Greens condemn three pronged Coalition attack on the sick and disabled

The Green Party has reacted strongly to new developments affecting sick and disabled people which it says amount to a three pronged attack that will drive thousands into greater hardship and poverty:

1. Internal government documents seen by the BBC suggest that the government is considering cutting Employment and Support Allowance by almost £30 per week.

2. It has emerged that thousands of people with degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Multiple Sclerosis are having their benefits slashed because the Department for Work and Pensions believes that they will recover enough to work.

3 Another controversial American company Maximus is taking over the contract to assess the fitness of benefits claimants to work, the BBC understands, replacing French firm Atos, who quit the contract in March.

The Green Party’s Work and Pensions spokesperson Jonathan Bartley said: “The Government is turning the screw even more tightly on the sick and disabled. Cutting benefits for sick and disabled people, who have already been disproportionately targeted and are already more likely to be living in poverty, is completely unacceptable.  The Work Capability Assessment has proved a very expensive disaster in both financial and human terms. It must be abolished and replaced with a system that truly reflects the needs and aspirations of sick and disabled people. Those who cannot work must receive the support they need.

“It is unnecessary to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to private companies like Atos and Maximus, when sick and disabled people, and their own NHS doctors, can tell us what they need. Public services should be run for the common good, not private profit. Maximus has already been embroiled in controversy and should not be involved in crucial decisions as to what support will be offered to sick and disabled people in the UK.”

Government rejects £203m funding for food banks

The Labour MP Frank Field who is the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hunger and Food Poverty, has questioned the Government’s decision to reject at least £203 million of funding that could have been used to boost food aid provision in Britain. New figures obtained by Mr Field from the House of Commons Library show that Britain would have been entitled to at least €246 million from the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived between now and 2020, with more funding available if needed. Frank Field has written to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, asking him to reconsider the Government’s decision to reject this funding.

Commenting on the figures, Frank Field said: “People are going hungry yet the Government has turned down a small fortune in food aid funding. Despite recent improvements in the labour market, the cost of household essentials is continuing to rise, with household incomes for those at the bottom often failing to cover the costs of putting food on the table. An additional £200 million plus of funding could have enabled food banks and other food aid providers to work wonders with the most vulnerable people in society. The Government must reconsider its bizarre decision to reject this funding.”

Coalition publishes review into RBS and the case for a Bad Bank

The government is today publishing its review entitled, "RBS and the case for a bad bank: the Government's Review", which the Chancellor announced in June 2013. RBS has also published its latest set of results today, in which the bank sets out a new direction that will lead it to being a boost to the British economy instead of a burden.

RBS has announced that a bad bank will be created to separate and wind down RBS's poorly-performing and high-risk assets that are a legacy of what went wrong in its past, enabling RBS to look to the future. But instead of an 'external' bad bank that would require more taxpayers' support, this will be an 'internal' bad bank funded by RBS itself. RBS has announced a renewed focus on its core British business, supporting British families and companies, withan ambitious goal to become the best small business bank in Britain from which, in time, the British taxpayer can start getting its money back.

As a result of the measures announced today, the Bank of England has confirmed that the taxpayers' contingent exposure to the banking system has been reduced by a further £8bn with the removal of the Contingent Capital Facility one year early. When the Dividend Access Share (DAS) is retired - on which the Treasury and RBS are now in advanced negotiations with the European Commission - this should also make RBS shares more attractive to external investors and bring forward the day when taxpayers can get their money back.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said: "Today RBS sets out a new direction - a new direction that will lead it to being a boost tothe British economy instead of a burden. This is part of our economic plan for sustaining the economic recovery and creating a banking system that works for Britain. Under this new direction RBS will deal decisively with the problems of the past by separating out the good from the bad, and putting the bad loans in a bad bank. Our independent analysis shows that the bad bank should be an internal one, funded by RBS, rather than an external one funded by the taxpayer.

"RBS will focus on its core British business, supporting British families and companies. It will sell off more of its overseas operations and go on shrinking its investment bank, so it has more capital to support lending to the British economy. RBS is also committing today to the ambitious goal of becoming the best small business bank in Britain. The new direction for RBS is supported wholeheartedly by the management and Board of RBS, the Bank of England, the Government and UK Financial Investments (UKFI). The authorities look forward to supporting Ross McEwan and his team in implementing this plan. It means less exposure for the British taxpayer and more help for the British economy. That is why it's good for Britain."

