The Queen’s Speech

It’s the day of Alex’s Ferguson’s resignation and also the day of the Queen’s Speech. Let me try to combine these two great events by describing what Sir Alex would call the ultimate ‘Squeaky Bum’ moment for a politician.

Picture this. You’re young and relatively new to Parliament. On this big ceremonial occasion, beamed around the world on TV a senior MP towards the end of his Parliamentary career will ‘Propose a Motion in Support of Her Majesty’s Loyal Address.’ And then it is the turn of a bright young whipper-snapper to ‘Second the Motion’. Your job is to entertain a packed out chamber. Don’t go on for too long and don’t be too serious.

David Lammy and Oona King had just had the honour in the previous years and it was a massive privilege to be asked. But what a challenge! In 2003 I was asked to be the ‘seconder’. I’d never felt so nervous.

I was determined to enjoy what was set to be one of the biggest occasions of my life. The day also played a role in helping me to secure a second term as Gloucester’s MP. The editor of the local newspaper ran a full front page picture of me under the banner headline ‘Citizen Dhanda’ (the paper is called the Gloucester Citizen) and then ran the full text of the speech on pages 2 and 3. You can’t buy publicity like that.

Unfortunately the story was relegated to just pages 2 and 3 for the evening addition because a shoe-bomb plotter was arrested in Gloucester later that day, which spiked my guns a bit. Nonetheless the local Tories were still fuming. But it did mean a quick return to reality as I had to return to manage the fallout of international terrorism encroaching on to my patch.

But I can still recall Tony’s kind words in response to my speech in the Chamber when he said the people of Gloucester had had the good sense to choose me as their candidate, despite the fact that they’d rejected him in the 1970s! Charles Kennedy pointed out I’d sneaked in and received the honour despite having been an Iraq War rebel. Michael Howard had got George Osborne to trawl my website (George told me this himself) to try to have a pop at me, so he was true to form. He later apologise without actually saying sorry, realising I think he’d misjudged the occasion.

In the speech I can recall the Gloucesterian conspiracy about why our local MPs had never been asked to play a role in this ceremony before. It goes back to the Civil war: “If anyone was ever worthy of the honour, surely it was my predecessor Lieutenant Colonel Edward Massey, who, in 1642, fought—literally—for the parliamentary cause at the siege of Gloucester. The honour never befell Massey. Instead, he had to settle for being knighted and becoming governor of Jamaica. Some people have all the luck.” At that point I thought Paul Boateng’s head leaned back on the front benches and I he laughed so hard that I could almost feel the floor boards shaking. Job done.

If you’re into these things (I’m afraid I couldn’t find a video of the speech) here’s the Hansard:

“Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): As the first English-based Member of Parliament to address the House in the new Session, and since my constituency includes Kingsholm—the home of rugby and of the cherry-and-whites, Gloucester rugby football club—I must congratulate the local boys, Andy Gomarsall, Phil Vickery and Trevor Woodman, and join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in congratulating the other 27 players of Clive Woodward’s squad, the new world champions, England.
I do not wish to be partisan—
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Oh, go on.
Mr. Dhanda: Well, just for a moment and to please my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I believe it was Harold Wilson who said that we only win world cups under a Labour Government. I have got that out of my system now.
The House will be aware of the campaign in the run-up to Saturday’s final, urging us to “do the Jonny” as a gesture of good luck to the England No. 10. I do not have the space to demonstrate the Jonny here, but at the
26 Nov 2003 : Column 13
weekend I assured a group of my constituents that I would seek to emulate “Jonny.” They did not realise that I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who, as well as sharing his namesake’s dapper build and winning smile, has demonstrated that he, too, is at the top of his particular field as a parliamentarian. I am delighted to pay tribute to him. I hope that he forgives the comparison with a Sassenach rugby player; I hope I pronounced that correctly.
The honour of commending Her Majesty’s speech is an honour not just for me, but for the people of Gloucester, and one that, if I might say so, is long overdue—although not because of me, I hasten to add. There is no recorded history of a Member for Gloucester playing a role in this unique parliamentary occasion, either as proposer or as seconder—ever.
In Gloucester, we have a theory, Mr Speaker; you might say it is something of a conspiracy theory. If anyone was ever worthy of the honour, surely it was my predecessor Lieutenant Colonel Edward Massey, who, in 1642, fought—literally—for the parliamentary cause at the siege of Gloucester. The honour never befell Massey. Instead, he had to settle for being knighted and becoming governor of Jamaica. Some people have all the luck.
On many a long evening in Gloucester’s New Inn, the England’s Glory and the Linden Tree, Gloucesterians have wondered aloud as to how they have been overlooked when Her Majesty has made her speech to Parliament. Perhaps it was all Massey’s fault, they say, for fighting the parliamentary cause in 1642, rather than the royal one.
So I resolved to change all this. I had to make friends in high places: I needed to undo my predecessor’s work and to get in with the royals. So, as many of my colleagues will be aware, I headed to Buckingham Palace last November. As the copy of The Guardian that I am holding shows, it was the day the Conservative party had to unite or die. Well, it did not unite, but as the front page of that paper also shows, there was the far more important story of my trip to Buckingham Palace to make new friends and influence people. That night, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and I had a chat. We talked about what each of us had done before our current roles in life. In the light of his time in the Navy during the war, and of my time as a student—doing not a lot—we struck up a real rapport. I would go so far as to say that we got on like a house on fire, regardless of what it said in The Guardian—and in the Daily Mail. And in Private Eye. And in Corriere della Sera. And in a Bolivian publication that I cannot quite pronounce. That goes to show that we really do live in a world of wall-to-wall media coverage.
Little did I know that so favourable was the impression that I left on His Royal Highness that he must have felt compelled to ring my Chief Whip himself to request that for this royal occasion, his old pal from Gloucester act as seconder—I stress, seconder—for the Queen’s Speech. I hope that that clears up any confusion. I owe him a debt of gratitude for breaking Massey’s curse for ever.
In making this speech, it is traditional to talk about one’s constituency. But it is my constituents who make Gloucester what it is today, and it was for them that I
26 Nov 2003 : Column 14
said in my maiden speech that I wished to deliver a city fit for the 21st century. All Members of this House—on both sides—rightly consider their constituencies to be the best thing since sliced bread, but mine has been the hub of an unprecedented scale of investment in the past two years. A £30 million private finance initiative rebuild of the Gloucestershire royal hospital has allowed me to become the first Gloucester MP in a generation to open wards in Gloucester, rather than presiding over ward closures. But Gloucester has also received new money for a university campus, and we are working towards a new police headquarters, new road infrastructure and the best leisure centre in the region. In all, that is more than £100 million of capital investment in Gloucester, and more than 100 million reasons for me to be proud of the city that I represent.
In my first two years in office, I have realised that if you don’t ask, you don’t get. But so many times when I have asked on my constituents’ behalf, the Government have given. I thank them for that, but that does not mean that I am about to stop asking.
My constituents will welcome the Government’s measures to ensure that our people do not have to be of working age to earn security. Introducing baby bonds will ensure that all young families can be assured of a new level of security in life. Combined with the new measures to protect pensions, that reminds me of a phrase that first brought me into Labour party politics—for this is a Queen’s Speech that improves the quality of our constituents’ lives from the cradle to the grave.
Given that all news is local, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may be aware of a campaign that was initiated by my local newspaper and me, and which is supported by the cross-party consensus of the 61 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 1811. That early-day motion supports the steps that the Government have taken to ease pensioner poverty, and urges my right hon. Friend to consider appointing a Minister with responsibility for older people, who would have the power to work across Government Departments in the interests of all our senior citizens. That said, I can reassure him that I am not trying to create a job for myself. Honestly.
I believe the Government deserve particular praise for introducing measures that trade unionists everywhere will welcome, by building on the Employment Relations Act. When people like my mum and dad came to this country nearly 40 years ago, to clean hospital floors, like mum, or drive heavy goods vehicles, like dad, it was not the Government of the day they turned to for help and support.
They had a lot to contend with, with people accusing them of coming here to nick British jobs. But as mum often tells me, there was no queue of people at Ealing hospital lining up to clean the toilets—only migrant labourers, invariably women, doing their bit to build our NHS. I salute them for the work that they did, and I salute the trade unions for sending them on courses to teach them enough English to be able to represent themselves in the workplace. They helped to create a generation of workers with the self-respect and determination to push their own children to make the most of opportunities in life that they themselves could
26 Nov 2003 : Column 15
only have dreamed of. Trade unionists everywhere will welcome these new measures enhancing employment rights.
In 1997 my seat of Gloucester was the key seat. Labour needed to win it to achieve an overall majority in the House of just one. When my predecessor decided after one term that politics was not for her, my local party and the people of Gloucester took a chance. They took a chance on someone who did not look or sound like a typical Member of Parliament, someone who did not have the traditional background to be a Member of the House. I told my constituents that, if politics is about changing things—and I believe it is—in 2001, in the key seat, the barometer seat, the people of Gloucester had the chance to show the world that my party was changing people’s attitudes for ever. Gloucester led the way that day.
After Labour’s six years in office, the Gracious Speech demonstrates that the Prime Minister still believes that politics is about changing things for the better. I urge him to continue to do so, and I commend the Gracious Speech to the House.”

