case for investigation under the Ministerial Code. To say that the issue should be looked into by the Leveson Inquiry, which:
"...will examine the culture, practices and ethics of the media. In particular, Lord Justice Leveson will examine the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. He is assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with expertise in key issues being considered by the Inquiry. ...It will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards..."
seems to be evasion and the invention on the hoof of a new process.
The Prime Minister has stated that he will consider other action if the Leveson Inquiry unearths any further details. Lord Leveson himself has said very publicly that this is not his job under the terms of reference of the Inquiry. It is hardly likely that Lord Leveson will go out of his way to unearth further details on an issue which is not his concern. Do we really need further details? The case is so clear-cut that action should be taken now through the proper channels - the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
This looks more and more like an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass and protect Jeremy Hunt. Fifty-nine per cent think he should resign according to the latest You Gov poll. It is why people become very cynical about politicians.
So what has it got to do with picnics? Well on the 14th April the Liberal Democrats in Richmond had a "picnic" on Richmond Green with speakers including Vince Cable and Susan Kramer. It was advertised by Kingston Liberal Democrats. They say they want to send a message to the Conservatives not to build a third runway at Heathrow. It was probably rained off (statement of fact - not a political statement!)
The Liberal Democrats say they have "secret evidence" that the Conservatives are plotting secretly to build a third Heathrow runway, despite their agreement not to as part of the Coalition, despite the high-speed railway to Birmingham so that it becomes unnecessary (sic), and despite the range of studies being made looking for a suitable runway site outside Heathrow. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Tories have a secret plan. It is a total fabrication. Others might call it a lie.
This seems to me to be far more cynical than the Jeremy Hunt case. The Liberal Democrats invent a story about the policies of their "coalition allies", and then rail against them. Is this nothing more than an attempt to show that they really are not in bed with the Tories? Is it an attempt to gain leverage in the London elections and local by-elections? Whatever. This kind of thing brings politics into disrepute, and calls into question why anyone would want to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
If this is the politics that the Liberal Democrats want, I would urge them to be careful what they wish for. Other parties can do the same and a party like the Liberal Democrats, that puts out a leaflet miss-spelling the name of its own London mayoral candidate, can hardly be the tastiest and most desirable VAT-rated pasty in the oven. It also makes you wonder what else the Liberal Democrats invent and lie about. This kind of thing brings politics into disrepute and leads to disengagement with democracy. Let's have discussion and debate on values and policies, not spin, fairy tales and calculated slurs.
The best thing the Kingston Liberal Democrats and Edward Davey could do is to distance themselves from this ploy. Failure to do so shows that they are tarred with exactly the same brush - and voters will wonder what trust they can put in anything the Liberal Democrats write or say.
by Laurie South, Chair of Kingston & Surbiton Constituency Labour Party and Labour candidate in the Coombe Hill by-election.
Labour reveals true cost of NHS job losses in Kingston - 21 days ago
Labour reveals the hidden costs of redundancy pay-outs in Kingston arising from NHS reorganisation. The new figures come as a leaked report from the Department of Health confirms the full costs of the NHS reorganisation at over £3 billion.
New, official figures list the costs of NHS redundancies in every community during the first year of the Tory / Liberal Democrat government's NHS reorganisation. Figures reveal Kingston's PCT has already been forced to spend £476,000 laying off staff - only for many expected to be re-employed elsewhere in the system. And this is just the 2010-2011 phase of redundancies - further damaging figures are expected in the summer.
The new figures come as a leaked Government "business case" for its Health Bill confirms the vast overall costs of the Government's NHS reorganisation. It confirms that £10,690,745 in Kingston is being held back from NHS patient care to pay for the reorganisation, in the form of a Government-ordered 2 per cent Primary Care Trust budget hold back in 2011-12 and 2012-13 - amounting to £3.45bn across England.
Laurie South, Chair of Kingston and Surbiton Labour Party, and Labour candidate in the Coombe Hill by-election said:
"People will want to know why our local NHS has been forced to waste £476,000 on pay-outs in 2010-2011 alone, only for many of the same staff to be re-employed in the new NHS organisations. This is only the first wave of redundancies - more are expected later this year and next as part of the Government's reckless NHS reorganisation that will cost over £10.5 million in Kingston alone.