Secretary of State for Business, Vince Cable, said: "I welcome the announcement today that RBS will be creating a new internal bad bank & selling its US bank. This will enable it to focus on business lending in the UK. It is clear that for many years RBS has handicapped our recovery by failing to provide the credit that businesses need. As Sir Andrew Large demonstrates, its SME lending practices are badly designed for supporting small businesses. After these changes good British companies, especially SMEs, should expect a more positive approach."

The publication of RBS's plan and announcement of an internal bad bank today follows the conclusion of the government review, announced by the Chancellor in June, into the case for a so-called bad bank to hold and manage RBS's legacy assets. This review was conducted by the Treasury with expert help from Blackrock Solutions and Rothschild, whose key advice includes:

• [BlackRock Solutions] "RBS has demonstrated a strong track record for effectively managing down its non-core assets. We believe that that these skills combined with RBS plan for setting up an internal bad bank offers the most efficient route to resolve the identified assets."
• [Rothschild] "the new strategy announced by RBS should over time address many of the bank's challenges and areas of investor concern, which in the longer term should be reflected in an improved valuation and improve the prospects for an earlier return of RBS ownership to the private sector."

The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, responding to announcements about the future of RBS, said: "After the firesales of Royal Mail and Northern Rock, we will scrutinise George Osborne's plans for the future of RBS very carefully. As we argued when, earlier this year, the Chancellor flirted with the idea of a quick sale of RBS to a political timetable, the taxpayer interest must come first. The tests for these changes at RBS are whether they see the taxpayer ultimately get its money back and whether they actually boost business lending and radically transform this bank to put an end to business as usual."

Continuing Mr Balls said: "On the banking system more widely, business and the public are right to be concerned that lending to business is still falling while the radical reforms we need are being watered down. For example, he is still refusing to implement the Parliamentary Commission's call for a backstop power that would allow for full separation of all the banks, not just one or two, if ring-fencing proves ineffective and does not deliver the cultural change we need."

Forces to benefit from a £200m "Forces Help to Buy Scheme"

Under a proposal put forward by the Coalition Government the Armed Forces are to benefit from a new £200 million scheme to help them get on the property ladder, the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has announced.

The new "Forces Help to Buy scheme" will mean Service men and women can borrow up to 50 per cent of their salary, interest-free, to buy their first home. The measures will allow service personnel to borrow up to a maximum amount of £25,000, providing a boost to those needing to find a deposit to buy their own home. The scheme will be starting on 1 April 2014, the scheme will initially cover a three year period and help address the low rate of home ownership in the Armed Forces.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: "Service personnel can struggle to enter the housing market as they move around throughout their military career. By giving our troops this extra help they will be more able to set down roots and get onto the property ladder. The introduction of this new scheme will help increase home ownership, and provide our Armed Forces with sustainable lifestyle choices. It further demonstrates the Government's commitment to strengthen the Armed Forces Covenant, ensuring that personnel and their families are not disadvantaged by their service."

Coalition changes to tax credits system could see "families £3000 worse off by 2015" say the TUC

Families will be over £3,000 a year worse off by 2015 as a result of tax credit cuts with many tax credit changes that could leave families thousands of pounds out of pocket taking effect from today. The TUC has updated its tax credit calculator to help parents find out how they will be affected by the government's recent changes. The tax credit calculator - available on the TUC Touchstone Blog - allows working parents currently in receipt of tax credits to add their household details, such as income level and number of children, and then estimate how they will be affected by the tax credit changes by the time of the next election. 

Many parents could be in for a shock when they realise how much they stand to lose by 2015/16, says the TUC. For example, a dual earner family with incomes of £25,000 and £15,000, two children (a baby and a toddler), paying £300 a week in childcare for 45 weeks of the year, could lose over £3,000 a year by 2015/16, according to the TUC tax credit calculator - a fall of over 30 per cent on their previous entitlement. The tax credit changes featured in the calculator include: 

• The abolition of the Baby Element of Tax Credits from 2011/12 and not introducing the Toddler Element from 2012/13. 
• The reduction in 2011/12 of the amount of eligible childcare costs that tax credits will pay for by 10%. 
• The increase in 2011/12 in the hours eligibility for couples claiming Working Tax Credit to 24 hours. 
• Up-rating Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit (excluding the disability elements) by 1 per cent from 2013/14 to 2015/16. 
• Up-rating the Basic and 30-hour elements of tax credits by 1 per cent in 2014/15 and 2015/16. 

The tax credit changes come on top of changes to the way in which many other family benefits will be up-rated, which will significantly reduce their generosity over time. The combination of tax credit cuts, the rise in VAT, the real-terms cut to other family benefits and deep spending cuts will result in working families being hit hard, warns the TUC. While many working families will see a small benefit from the increased personal allowance the government has introduced this will be more than offset by VAT increases alone. When tax credit cuts are also included working families are set to see substantial losses, says the TUC. 

TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: "The government should be prioritising support for working families but seems more interested in coming up with new ways to squeeze their living standards. This calculator highlights the huge amounts some households will lose in tax credits by 2015/16, with some families over £3,000 worse off. This is far more than they will gain from the increased personal allowance, and that's before wider cuts and VAT rises have even been taken into account. Cutting tax credits is not the way to get our economy moving again but is part of a wider assault by ministers on vital family benefits. Making families poorer is no way to start an economic recovery."

Coalition amendment to Labour's mansion tax motion

The Coalition government have tabled an amendment to the Labour motion on the mansion tax and a fairer tax system which is to be debated in the House of Commons this afternoon. The Labour motion calls for a mansion tax on houses worth more than two million pounds to help bring about a fairer tax system. The Coalition say that they are bringing in a fairer tax system by lifting two million people out of income tax with the Liberal Democrat policy of raising the tax threshold to ten thousand pounds. They also claim that the highest paid are paying more under the coalition in income tax than in any of the thirteen years of Labour government. The amendment does note that the Liberal Democrats do advocate a mansion tax but the Coalition government does not. The debate will commence at 12:40 and the votes will be at 16:00.

The Labour motion:

"That this House believes that a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes, should be part of a fair tax system; and calls on the Government to bring forward proposals for such a tax at the earliest opportunity."

The Coalition admendment:

"leave out from ‘House’ to end and add ‘notes that this Coalition Government has cut income tax for 25 million people, taking over 2.2 million low income individuals out of income tax altogether, while at the same time increasing taxes on the wealthy, including raising stamp duty on expensive properties and restricting tax reliefs; further notes that both parts of the Coalition continue to support tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes; notes that the part of the Coalition led by the Deputy Prime Minister also advocates a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million, as set out in his party’s manifesto, and the part of the Coalition led by the Prime Minister does not advocate a mansion tax; and further notes that the top rate of income tax will be higher under this Government than under any year of the previous administration and that the rich are now paying a higher percentage of income tax than at any time under the previous administration, demonstrating that it presided over an unfair tax system where the rich paid less and the poor paid more in tax than now, meaning nobody will trust the Opposition’s promises on tax fairness."

CPAG Report slams Government's welfare plans

A report from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has condemned the Government’s benefit up rating plans as ‘based on bogus claims and is a poverty-producing bill that will further exclude the poorest workers, jobseekers, carers and disabled people’. The Coalition Government say that disabled people and carers that their benefits will remain unchanged by the bill and will still rise by inflation. They also confirm that pensions will also be protected by the "triple lock" that they put in. 

The Coalition Government is in the process of legislating to break the link between benefits and inflation, for all other benefits by capping any increase to benefits payments of 1% per annum, which is below the rate of inflation for the next three years. This is expected to have the cumulative effect of introducing a 4% real-terms cut to working-age benefits payments received by workers and jobseekers. 

Commenting on the report the SNP's Work and Pensions spokesperson Eilidh Whiteford MP (Banff and Buchan) said: “This report makes damning reading for the Westminster Government who are set to throw their commitments to tackle child poverty out the window by hammering some of the poorest people in society.

“It shows that their arguments are fundamentally flawed and are set to do untold damage to thousands and thousands of people across Scotland.“The Coalition’s welfare plans will inevitably only increase poverty and increase inequality in society, which is why they have been condemned in such stark and unequivocal terms.

“It could scarcely be clearer that the Westminster Government has its priorities all wrong and are failing to act in the interests of people in Scotland.“Decisions over taxes and welfare in Scotland should be made by people in Scotland so that we can build the kind of country that Westminster has consistently failed to deliver. Only a Yes vote for an independent Scotland in next year’s referendum will give us that opportunity.”

The Department of Work and Pensions says that "The Benefit Cap will see the amount people can receive in benefits capped at the average earned income after tax and National Insurance for working households of £500 a week for couple and single parent households – the equivalent of £26,000 per year. It will apply to the combined income from JSA, Income Support, Employment and Support Allowance, Child Benefit, Child Tax Credits and other benefits.

Certain households including those with someone in receipt of Disability Living Allowance or the Support Component of ESA and war widows and widowers will be exempt. To increase the incentive for people on out-of-work benefits to find work, households with a member who is entitled to Working Tax Credit will also be exempt from the benefit cap. The Department for Work and Pension’s has allocated £100 million in Discretionary Housing Payments to help support vulnerable people affected by this change."