Tony Blair: “As I am sure the whole House would agree, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) also made an effective and amusing speech. I am particularly grateful that he did not remind me that before I entered the House I was rejected as the Labour candidate for Gloucester; obviously, his qualities are far more appealing both to the party and to the electors there. The Gloucester seat was, as he explained, the first seat for which my hon. Friend had applied, and as he said rather movingly in his tribute to his constituency, the people of Gloucester showed by sending him to the House that all they cared about was his character, his commitment and his talent, and that is an example to all. How right they were can be seen from the fact that my hon. Friend showed very early in his parliamentary career that he was a politician who could spot the issues and priorities of the future. How else can you explain a new Member of Parliament who, within weeks of arriving in the House, starts a campaign to ensure that top-class international rugby is open to all television viewers? I am sure that all of us would like to be able to see the future with such accuracy.
My hon. Friend is, I am sure, at the start of a long career in the House, but I have no doubt that whatever else he achieves in life, he will be for ever remembered for a publication that he authored in 1993 entitled “Measuring Distances using a Gallium Arsenide Laser.” I am afraid that there is nothing further that I can say—that is clean—about that.
We have heard two excellent speeches—self-deprecating, generous, forward looking and compassionate. Now, though, I come to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Free and fresh from his leadership triumph, the Conservatives are consulting the people—a contest in the best tradition of the politics of North Korea, I thought. Six years ago, of course, when he last stood for his party’s leadership, he came a poor fifth out of five candidates; but here he is today. Why did his party believe in 1997 that he was the very last person who could convince the country that the
26 Nov 2003 : Column 23
Conservatives had something to offer? I think that we all know why—it was because of his record in office. No wonder the Conservative party did not want juries to know about previous convictions—he has got form as long as your arm.”

My Recollections of the Parliamentary Hustings

Tomorrow I will hand over the baton as PPC for Gloucester to somebody new. I’m planning to attend the hustings although I may bottle it at the last moment, because letting go can be hard.

But it was my choice. Whether it’s time over or time out from the political frontline for me I simply don’t know. But I do miss it. I’ll try to get along tomorrow and wish my successor the very best of luck. We have to win this seat – we needed it for a majority of 1 back in 1997.

Tonight my mind inevitably harks back to a night in July of 2000 when, as a fresh-faced 28 year old I attended the Gloucester hustings as a naïve candidate in his first parliamentary selection. The Party hierarchy had discouraged my candidature because they didn’t see it as the right ‘fit’ for me. But I think they were more irritated than concerned about me, after all what chance did I have? A few weeks earlier I would have struggled to find Gloucester on a map, I was a Londoner and one of over 80 candidates who applied. These were the days when every available Labour seat already had a MP; we had a Parliamentary majority of around 170.

Jan Royall (now my pal Baroness Royall) was the leadership’s favoured candidate with good local credentials. Kevin Stephens was the Leader of the Council and had been the Candidate before and had a formidable reputation. And Sue Hayman was the PA to the retiring MP Tess Kingham, so the shortlist of six couldn’t have been any stronger and included Keir Dhillon who is now a good friend and on the shortlist of 3 for tomorrow.

I remember talking to Ruth Stoney of Usdaw before the hustings meeting.  She had her fingers crossed for me and hoped I’d be drawn early or towards the end of the list of speakers to either make an impact at the start or be remembered at the end. She said as long as I wasn’t say, fourth, I shouldn’t worry and just enjoy the occasion – I’d already performed above expectations by picking up more ward nominations than the other candidates. So inevitably I was drawn fourth in the running order. I hid away in the corner of the member’s room of Shire Hall, just relieved to be there because I’d actually got lost walking to the venue and feared I’d miss the whole event. Years later I canvassed the man who had guided me in the right direction and he warmly reminded me of the major role he had played in my life.

I had borrowed my brother’s mini-diskman (remember them?) and listened to Reef and Catatonia whilst waiting anxiously for my turn. When it was my turn, Councillor Stephens put me at ease before I entered the council chamber to deliver the most important speech of my life, “They don’t want any of us to fail in there tonight,” he said. I walked up to the lectern of this grand old arena, it looked as if there were around 200 people there, squashed around the hemisphere and over-spilling in to seating around it. I was discomforted by the fact that there were only two non-white faces in the whole audience. But this was Gloucester, not West London. Maybe the Party were right to discourage me. As I would find in subsequent weeks though, when the local newspaper stated in response to my selection that: “the people of Gloucester haven’t the advanced state of consciousness to accept a ‘foreigner’ as the local MP” the people of Gloucester are actually far more broad-minded than that.