"Kingston's NHS is counting the cost of the Liberal Democrat / Tory 'privatisation of the NHS' policy. By pushing ahead with a reorganisation no one wants, the Liberal Democrat / Tory Coalition is taking millions away from the NHS front line in Kingston just as it should be focused on patient care.
"Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP, promised to protect the NHS in Kingston and Surbiton, but he is a cabinet minister in the Tory / Liberal Democrat government whose back office waste has resulted in front line cuts. When Edward Davey campaigns to save the NHS in Kingston, it is empty rhetoric. How can he ever be trusted again on the NHS when he is part of a government passing this unwanted legislation?"
What are we to make of the removal of tax relief on charitable donations by high earners? - 32 days ago
As a former chief executive of a national charity, my first thoughts on Osborne's sections in his budget on philanthropic and charitable giving were unprintable. He was capping the amount of giving that qualified for tax relief at £50,000 or 25 per cent of total income (whatever that means in days of deferred bonuses and share options). Discouraging philanthropic donations was going to hit a lot of charities. No wonder over 90 per cent of the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition backbenchers were opposed.
But then I started thinking about it a bit more deeply, and realised that a more "nuanced" position was more appropriate.
First, let's get some facts.
Those of us who are basic taxpayers can give to a charity and, by completing the tax-giving certificate, can ensure that the government pays back the basic income tax on that gift direct to the charity. Those on the higher level of tax can claim their philanthropic and charitable giving on their income tax return, and be given tax relief on that sum. The government, therefore, will subsidise our charitable giving from tax revenues. For basic taxpayers the sums are relatively trivial (though not to the individual making the donation) and, apart from our choice of charity, do not benefit us. However for those on higher tax rates, the sums are not trivial and represent a direct benefit to themselves. The tax relief goes directly into their own pockets. There is an argument, largely unsubstantiated, that this increases the amount those on higher tax rates give to charitable causes.
We do have some measure of tax avoidance amongst the very highest earners thanks to the release of data from a study by HMRC about those earning over £250,000 in the tax year 2010-11.
Certainly there is something bizarre about charitable giving which is subsidised by other taxpayers. It allows the very rich to choose not to pay taxes to a democratically elected government, but to choose what they think the most important areas are. When I ran a charity we used to joke that people gave money to youth charities because it bought them immortality for longer. However if donations that would be used for hospitals and schools are going to donkey sanctuaries and cat homes, it starts to be less amusing. And what about charities that already have large reserves (as Dogs for the Blind had last time I looked a few years ago)? Should they be allowed to use their reserves to invest in fundraising activity just to grow their reserves?
I was also very aware, having run a charity whose President was Prince Charles, that giving was not necessarily about the cause but very frequently about what other benefits the donation would "buy". For example, donors looked for invitations to meet royalty. It was a kind of Gucci handbag for the mega-rich: something their peers could not acquire. Should the wealthy be offered these kinds of prestige meetings, if that is what they are, funded out of tax relief? Is this charitable giving?
There are some very strong arguments to say, grieve me as it does, that George Osborne has a point. In an ideal world people should give to charities after they have paid their taxes.
However, after years of tax relief on charitable giving, to suddenly impose a tax-relief cap as the only tax avoidance loophole to be closed gives a very strong, and very wrong, message. The government appears not to approve of the rich donating to charitable causes. This belies their comments that charities need to replace government grants with rich donors and the government's rather ungainly rhetoric on the "big society". It also sits ill with the tax reduction afforded to the highest earners through his lowering of the highest tax band from 50 to 45 per cent.
Certainly many worthy charities are only able to do as much as they do because of large charitable donations from rich benefactors. To create a system where the donations on which many charities rely are suddenly in jeopardy is very destabilising. There has already been an 8 per cent drop in donations to charities which is likely to become a far steeper fall if there are no changes in the twelve months before the tax relief is capped. There will be a decrease in what charities can spend and, in all probability, redundancies amongst charity workers, rarely the best paid of workers. With even more public expenditure cuts to come and more people relying on charity, is this really the time for such a measure?