Greens: The Coalition has been "two years of shambolic policymaking"

The Green Party has criticised the government’s mid-term review for failing to acknowledge the coalition’s mistakes after two years of shambolic policymaking - or to offer a coherent vision for a better future. Caroline Lucas MP (Green: Brighton Pavilion) said: “The unsightly spectacle of Cameron and Clegg renewing their political vows for the cameras today can't mask the reality that this is a government dangerously bereft of ideas."

Continuing: “With its reckless austerity programme having failed miserably to get the economy moving or reduce the deficit, and the harsh consequences of unfair and incoherent cuts to welfare and services being felt in communities across the UK, the only grade possible for this mid-term report is 'fail'. “Serious measures to address climate change and the environmental crisis remain conspicuous by their absence. The government is ignoring the huge opportunities for job creation and economic security that a nationwide investment in new green infrastructure would create."

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said: “With many pensioners living in poverty, what we need to do is institute a ‘citizen’s pension’ of £164 for single pensioners and £289 for couples, which would immediately lift all pensioners above the government’s poverty line. “We have sufficient resources, if multinational companies and rich individuals pay their fair share of tax, to ensure all of our older residents have a decent quality of life. We owe it to the people who’ve contributed throughout their lives through paid and unpaid work.” 

On the childcare funding proposal, Ms Bennett said: “The cost of childcare is a huge problem for parents, with the cost burden weighing far more heavily in Britain than it does across the rest of Europe. “An acknowledgement of the problem this presents is welcome; we’re going to have to wait to understand the detail of how this system will work to see if it will fairly help parents without undue paperwork and complications. However, there’s cause for concern in proposals to reduce the quality of childcare by reducing caring ratios and loosening quality regulations – children need good quality care for their health and development, and parents need to be confident that their children are being well looked after.”

Coalition review is "a programme for no change"

The Labour party have released a document in response to the coalition government's half way review, the document entitled "A programme for no change" is available to read here

Labour leader, Ed Miliband said: “The problem is that if you’re a person looking for work, if you’re a family whose living standards are being squeezed, if you’re a small business that is looking for a loan, today’s relaunch changes nothing. “What people need in tough times is a government on their side, fighting their corner, not a government that promised change but has actually made things worse not better. That’s the problem with today’s relaunch.”

Coalition launch their half time review

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, have published their midterm review of the Coalition government. A review which also outlines the plans for the coalition for the next two and a half years. The document is available to read here 

Nick Clegg: "We're not centre ground tourists. The centre ground is our home"

The Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has used a speech this morning to the Centre Forum to claim the centre ground for the Lib Dems. Saying: "What I want to set out is a case for why Britain should be governed from the centre ground. A case for both a stronger economy and a fairer society, because we can have both – they are not mutually exclusive." 

Continuing Mr Clegg said: "Serious parties know that that the centre ground is the only place from which Britain can be governed. And serious leaders try to keep their parties in the centre ground." Also saying that "we’re not centre ground tourists. The centre ground is our home." 

The Deputy Prime Minister also defended the Lib Dem's role in the Coalition government: It’s worth pausing here for a moment and making a point about the immediate future of my party. There are two alternatives. If we are to become a more permanent fixture of government, then it will be, at least at first, as a partner in coalitions. That means embracing the realities of coalition government, and becoming better and better at negotiating successfully on behalf of those in Britain who expect us to stand up for them."

Continuing: "It means accepting compromise. It means putting up with people who object that we haven’t got everything they wanted, and who can’t see the value in getting much, much more than we ever could in opposition. Because that is the alternative – a retreat to the comfort and relative irrelevance of opposition.  But – and let me make this very clear – choosing opposition over government is not a values-free choice."

Mr Clegg also explained why he thinks the Liberal Democrats can only be a true centre ground party: "The Tory right dreams of a fantasy world...

• where we can walk away from the EU, but magically keep our economy strong...
• where we can pretend the world hasn’t moved on, and stand opposed to equal marriage...
• where we can refuse to accept the verdict of the British people and pretend the Conservatives won a majority of their own.

The Labour left lives in a different, but no less destructive, fantasy world...

• where their irresponsible borrowing in government can be remedied by borrowing more...
• where every budget reduction can be opposed without explaining where the money should come from...
• where games can be played with political reform and EU budget policy without long-term damage to their credibility."

"While the tribalists in other parties desert the centre ground under pressure, the Liberal Democrats have done the reverse. 

Under pressure, we’ve moved towards the centre. Governing from the centre ground means applying pragmatic liberalism to the policy challenges of our time. But pragmatic liberalism is not the same as dogmatic liberalism. And that is what distinguishes Liberal Democrats in opposition from Liberal Democrats in government."