In the traditional looking stage at the front of the chamber, the Regional Officer Roger Hutchison sat in the raised dais alongside where I stood and the Party’s Constituency Secretary Richard Price sat in front of me. A light came on before me to indicate my 5 minutes had begun. At that moment I can recall feeling bizarrely at home. Looking out at familiar faces as I spoke. People I’d met and had been warmly received by in recent weeks. I began by thanking them for that. I remember thinking I don’t want this to be over. Don’t send me home. Let me stay.

I’m a lucky man in that I’ve always been able to perform from a podium and that night I let rip and felt the mood of the meeting warming to my story and my vision. I recall ending with the words, “I want you to be my strength here in the constituency and my conscience when I vote in Westminster. Together, let’s keep Gloucester Labour. For good.”

But I couldn’t. And I felt that hard when we lost in 2010, as much as that love and warmth in the constituency party never dissipated. The seat has historically swung with the party of power and is always on the cusp. I desperately wanted to hold back that tide and thought we’d done enough to achieve that but we couldn’t. The pain of that is as much a part of my decision to stand aside as anything else. But when I think back to that night when I was 28, in the summer of 2000, I made some pledges in that podium speech. I wanted to unlock regeneration for the people of Gloucester. The Docks had laid derelict for half a century or more. In the nine years that I served the City we regenerated those Docks, built a new FE College there, a shopping centre, attracted nearly a £1 billion in investment and created a thousand jobs. We built a new hospital, a university campus and a police headquarters. It’s more than I ever dreamed we would achieve when I penned that hustings speech with Reef and Catatonia playing in the background.

For people who ask me whether I’ll be back on the political frontline or not, I honestly don’t know. But I’d be a liar to say that I don’t miss it. But tomorrow in Gloucester will be Keir Dhillon, David Purchase or Sophy Gardner’s day. I wish them all the very best of luck and pray they win the seat back. For good.

10 Years on From the Iraq War Vote

Why did I do it? It wasn’t easy, not for me anyway. Ten years ago it wasn’t fashionable in the Parliamentary Labour Party to be an Iraq War Rebel.
And I was doing well. A young starlet in the party amongst a young dream-team intake that included Purnell, Burnham, Watson, Miliband (David), Knight and many others. Rebellion was not on my mind - I was neither disloyal nor disaffected.
By accident rather than design I sat in front of Robin Cook the night he resigned in the Chamber. I knew my mind well enough to be certain I agreed with every word he said. I hadn’t become a rebel – I stayed true to my view that Britain could not go to war without that second UN resolution. That had been the Party’s policy throughout. Until this week ten years ago.
The night of the vote was tortuous. I remember ringing dad. “I just can’t do this dad. Its wrong.” He told me to do what I thought was right. He was never keen on this war.
Then I got the call to see Tony. I think he thought I’d come round. I really didn’twant to let him down. He said the government would win the vote, but he didn’t want to win on the back of Tory votes.
We talked about Bush and his roadmap to peace in the middle-east. Without wanting to sound stroppy I tried to find statesmanlike language to question Mr Bush’s sincerity on the issue.
But before I left his office I promised him I’d consider what he’d said, because I genuinely respected him (Blair, not Bush).
When the division bell rang my good friend Keith Hill (the Deputy Chief Whip) waved to me and urged me to get up to head to the ‘no lobby’. I can still recall the look of disappointment on his face when I shook my head, signalling that I was going to break the cardinal rule of political collectivism by defying a 3 line Labour whip. I had to pass some of my strategically positioned friends from the 2001 intake as they stood next to the entrance of the rebel lobby, imploring me not to throw away my career. Others, in the ‘aye lobby’ laughed and patted each other on the back. It made me feel really uncomfotable. I just wanted to vote, get out and drive to my parents house in Hayes to regroup, away from all this pressure.
But as I emerged from the rebel lobby a shocked and then delighted John McDonnell bear-hugged me as I exited. No disrespect to John but I was in no mood to celebrate.
The 139 of us who rebelled that night all had our reasons. I felt genuinely awful. I hadn’t been elected as a Labour MP to spend my time voting against my own party. And when I got home that night I’m not ashamed to say I cried my eyes out. The day and the run up to it had been a huge strain. Many of us felt like pariahs in our own party at that time

Why did I do it? Because I thought the war was wrong. And in time, unfortunately, I feared history would prove the 139 rebels to be right.