So what are we to make of this? In my view the problem is that the Chancellor has picked on an easy tax avoidance target and is so out of touch he does not understand the political messages it flags. If this was one of a whole raft of tax avoidance measures, it might be easier to countenance, but it is not. In his letter to the chief executive of HMRC under which Mr Osborne outlines the government's priorities for the service, he invests £1 billion extra in the HMRC and asks them to find £4 billion from tax avoidance. What he does not say is what the government will do to close the loopholes. The tax loophole on charitable donations is the only avoidance scheme that the government has targeted, whilst giving money back to the highest paid. For this reason I am compelled to label this part of his budget foolish and likely to impact on the disadvantaged and poor - the very people this government is hurting most through all its actions. Its impact on the wealthy will be negligible. This just cannot be right.
by Laurie South, Chair, Kingston and Surbiton Constituency Labour Party
For older stories, visit our blog...
Kingston hosts Palestinian and Lebanese community activists - 10 days ago
Earlier this month Kingston and Surbiton Labour Party hosted a group of Palestinian and Lebanese civil society figures in the UK as part of the British Council sponsored Active Citizens Programme.
Under the initiative locally minded groups are brought together with British organisations who work at the local level to swap ideas and approaches whilst building links and friendships.
Kingston and Surbiton CLP was pleased to be asked to give a talk on the methods and techniques we've used to lay solid foundations as we continue to build Labour in Kingston and Surbiton.
There is some divide between the manner in which local political groups work in the UK and how they do so in the Arab World, the most notable perhaps being the direct involvement of Arab political parties in the provision of services to their local community.
We hope in the future to build further on the friendships that we have developed, both in assisting the development of healthy civil society and political organisations overseas and in doing our bit to extend understanding of British politics abroad.
by Alex Griffiths
Coombe Hill By-election 2012: Labour comes second beating the Liberal Democrats - 13 days ago
The Liberal Democrats went into the Coombe Hill by-election with their usual claim that it was "a two horse race". The results show that it was they who were "two-headed donkeys trying to run a two-legged Derby". Labour beat them into third place!
Coombe Hill local elections (votes averaged where multiple candidates)
The local election results for Coombe Hill since 2002 show that Labour is the only party consistently increasing its share of the vote. The Liberal Democrats would have to increase its vote by 27 per cent in 2014 (when there is a full borough election) to reach the Labour vote. No chance! They have the 2nd highest council tax in London, local authority housing in Kingston is a disgrace after ten years in power, and they cannot even add up the number of children coming up to school age.
Fantastic work by everyone who gave time helping the campaign. Dave Cooper did sterling work in organising us and keeping the work going. We know a lot more about the voters of Kingston. Now we must build on this work, leading up to the Kingston Council elections in 2014. If we can come second in Coombe Hill in 2012, there are many wards where we can come first in 2014.
Hunt and Picnics - 19 days ago
Jeremy Hunt, the Culture, Media and Sport Minister, must be squirming. He had the legal responsibility for making the quasi-judicial decision on whether the Murdoch empire should be allowed to take over BSkyB fully. It appears that his special adviser had a close liaison with the Murdochs' lobbyist. The special adviser appears to have been given the role of liaison officer between the government department and the Murdochs. He even told the Murdochs what Jeremy Hunt would tell Parliament before he said it. Even he agreed it went beyond bounds and resigned.
Call me old fashioned, but if someone is making a quasi-legal review, the only kind of conversations with the interested parties ought to be those which sought clarification or further information. This seems to me to be something that civil servants can do with the greatest of ease. A special adviser communicating with an interested party - in this case the Murdochs - on a regular basis, it does not need.
Ministers, under the Ministerial Code of Conduct introduced by the last Labour government, are responsible for what their advisers say and do. There is an established process and an official to look into breaches of the Code at the request of the Prime Minister. Prima facie there is a case for investigation under the Ministerial Code. To say that the issue should be looked into by the Leveson Inquiry, which:
"...will examine the culture, practices and ethics of the media. In particular, Lord Justice Leveson will examine the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. He is assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with expertise in key issues being considered by the Inquiry. ...It will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards..."
seems to be evasion and the invention on the hoof of a new process.
The Prime Minister has stated that he will consider other action if the Leveson Inquiry unearths any further details. Lord Leveson himself has said very publicly that this is not his job under the terms of reference of the Inquiry. It is hardly likely that Lord Leveson will go out of his way to unearth further details on an issue which is not his concern. Do we really need further details? The case is so clear-cut that action should be taken now through the proper channels - the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
This looks more and more like an attempt to kick the issue into the long grass and protect Jeremy Hunt. Fifty-nine per cent think he should resign according to the latest You Gov poll. It is why people become very cynical about politicians.