Labour’s Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, commenting on Nick Clegg’s speech today, said: "Nick Clegg will try every trick in the book to distance himself from the record of his government. But as ever, with the Lib Dems, they say one thing whilst doing another - resulting in a record of economic failure, trebled tuition fees, nurses cut, police axed and millions paying more while millionaires get a tax cut. "Bearing this in mind, what we really should be hearing from Nick Clegg today is a proper apology and a declaration that from now on he will actually stick by the promises he makes."

A Lib Dem source told me that: "Harriet Harman is simply wrong. Millions aren't paying more they're paying less. Starting next April, 21 million people will pay up to £600 less in income tax a year. Thanks to this change, people earning the minimum wage will have seen their income tax bill halved since 2010. Also we're taking 2 million of the lowest paid people have been taken out income tax all together, changes that Harriet Harman and her colleagues voted against".

Coalition given a drubbing in three safe Labour seats

In a night where the Labour party held onto three safe seats the main story of the evening was that the United Kingdom Independence Party has polled more votes than the Conservatives in two elections for parliamentary seats, in the latest sign that Prime Minister David Cameron's party faces a threat from the right.

The UK Independence Party, or UKIP, is enjoying a surge in popularity as some right-leaning voters become disillusioned with the governing Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition against a backdrop of persistent economic problems. Results showed on Friday that, as expected, the Labour Party had comfortably won the three seats, Croydon North, Middlesbrough and Rotherham, that were up for grabs in by-elections on Thursday.

But the more striking result was that UKIP came second in both Rotherham and Middlesbrough, while the two coalition parties suffered a drubbing. "Our previous best-ever by-election result, a fortnight ago, was 14.3 percent and this one is comfortably over 20 percent," UKIP leader Nigel Farage told the BBC in Rotherham in the early hours, after the results were announced. "Whichever way you look at it, UKIP is on the rise." The BNP candidate Marlene Guest went on the record to say "UKIP are like us, they just lie about it"

The Conservatives came fifth in Rotherham, after Labour, UKIP, the far-right BNP and the far-left Respect. The LibDems came an embarrassing eighth, behind a local clergyman running as an independent candidate. UKIP had enjoyed a boost in support during the Rotherham by-election campaign after the Labour-run local council caused an uproar by removing children from a UKIP-supporting foster family. The council said it took the step because the children were from an EU migrant background while UKIP had long taken a very hostile position towards the European Union, but politicians from across the spectrum condemned the council's decision.

In Middlesbrough in northeast of England, UKIP came second, the LibDems third and the Conservatives fourth. In Croydon North, a London seat, the Conservatives came second, UKIP third and the LibDems fourth. Britain's "first-past-the-post" electoral system makes it hard for fringe parties to win parliamentary seats as they have to beat all other parties in an individual constituency.

UKIP has no presence in parliament. But many Conservatives are worried that in the next general election in 2015, UKIP could split the right-leaning vote, making it harder for Cameron's party to win seats that are tightly contested with Labour or the LibDems. They fear UKIP may scupper Conservative chances of winning an outright majority and forming a government alone.

Results in full:

Rotherham:

Champion, Sarah - Labour: 9,866 (46.25%)

Collins, Jane - UKIP: 4,648 (21.79%)

Guest, Marlene - BNP: 1,804 (8.46%)

Ridley, Yvonne - Respect: 1,778 (8.34%)

Wilson, Simon - Conservative: 1,157 (5.42%)

Wildgoose, David - English Democrat: 703 (3.30%)

Copley, Simon - Independent: 582 (2.73%)

Beckett, Michael - Liberal Democrat: 451 (2.11%)

Dyson, Ralph - Trade Unionist & Socialist: 261 (1.22%)

Dickson, Paul - Independent: 51 (0.24%)

Bristow, Clint - Independent: 29 (0.14%)

Labour Hold - Majority 5,218

Middlesbrough:

McDonald, Andrew - Labour: 10,201 (60.5%)

Elvin, Richard - UKIP: 1,990 (11.8%)

Selmar, George - Liberal Democrat: 1,672 (9.9%)

Houchen, Ben - Conservative: 1,063 (6.3%)

Hussain, Imdad - Peace: 1.060 (6.3%)

Foreman, Peter - BNP: 328 (1.9%)

Malcolm, John - Trade Unionist & Socialist: 277 (1.6%)

Heslehurst, Mark - Independent: 275 (1.6%)

Labour Hold - Majority 8,211

Croydon North:

Reed, Steven - Labour: 15,892 (64.7%)