Tarsem King – a Tribute

Lord Tarsem King sounds like such a grand name. You couldn’t meet a milder, kinder and more pragmatic person. He passed away a few days ago and I just wanted to post a little piece in tribute to him, because if it wasn’t for people like him, perhaps people like me wouldn’t have had the opportunities we had.

He was the first Sikh Leader of a Council in the country. He may even have been the first person of Asian origin to lead a council in the UK. I heard stories about what a decent man he was from an uncle of mine who served with him on Sandwell Council.

But the first time I ever met him was in 1999, at Millbank at a Labour Party BAME event. He was different from the rest, there was no sense of ego. He was pure humility. He gave a softly spoken message to those in attendance from the lectern. In a way it was a controversial message. Give up your desire to be Mayors, he told us. Forget about the bling of civic office, and instead become a leader of a council or a cabinet holder and make a difference at a policy level. Of course he was right in what he said, and he led by example.

We became friends from that day. It was always an honour to be in his presence, whether in his home or over a cup of tea in Westminster. When he came to our wedding I recall introducing him to my in-laws who didn’t believe me when I told them he was a Member of the House of Lords, because there was no sense of fanfare about him.

His achievements are something for the Sikh community in this country to be particularly proud of. He was a moderate Sikh Parliamentarian – which was important when considering the often turbulent issues facing the community.

Lord King was a special man. He’ll be missed by the family he loved and never forgotten by those of us whose lives he touched.

Never mind the child benefit…what about me!

I think the Daily Mail, in its campaign to help the middle classes in austere times would love this little e-mail exchange.

A little while ago somebody got in touch with me to say they were worried they’d be losing their child benefit. Well, the coalition has got to find the cash to fund the reduction in the 50p rate from somewhere!

So, quite rightly, she took it up with my successor – her local MP in Gloucester, Richard Graham. We’ll change her name to Suzie, otherwise the full and unedited exchange is published here.

I won’t analyse the response she got back for you, I’ll leave that to you. But its an interesting insight in to the mind of a millionaire tory, and how he relates his own pay freeze and pension contribution increases to the lives of his constituents. I think you’ll find some of it toe-curling and jaw dropping at the same time. Out of touch tories? You decide. Enjoy… and feel free to share…

Dear Mr Dhanda,

I have recently been in contact withGloucester’s Mp Mr Graham regarding the issue of child allowance and the withdrawal of it to “High income earners”.

According to Mr Graham this is not his parties fault but that of their coalition partners. That’s if I totally read the email correctly. Therefore I contacted Mr Hilton to ask him to defend this claim.

Below are copies of my emails and although they will take time to read, I would value your opinion.

Yours

Suzie

FROM SUZIE TO HER MP, RICHARD GRAHAM

GLOUCESTERCONSTITUENCY

Message:
Dear Mr Graham, I want to ask you what you are doing regarding the withdrawal of child benifit?

As i understand it, as my husband pays over 40% tax we will loose our child benifit. We are both in the nursing profession and he has worked hard to get to the position he is in. I work part-time to ensure our children have not needed to go into child care for great lengths of time and have a stable home. Something that is always advocated by all political parties. It seems that if my husband were to demote himself to below £42,000 per year and I increased my hours we could earn a joint income of £84,950 and get child benifit. However, with him being in the higher tax bracket and our joint income being £64,000, we will loose our child benifit. How is it fair that a family could earn £20,000 more than ourselves and still qualify for child benifit whereas we would not.

As you will be aware our pensions have taken a knocking as well. I am not totally sure why, as i believe there is enough money in the coffers for us to have our pensions. Having said this we are sensible and if to keep our pension we have to pay a little more, we will have to swollow this. This adds to our anguish though.

We are due to get a 1% pay rise but will have to pay up to 3% extra into our pensions. This is for both of us, so collectively we will get a 2% pay rise but loose up to 6% in pensions! We will, under present proposals, loose child benifit. Why is it we are being punished for choosing a career in the NHS and for my husband advancing in his job? For most families, maybe only one will work for the public sector, so wouldn’t have these worries, but to us it seems we work harder than ever and are getting poorer and poorer at every turn.

The money we get from the government for our children does go to buy shoes, clothes, food. They are not designer clad children but, primark, tesco, asda. It seems to me that if my husband demotes himself and I work more we will be better off financially though the children will suffer from not having the stability they are used to.

So as my MP, what are you doing to help families like mine?