So what has it got to do with picnics? Well on the 14th April the Liberal Democrats in Richmond had a "picnic" on Richmond Green with speakers including Vince Cable and Susan Kramer. It was advertised by Kingston Liberal Democrats. They say they want to send a message to the Conservatives not to build a third runway at Heathrow. It was probably rained off (statement of fact - not a political statement!)
The Liberal Democrats say they have "secret evidence" that the Conservatives are plotting secretly to build a third Heathrow runway, despite their agreement not to as part of the Coalition, despite the high-speed railway to Birmingham so that it becomes unnecessary (sic), and despite the range of studies being made looking for a suitable runway site outside Heathrow. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Tories have a secret plan. It is a total fabrication. Others might call it a lie.
This seems to me to be far more cynical than the Jeremy Hunt case. The Liberal Democrats invent a story about the policies of their "coalition allies", and then rail against them. Is this nothing more than an attempt to show that they really are not in bed with the Tories? Is it an attempt to gain leverage in the London elections and local by-elections? Whatever. This kind of thing brings politics into disrepute, and calls into question why anyone would want to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
If this is the politics that the Liberal Democrats want, I would urge them to be careful what they wish for. Other parties can do the same and a party like the Liberal Democrats, that puts out a leaflet miss-spelling the name of its own London mayoral candidate, can hardly be the tastiest and most desirable VAT-rated pasty in the oven. It also makes you wonder what else the Liberal Democrats invent and lie about. This kind of thing brings politics into disrepute and leads to disengagement with democracy. Let's have discussion and debate on values and policies, not spin, fairy tales and calculated slurs.
The best thing the Kingston Liberal Democrats and Edward Davey could do is to distance themselves from this ploy. Failure to do so shows that they are tarred with exactly the same brush - and voters will wonder what trust they can put in anything the Liberal Democrats write or say.
by Laurie South, Chair of Kingston & Surbiton Constituency Labour Party and Labour candidate in the Coombe Hill by-election.
Labour reveals true cost of NHS job losses in Kingston - 21 days ago
Labour reveals the hidden costs of redundancy pay-outs in Kingston arising from NHS reorganisation. The new figures come as a leaked report from the Department of Health confirms the full costs of the NHS reorganisation at over £3 billion.
New, official figures list the costs of NHS redundancies in every community during the first year of the Tory / Liberal Democrat government's NHS reorganisation. Figures reveal Kingston's PCT has already been forced to spend £476,000 laying off staff - only for many expected to be re-employed elsewhere in the system. And this is just the 2010-2011 phase of redundancies - further damaging figures are expected in the summer.
The new figures come as a leaked Government "business case" for its Health Bill confirms the vast overall costs of the Government's NHS reorganisation. It confirms that £10,690,745 in Kingston is being held back from NHS patient care to pay for the reorganisation, in the form of a Government-ordered 2 per cent Primary Care Trust budget hold back in 2011-12 and 2012-13 - amounting to £3.45bn across England.
Laurie South, Chair of Kingston and Surbiton Labour Party, and Labour candidate in the Coombe Hill by-election said:
"People will want to know why our local NHS has been forced to waste £476,000 on pay-outs in 2010-2011 alone, only for many of the same staff to be re-employed in the new NHS organisations. This is only the first wave of redundancies - more are expected later this year and next as part of the Government's reckless NHS reorganisation that will cost over £10.5 million in Kingston alone.
"Kingston's NHS is counting the cost of the Liberal Democrat / Tory 'privatisation of the NHS' policy. By pushing ahead with a reorganisation no one wants, the Liberal Democrat / Tory Coalition is taking millions away from the NHS front line in Kingston just as it should be focused on patient care.
"Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP, promised to protect the NHS in Kingston and Surbiton, but he is a cabinet minister in the Tory / Liberal Democrat government whose back office waste has resulted in front line cuts. When Edward Davey campaigns to save the NHS in Kingston, it is empty rhetoric. How can he ever be trusted again on the NHS when he is part of a government passing this unwanted legislation?"
What are we to make of the removal of tax relief on charitable donations by high earners? - 32 days ago
As a former chief executive of a national charity, my first thoughts on Osborne's sections in his budget on philanthropic and charitable giving were unprintable. He was capping the amount of giving that qualified for tax relief at £50,000 or 25 per cent of total income (whatever that means in days of deferred bonuses and share options). Discouraging philanthropic donations was going to hit a lot of charities. No wonder over 90 per cent of the Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition backbenchers were opposed.