Stranack, Andrew - Conservative: 4,137 (16.8%)

McKenzie, Winston - UKIP: 1,400 (5.7%)

Ray, Marisha - Liberal Democrat: 860 (3.5%)

Khan, Shasha - Green: 855 (3.5%)

Jasper, Lee - Respect: 707 (2.9%)

Hammond, Stephen - Christian Peoples: 192 (0.8%)

Edmonds, Richard - National Front: 161 (0.7%)

Stevenson, Ben - Communist: 119 (0.5%)

Cartwright, John - Monster Raving Loony Party 110 (0.4%)

Lane, Simon - 9/11 was an inside job: 66 (0.3%)

Smith, Robin - Young People's party: 63 (0.3%)

Labour Hold - Majority 11,755

Greens & Labour criticise the reshuffle as Cameron denies making sacked Ministers cry

The New Leader of the Green party Natalie Bennett responded to the Coalition government's reshuffle by saying: "There's much excitement in the media now about the reshuffle, but the fact is that nothing significant is changing. George Osborne, the man who is clinging to the utterly discredited 'Plan A' of ideologically driven spending cuts, which are damaging the British economy and causing suffering and disruption in communities across the UK, is still in place. (That's despite the fact that even the IMF is saying this is the wrong direction.)

"There's no sign of a government U-turn towards the investment that we urgently need to create jobs and provide the homes, public transport and sustainable energy infrastructure necessary to meet community needs and build a Britain fit for the low-carbon future.

"And with Iain Duncan Smith remaining as Work and Pensions Secretary, there's no sign of any response to the strong, angry protests against the inhumanity of the benefit cuts, which threaten to make huge numbers homeless, drive families far from the support of friends, relatives and familiar schools, and which are causing great fear and distress among people with disabilities."

Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, Michael Dugher responding to the Government’s reshuffle, said: "This is the no-change reshuffle. No move for a failing Chancellor in charge of a failing economic plan that has delivered a double-dip recession, who gave a tax cut for millionaires and who refuses to tax bank bonuses. And there are no moves across almost all of the most senior cabinet jobs.

"On Sunday David Cameron promised to 'cut through the dither', but today he was too weak to move Iain Duncan Smith from the Department of Work and Pensions and was forced to back down. Jeremy Hunt, the man who broke the ministerial code and failed to stand up to News Corporation, is now in charge of the NHS, our most cherished national institution. This won't change David Cameron's policy of continuing with a massive top-down NHS reorganisation. "This reshuffle isn't a fresh start - it's more of the same from an out of touch and failing Government that stands up for the wrong people."

This morning however David Cameron has denied reducing ministers to tears as he took the reshuffle hatchet to his Government. The Prime Minister also revealed that he juggled the complicated business of reshaping the coalition with trying to write a poem about a "furry bear" for one of his children The comments came amid reports that three Tories - including former Cabinet members Caroline Spelman and Cheryl Gillan - wept when told they no longer had frontbench jobs. Asked whether he had made anyone cry, Mr Cameron replied: "That is not true, actually."

Mr Cameron told ITV's Daybreak programme that conducting the shake-up earlier this week was "difficult", and some of the ousted ministers had done "absolutely nothing wrong". "It obviously is incredibly difficult because there are ministers who had worked incredibly hard, who had done absolutely nothing wrong in their jobs, who were very dedicated. But when you have got a huge team of 300 MPs, huge challenges, it is important to bring new people on and bring new people in."

Mr Cameron said his household had been "chaotic" as elder children Nancy and Elwen returned to school after the summer holiday. "It was pretty chaotic because it had been lovely having the children with us on holiday, and then suddenly they go back," he said. "The homework is coming thick and fast. I was trying to do a poem on a furry bear while also contemplating all the other things that were going on. It has been quite complicated. But I hope it hasn't got in the way of the conduct of government."

Mr Cameron also rejected criticism that he had not promoted enough women to the top ranks in his reshuffle. "There are as many today as there were before the reshuffle," he said. "Two very talented women left the Cabinet, and two very talented women joined the Cabinet," he said. "But what you see - obviously I inherited a party with only 19 women MPs - there are now around 50. So, big change has taken place. Some very talented women in the junior ministerial ranks - I hope you'll have some of them on the sofa. People like Helen Grant, Anna Soubry - stars of the future. They are joining the Government and I hope they'll be working their way up and through it, and you'll see many more women at the top of Conservative politics in the future."