Look forward to your reply, Suzie

 

FROM RICHARD GRAHAM TO HIS CONSTITUENT

Dear Suzie,

Thank you for your strongly felt mail on this.

I understand why you feel this way, and you are not alone.

Over the last almost two years since I was elected I have had on average 400 e mails a day, every day, on different aspects of the incredibly difficult decisions this government has had to make to get public spending towards what the country can afford.

Almost all of the mails I get on this start by saying they recognise that public spending has to be cut, but just NOT the particular cut that affects them.

To give you some examples – no one in public service was in favour of a pay freeze (even tho many people in business had seen their pay reduced from 2008 onwards); no-one in the RAF wanted to see the Harriers axed or in the Navy see the Ark Royal sold or in the Army see infantry reduced: people on incapacity benefit are often furious about medical tests to see whether they should actually still receive them: housing charities argued that thousands of people would be homeless on the streets when we reduced housing benefit by 10 per cent: teachers argued that changes to their pensions would mean no-one would want to teach: civil servant unions said superannuation payment changes were catastrophic: again charities and many people say that changes to the Welfare Reform Bill, with a total benefits cap, would cause thousands to lose their homes; and the police are fighting hard against changes to eg double overtime rates and automatic annual increments to salary.

And as you will both know well, the amount of opposition to changes in the NHS that will enable it to continue, when demand increases 7 per cent a year, by reducing costs through reducing the numbers of managers and organisations (like SHAs and PCTs).

Then there are all the changes to local government services, with some people making a huge fuss about modest changes to eg library services.

I mention all this so that you realise you aren’t getting penalised because you work for the NHS, or because you both work in public service, or for any reason at all except that almost every aspect of public spending has to be shrunk to get down first our budget deficit (annual spending) and then the mountain of debt accumulated.

When the plans for these cuts were produced in 2010-11, the Treasury was asked by George Osborne to calculate how all these changes would affect each quintile of salary earners, so that he could see whether everyone was genuinely all in this together.

This showed that higher rate earners were equally affected, but not if they continued to receive child benefit. If they carried on getting it, middle and lower earners would be more affected.

Many of us then argued, in private, that while this was true for individuals it would create an imbalance against couples where one was a higher rate earner and the other a modest earner relative to other couples.

I had hoped that this would be balanced by introducing (or bringing back) an old allowance – that married couples could ‘gift’ a marriage allowance to a higher rate earner and that this would be worth the equivalent of child benefit. I hoped this would be sorted by 2013 which is when the child benefit rules change.

But I believe our coalition partners, who are not keen on recognising marriage in the tax system, have ruled this out. I regret that.

You ask, again understandably, what I am doing to help people like you. The reality is that I hope there is lots I can do to help individual difficulties – I think my office has supported about 3,500 constituents with various issues in the last year – but changing spending cuts is a hard ask.

However if you compare your income tax on salaries since 2010 you’ll see that because we’re trying to lift lower earners out of tax your tax free amount has increased quite a lot – over 600 pounds this year alone (or 1,200 for both of you). So there is some good news for you financially as well as the bad news.

Lastly I should add that my own situation at home is very similar to yours. Sometimes people imagine that MPs are not involved in the real world – but the reality is that my salary is frozen, my pension is in the process of being changed like yours and with one higher rate earner the child benefit changes will affect us too.

My way of looking at this is that this has to happen. We have to go through some lean years after a period which was too good to last. In Ireland public wages have been cut about 15 per cent. In Greece various perks are all being chopped. All over Europe we can see a sense of waking up to financial reality. And it could still go pear shaped yet.

It’s not fun but I knew that’s what was needed – and why I got involved on the basis that politicians had allowed things to get out of control and we needed a whole team of newcomers with experience from outside to sort things out sensibly – and not being mini Father Christmases doling out sweets out to everyone from money that didn’t exist – and expecting just to tax people more to pay for it.

Meanwhile the other key role is championing Gloucester and getting in new companies here to invest in our city, create jobs and make the city a better place to live in.

On that side I think good progress is being made, and the evidence is that Gloucester is punching above our weight. It will take time for everything to be visible, but already there are a lot of improvements – including at the hospital.

I’ll keep doing my best to help, but I’m sorry that for the time being it will be tough for everyone in different ways.

I hope this (long!) Mail reassures you that at least I do understand your situation, that it is part of a bigger picture, and that there is an overall plan to get us back into a better place.

With regards
Richard

 

FROM SUZIE TO HER MP, RICHARD GRAHAM

GLOUCESTERCONSTITUENCY

Dear Mr Graham,

Thank you for you reply to my email regarding child benefit payments.