But then I started thinking about it a bit more deeply, and realised that a more "nuanced" position was more appropriate.
First, let's get some facts.
Those of us who are basic taxpayers can give to a charity and, by completing the tax-giving certificate, can ensure that the government pays back the basic income tax on that gift direct to the charity. Those on the higher level of tax can claim their philanthropic and charitable giving on their income tax return, and be given tax relief on that sum. The government, therefore, will subsidise our charitable giving from tax revenues. For basic taxpayers the sums are relatively trivial (though not to the individual making the donation) and, apart from our choice of charity, do not benefit us. However for those on higher tax rates, the sums are not trivial and represent a direct benefit to themselves. The tax relief goes directly into their own pockets. There is an argument, largely unsubstantiated, that this increases the amount those on higher tax rates give to charitable causes.
We do have some measure of tax avoidance amongst the very highest earners thanks to the release of data from a study by HMRC about those earning over £250,000 in the tax year 2010-11.
- Of those earning £250,000-£500,000:
- 27 per cent paid less than 40 per cent in tax.
- 27 per cent paid less than 40 per cent in tax.
- Of the 10,000 tax-payers earning between £1m and £5m:
- 10 per cent paid between 30-40 per cent in tax
- 5 per cent paid between 20-30 per cent in tax
- 3 per cent paid less than 10 per cent in tax.
- Of the estimated 400 who earned between £5m and £10m:
- 5 per cent paid less than 20 per cent in tax.
Certainly there is something bizarre about charitable giving which is subsidised by other taxpayers. It allows the very rich to choose not to pay taxes to a democratically elected government, but to choose what they think the most important areas are. When I ran a charity we used to joke that people gave money to youth charities because it bought them immortality for longer. However if donations that would be used for hospitals and schools are going to donkey sanctuaries and cat homes, it starts to be less amusing. And what about charities that already have large reserves (as Dogs for the Blind had last time I looked a few years ago)? Should they be allowed to use their reserves to invest in fundraising activity just to grow their reserves?
I was also very aware, having run a charity whose President was Prince Charles, that giving was not necessarily about the cause but very frequently about what other benefits the donation would "buy". For example, donors looked for invitations to meet royalty. It was a kind of Gucci handbag for the mega-rich: something their peers could not acquire. Should the wealthy be offered these kinds of prestige meetings, if that is what they are, funded out of tax relief? Is this charitable giving?
There are some very strong arguments to say, grieve me as it does, that George Osborne has a point. In an ideal world people should give to charities after they have paid their taxes.
However, after years of tax relief on charitable giving, to suddenly impose a tax-relief cap as the only tax avoidance loophole to be closed gives a very strong, and very wrong, message. The government appears not to approve of the rich donating to charitable causes. This belies their comments that charities need to replace government grants with rich donors and the government's rather ungainly rhetoric on the "big society". It also sits ill with the tax reduction afforded to the highest earners through his lowering of the highest tax band from 50 to 45 per cent.
Certainly many worthy charities are only able to do as much as they do because of large charitable donations from rich benefactors. To create a system where the donations on which many charities rely are suddenly in jeopardy is very destabilising. There has already been an 8 per cent drop in donations to charities which is likely to become a far steeper fall if there are no changes in the twelve months before the tax relief is capped. There will be a decrease in what charities can spend and, in all probability, redundancies amongst charity workers, rarely the best paid of workers. With even more public expenditure cuts to come and more people relying on charity, is this really the time for such a measure?
So what are we to make of this? In my view the problem is that the Chancellor has picked on an easy tax avoidance target and is so out of touch he does not understand the political messages it flags. If this was one of a whole raft of tax avoidance measures, it might be easier to countenance, but it is not. In his letter to the chief executive of HMRC under which Mr Osborne outlines the government's priorities for the service, he invests £1 billion extra in the HMRC and asks them to find £4 billion from tax avoidance. What he does not say is what the government will do to close the loopholes. The tax loophole on charitable donations is the only avoidance scheme that the government has targeted, whilst giving money back to the highest paid. For this reason I am compelled to label this part of his budget foolish and likely to impact on the disadvantaged and poor - the very people this government is hurting most through all its actions. Its impact on the wealthy will be negligible. This just cannot be right.
by Laurie South, Chair, Kingston and Surbiton Constituency Labour Party
For older stories, visit our blog...