Labour - all the consistency of lumpy custard

Having been an advocate of Lords reform I am extremely disappointed that the Lords reform bill has been stalled and basically kicked into the long grass by the Labour party. The Labour party’s actions on this matter have been partisan game playing and nothing more. The majority of the proposals in the bill were put forward by the last Labour government, a government that included Ed Miliband and Sadiq Khan.

They said it was because they can’t support the programme motion the government had laid before parliament. Only problem with that lousy excuse they announced they would vote against the programme motion before the government even published it!

It was simply opposing for the sake of opposing. We know this because Peter Hain told the Guardian "I am very comfortable with voting against the programme motion”. Not because he disagrees with programme motions, he was a member a government that used them all the time. It was simply to clog up parliament and stop the government passing what he sees as “rightwing bills”. Which is an appallingly partisan way to behave.

The government's rebels voted against the bill and against making its passage easier. The Labour party, except twenty four rebels, voted for the bill because they support it. But then they would of voted against the to motion to get it through. So will the ends but not the means - so a position that is as about as consistent as a lumpy custard then

Labour party of Ed Miliband can no longer describe themselves as on the progressive wing of British politics they are not. They are merely a bunch of shameful partisan politicians put their party and not the country first. They're grubby tactics over the last week have shown that not only are they not fit for government - they're not even fit to be an opposition!

The Tory rebels will reap what they sow

On the BBC Newsnight programme last night Nadine Dorries (Con Bedfordshire Mid) claimed that "House of Lords reform is not in the Coalition Agreement. So Conservatives don't need to support it. Unsurprisingly as it was Nadine "70% fiction" Dorries this simply is not true Part 6 of the agreement does propose reform of the House of Lords, with a wholly or mainly elected chamber on the basis of proportional representation with single long terms. The text in full:

"We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election."

The text shows that Tory rebels saying, like Louise Mensch is, it should be a first past the post system and shouldn't be elected on proportional representation (PR) either haven't read the document they agreed too in May 2010 or are openly proving they can not be trusted to keep their word. The other main moan from rebels yesterday was over single 15 year periods. The coalition agreement did say "single long terms" so once again the rebels are showing either they didn't read the agreement they signed up to or once again they can't be trusted to keep their word.

The Labour party's position is actually quite ridiculous. They support House of Lords reform but not the programme motion to ensure it passes. When asked on numerous occasions yesterday how many days the Labour party thought it required Shadow Constitutional Affairs Minister Sadiq Khan (Lab Tooting) refused to say. Graham Allen (Lab Nottingham North) who is the chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee intervened on Sadiq Khan asking him "if he realises that Labour seems insincere in its support for reform" Mr Khan struggled in reply simply spluttering out "I thank my Hon Friend for his helpful comment".

The future of the coalition government could be called into question if the programme motion goes down - now this is what the Labour party want hence why they wont co-operate with the government over the programme motion. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives agreed to Lords reform in 2010. The Coalition government have put the Bill forward. It isn't perfect but Conservative MPs voting to wreck it will be a breaking of the Coalition Agreement.

In this event the Liberal Democrats would be well within their rights to either refuse to co-operate on anything they don't like or simply leaving the government. In that they'd be letting the Tories struggle on for a couple of months as a minority government before a motion of no-confidence in the government is put forward and a general election is required. Rebels like Mrs Mensch may well reap what they sow as her majority is only around 2000 and would be a main target for  the Labour party.

Open letter from Tory rebels on Lords reform

A groups of rebel Conservative MPs have signed a open letter opposing House of Lords reform and calling for "full and unrestricted scrutiny" of the bill. The letter, signed by 70 Conservative MPs, comes ahead of a two-day debate on the government's plans. Many backbenchers are unhappy at the coalition government's plan to create a smaller, but mostly elected second chamber in Parliament. 

But the coalition says it is confident Lords reform which is championed by the Liberal Democrats, "will go ahead". The open letter to other Conservative MPs expresses "serious concerns" over the bill which it says will "pile a constitutional crisis on top of the economic crisis". Signatories to the letter include a number of MPs elected in 2010, Cabinet Minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind and select committee chairs Bernard Jenkin and John Whittingdale.

When MPs vote on a timetable for the bill on Tuesday, Labour will oppose it, arguing the debate needs more time. However if the programme motion fails the Labour party have said they'll vote for closure motions for filibustering and wrecking tactics during the passage of the bill. Conservative MPs will subject to a three line whip for the vote on the programme motion and ministerial aides will be sacked if they vote against the government. The government is proposing almost halving the number of peers to 450 and making the House of Lords 80% elected.