Although you have given me a response, I feel I have not got a definitive answer to my question or what the government proposes will be fair.

I highlighted as my husband and I were NHS employees, we already were taking on the burden of a minimum pay increases of 1% each and higher pension payments of a predicted 3% each. Meaning our family income will be 4% worse off than usual. Although you have said we should be £600 a year each better off with the increase of tax allowance (2010) this still does not equal itself out and we are getting poorer by the year.

I did read your email with interest and am sorry you share the same burden as we do, but that still does not address the problem. Do you honestly think it is fair a couple under the high tax bracket could earn £84,950 and still receive child benefit however, a couple where one person is earning £42,476 would not get anything? I believe, if I read your email correctly, you believe this is the fault of your coalition partners and I will be contacting our local Liberal representative to ask them to defend this claim.

I definately agree something has to happen to turn our country around and I assure you that I would never refer to any government with the money as Father Christmas’s, In my present situation scrooge would be more appropriate. Here are some changes that I think would benefit our society and increase income. I value your opinion on each.

1. Lets say EVERYONE pays a fair tax. If this was policed fairly I know my tax rate would drop for sure. Is it fair people like Amazon can trade in this country and not contribute anything? Tescos seem to do very well at paying the minimal amount ever. If we get an outstanding, sportsman, singer, businessman, why are they able to opt out and bank overseas?

2. why don’t we scrap education fees all together? If you benefit from the education in this country, be you born or bred here or an overseas student you are obliged to pay a higher rate tax in this country for 10years. Say 2% over tax rate for higher education and 1% for other education. We have a good education system which is taken advantage of by lots British born and overseas students, if all contributed this tax, it would be fair. If a young adult leaves school for an apprenticeship at the age of 16 they would pay the 1% higher rate tax until they are 26. If they wanted to take advantage of the university system they would be paying 2% until they are 31. I’m sure if you put this to students who will leave education with massive debt hanging over them, they would jump at the opportunity. This would also encourage the students from less fortunate financial backgrounds to go on to further education. If they become a rich and famous sportsman, singer etc and had benefited from any education, infants, junior, senior, they would pay the higher rate of 2% over for 10 years regardless on how long they stayed in education.

3. Lets make things a little more difficult for bankers. Only in that if they have made a profit, they may have 2% of that profit divided into bonuses for employees. However, if they have not, they get nothing. Does this not make sense, it can’t possibly be only me who thinks this? I know we get the, they’ll leave the country and go elsewhere. Goodbye is my response. There is always someone who can do your job and probably better if they knew they could earn bonuses rather than just get them. It’s interesting how the NHS gets a battering all the time, money is far less forthcoming however, expectations are far greater from everyone. Bankers seem to be above reproach and that is sickening. I actually know a banker who’s bonus was £250,000 when things were bad for the rest of us. Has a B and Q down the road from her house, but when her light bulb blew could not possibly go to there to get one, travelled to Harrods instead. Totally out of touch with the real world.

4. A countrywide admission procedure for patients coming into hospital. Paperwork that takes all the good bits from each and every hospital and joins them into one. Here’s the procedure at the moment, patient get admitted to hospital and notes taken by A&E nurse/doctor and recorded. patient then transferred to ward and asked same question by junior doctor and notes written up, then gets asked same questions by admitting nurse, who has to fill out the majority of care plans and paperwork and finally the senior doctor comes to see and asks same questions and writes up his notes. What a waste of time and more importantly money. If the NHS needs reforming this area is a key area in which to start. I would be happy to help you in any way.

5. We have some lovely roundabouts and flower arrangements inGloucester, but to be honest if it saves money I would rather see cut grass than anything fancy. What about getting businesses to adopt a roundabout or street and contribute to floral decoration? This could mean that children in our county will have access to a book as their local library will not be closed. In this present climate I do not think pretty things should outweigh a child’s education or anything else. So we’ll be dullGloucester, better dull and educated than beautiful and dumb.

Lastly, I would also like to challenge you on this statement: “And as you will both know well, the amount of opposition to changes in the NHS that will enable it to continue, when demand increases 7 per cent a year, by reducing costs through reducing the numbers of managers and organisations (like SHAs and PCTs).”Changes or proposed changes to the NHS are, in my opinion, not going to reduce costings but put a strain on an already underfunded organisation. I totally back the Doctors in this. Health care delivered is already a lottery and this can only make the matter worse. Who is going to put the alcoholics, drug users or far more importantly the people who, through no fault of their own, have extensive medical problems, on their books. These people will use up far too much of the budget. I can also say, quite factually savings are being made, but mainly on the nursing level. Once nurses reach retirement or transfer to another work area, they are not being replaced. Here is your saving, where it is needed in front line care and NOT reducing the numbers of managers.

A little bit longer than I anticipated. I am obviously an MP in the making. However, I would appreciate an answer to fairness of child benefit, yes or no, rather than the MP standard if I go off in several directions maybe my constituent will be placated……this one wasn’t

Yours
Suzie

 

How Labour can show that caring matters

The lack of political consensus on how the UK faces up to, let alone tackles, our national care crisis is something we should all be worried about.

 Labour made some proposals far too close to the end of the last Parliament – which the Tories opportunistically used as a political football. You may recall they coined the phrase ‘Labour’s Death Tax’ about a tax on our estates when we die.

The recent Commission by Andrew Dilnot has some excellent ideas in it, but will also struggle to find political consensus. The Tories are talking about putting back any implementation of Dilnot to the year 2025. In the mean time our population grows older, specialist housing associations have lost the grants they needed to build housing schemes for the elderly, local councils’ abilities to cope with care-home fees have been hit by a 30% cut to their budgets and care services for the elderly are showing real signs of strain across the country.

Labour needs to think through its offer right across our public services. It could do worse than road test new policies against some core principles. Firstly, In the face of a debt mountain new policies have to deliver value for money. Secondly, if the Party is to return to power policy needs to have direct appeal to aspirational voters in marginal seats that left us in droves at the last election and frankly these people haven’t returned. And thirdly we need to take on Cameron’s big idea of the ‘Big Society’ – not by belittling it but by outflanking it.

One of the best examples of the Big Society I can think of is the selfless contribution made by the carers of elderly relatives. But what does government do to back them? We applaud those cultures where caring as part of the extended family comes naturally, but we don’t – through policy – create an environment which fosters it.

The Labour Party should support tax relief or direct grants to people who need to build developments, annexes and extensions to their homes to look after elderly relatives. In doing so we would be supporting a more caring culture. We would appeal to the aspirational human instinct too, by allowing people to benefit from the uplift of the value of their enhanced home.

Making it more financially viable for people to build granny annexes is not going to be the cure to our care crisis. But in all of its new policies Labour needs to be clear about the kind of society it wishes to create, it must demonstrate that we’re on the side of people who save the state money, and to be credible at all it must make the case for policies that can reduce the size of our debt.

To do all of this whilst our society grows older will require a new approach, and a new attitude to how we support the families of elderly relatives.

Parmjit Dhanda

Board Member of Hanover Housing Association – a provider for older people

Former MP and Minister

Worrying Times for a City that Labour Improved

Gloucester, the constituency I represented for nearly nine years in Parliament, is on the verge of an unemployment crisis.

Readers of the local newspaper have often commented on the number of boarded up shops in the town centre as the lack of local demand has resulted in many high street retailers voting with their feet.

From last November to this November Gloucester’s claimant rate for Job Seeker’s Allowance has risen by nearly 20%. The Coalition’s harsh cuts are hitting Gloucester disproportionately because, like many areas of need, it received major investment in its public sector during the Labour years. Local schools, the police force and the hospital were crying out for investment after all.

Currently nearly 900 people under the age of 24 in Gloucester are looking for work, that’s a 38% rise in twelve months.

Instead of campaigning to boost the lack of local demand in to our struggling economy – which is now hurting retailers in the Quays almost as badly as those in the high street – coalition politicians have watched idly as the government saps demand further by proposing to put 710,000 public sector workers out of a job (compared to their initial estimate of 400,000). So retailers will be hit by the drying up of even more consumer demand.

What Gloucester desperately needs is a cut in tax, such as VAT to get people spending again and the reintroduction of the Future Jobs Fund to get young people back in to work. The Future Jobs Fund was helping over 130 young people in to work before it was cut by the government, only to be replaced by hollow words about apprenticeships.

Thus far there has been no local plan to get us out of this mess. When politicians stop listening to local people and start thinking about their own survival, you end up with knee-jerk decisions with bad repercussions. The Railway Triangle plan is one such example of this. The views of local people and the need to create high skilled jobs for the long-term have been ignored.

For young people in Gloucester the prospects of getting a good job are receding each month – the EMA has been scrapped and ordinary working families are left wondering whether £9,000 per year of debt to fund a university place is a price worth paying.

The government’s policies have resulted in an increase of national debt to the tune of £158 billion. YetGloucester is on the verge of spiralling in to economic decline. In Gloucester, the coalition’s harsh cuts are hurting, there’s no sign of them working.

Parmjit Dhanda