Among those to urge MPs to back change are ex-Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain and ex-Conservative cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell. However, many Conservatives oppose the plan, arguing it is flawed and will result in increased conflict between the changed Lords and the Commons. Labour and the Liberal Democrats promised to reform the Lords in their 2010 general election manifestos, while the Conservatives pledged to "work to build a consensus" on reform.

Conservative backbench MP Penny Mordaunt (Con Portsmouth North) described the bill as a "dog's breakfast" Peter Hain (Lab Neath) said it was "now or maybe never for Lords reform". Stephen Dorrell (Con Charnwood) said: "The instinctive response which says that Conservatives are against House of Lords Reform, and that current interest in the subject is the result of the coalition, is - in my view - wrong."

If the government is defeated, on the programme motion, the House of Lords Reform Bill's path through Parliament would start to crumble and it might be fatally wounded. On the Andrew Marr show, the Business Secretary Vince Cable urged Conservative MPs to "get on with it" and back the bill. But, on  the same programme, the senior Tory backbencher David Davis said there was little agreement on what form change should take and predicted it would not happen in time for Lords elections to take place in 2015, as is planned.


*letter courtesy of the Guido Fawkes blog.

Parliament was the real loser today

The Palace of Westminster

The Coalition government defeated the Labour motion on holding a judge-led inquiry in to banking by a majority of eighty one votes Aye 239 Noe 320. It also, unsurprisingly, won its own motion by one hundred and four votes Aye 330 Noe 226 ten MPs from the minor parties switched to back the government after losing their own motion three simply abstained.

The result isn't much of a surprise but the fractious, partisan, bickering nature of the debate will of done more harm than good. The sight of the Chancellor and the Shadow Chancellor shouting and balling at each other across the despatch box was a spectacle the House could of done without.

The slanging match between the front benches, who were backed by their backbenchers shouting across the chamber at the other side looked simply awful. The parties have to work together over this issue and there is no respect or trust between Ed Balls and George Osborne as we all saw so clearly today.

As the second vote was going on Ed Balls was speaking to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee Andrew Tyrie and when George Osborne came over to join the conversation Ed Balls walked away, without speaking to him. The Treasury have confirmed that George Osborne has withdrawn the comments he made to the Spectator.

The reputation of Parliament hasn't really recovered, in the eyes of the public, from the expenses scandal in 2009 and what we witnessed today has done nothing for the dignity parliament. Admittedly unlike in some countries they didn't resort to hitting each other. As Nick Robinson said on the BBC it resembled a playground it just missed the shouts of "fight, fight, fight".

One reputation was enhanced. The Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans did manage to keep control, just, but he is clearly far more respected than John Bercow is by MPs on all sides. When he said order - just once, they came to order. Bercow has been known to stand there shouting order and MPs taking no notice at all! When the vacancy comes up it is clear they have an excellent replacement already to takeover.

Senior Liberal Slams Government

National Executive Secretary, of the Liberal Party, Sir Henry Boyle was the guest speaker at the recent Tiverton & Honiton Liberal Party Lunch. The event, organised by Silverton Councillor Jenny Roach (Lib), heard Sir Henry in a keynote speech launch a swingeing attack on the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government for failing to take any action to halt the steep slide of the national economy.

Sir Henry started by saying: "With the worst unemployment figures for 17 years, this appalling, blinkered government is doing nothing at all to stimulate growth. Instead of allowing the Bank of England to print another £75 billion to give to the discredited commercial banks, we should take fully in to public ownership RBS and Lloyds TSB, channel the £75 billion through them, and force them to use the money to support small and medium sized enterprises, thereby kick-starting the economy, creating jobs and bringing back some real hope to peoples’ lives."

"Some of this money could be used to reinstate the enormously valuable SureStart scheme and to create a national child crèche scheme. By getting the private sector to deliver the crèche scheme, we could create many more jobs whilst providing valuable opportunities for parents with small children – especially women – to return to the labour market. It’s imperative to take action to help young people find work. The Chancellor – a very rich man with no conception of living on a limited income – should offer any organisation that creates a new first job for any 18 – 25 year-old a 100% salary subsidy for two years. And if we encouraged a ‘buddy’ scheme for these young people to work alongside colleagues nearing retirement age, we could ensure that the skills and knowledge acquired over many years could start to be passed-on to a new generation."

Sir Henry Concluded his speech by making a plea to Lib Dem members "I'm calling on disillusioned Liberal Democrats, compassionate Conservatives and liberal-leaning Labour supporters to come and join the Liberal Party. Together, we can work to provide desperately needed radical, Liberal alternatives to the Government’s noxious policies, which are seeing the country die a wholly unnecessary economic death-of-a-thousand-cuts."