Jonathan Mitchell - candidate for MP in East Dulwich

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

You've stated that Housining Benefit change "that will barely make a dent in the HB bill" yet you've suggested it will affect 2 million people. Does not compute.

The country faces a massive budget deficit, one of the largest in Europe - ?1 in every ?4 that the Government spends has to be borrowed. Without action we would be rapidly approaching debt levels you'd expect from being in a full scale world war.

That meant some incredibly tough decisions in the Budget. But if our Lib Dem MPs lacked the courage to deal with the crisis in public finances, we'd be letting people down. Not just the people who voted Liberal Democrat, but the whole country.

The Budget also illustrates the opportunity we have. It includes important Liberal Democrat polices that wouldn't be there if it weren't for us.

The Budget raises the tax-free allowance on income tax by ?1000, ending income tax altogether for 880,000 low earners - an important first step towards our election pledge of ?10,000 tax-free allowance. It raises Capital Gains Tax from 18% to 28% for higher rate taxpayers so that the wealthier pay their share. There is now a 'triple-lock' to protect pensioners. In future, state pensions will rise by the rate of increase in earning, or by inflation, or by 2.5% - whichever is higher.

There will also be a levy on the banks, to ensure that they contribute to restoring the nation's finances.

These are all Liberal Democrat policies put into action now - in the budget legislation. They just wouldn't have happened if the Conservatives were governing alone.

Labour spin-doctors are taking every opportunity to attack us. But they won't have any credibility until they start talking about how they would deal with the problems they've left for Britain and why they let Britain get into this pickle despite Lib Dem warnings years in advance. Speaking to local Lib Dems and supporters they aren't falling for Labour's spin. They remember when Vince Cable was laughed at by Labour for warning the bubble must burst and Labour went on a massive spending spree. We all remember Gordon Brown stating he'd ended boom and bust.

We are going to deliver on political reform, civil liberties, and the environment. We will continue to be a strong voice for a fairer Britain, throughout the life of this government. We will continue to be a thriving organisation that keeps campaigning, develops new ideas and policies and promotes Liberal Democrat values further.

[DJKillaQueen]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The country faces a massive budget deficit, one of

> the largest in Europe - ?1 in every ?4 that the

> Government spends has to be borrowed. Without

> action we would be rapidly approaching debt levels

> you'd expect from being in a full scale world war.

And are the low waged and unemployed to blame for that? No...so why are the most vulnrable being verbally attacked so viciously by the government and pushed into further poverty to pay for it? And unlike a full scale war we still have an infrastructure to recover with so it's a poor comparison.

>

> That meant some incredibly tough decisions in the

> Budget. But if our Lib Dem MPs lacked the courage

> to deal with the crisis in public finances, we'd

> be letting people down. Not just the people who

> voted Liberal Democrat, but the whole country.

>

You could have done that as an independent party and forced cross parliamently consensus on all matters, which is after all what the electorate voted for. Your voters did not vote for you to side with the with the conservatives...esp seeing as you came THIRD. You've effectively shut out the party that more people voted for than yourselves. You havent earned the right to govern in any form.

> The Budget also illustrates the opportunity we

> have. It includes important Liberal Democrat

> polices that wouldn't be there if it weren't for

> us.

>

Yes but a majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote for Liberal Democrat policies and you can't argue with that (and to justify that with the economic crisis is like saying the electorate don't matter). Granted the raising of the tax threashold for the poorest is down to you guys but where where you when it came to raising VAT?

> The Budget raises the tax-free allowance on income

> tax by ?1000, ending income tax altogether for

> 880,000 low earners - an important first step

> towards our election pledge of ?10,000 tax-free

> allowance. It raises Capital Gains Tax from 18% to

> 28% for higher rate taxpayers so that the

> wealthier pay their share. There is now a

> 'triple-lock' to protect pensioners. In future,

> state pensions will rise by the rate of increase

> in earning, or by inflation, or by 2.5% -

> whichever is higher.

>

> There will also be a levy on the banks, to ensure

> that they contribute to restoring the nation's

> finances.

But what are you going to do about the ridiculous gap between wages and property? What are you going to do to reverse the situation where 33% of the workforce need some form of top up benefit? Tax payers should not have to be paying rent (and therefore landlords mortgages) for so many working people. It's a scandal and tha major reason why the HB bill is so high.

>

> These are all Liberal Democrat policies put into

> action now - in the budget legislation. They just

> wouldn't have happened if the Conservatives were

> governing alone.

>

And the conservatives wouldn't be governing at all if you had stayed seperate. They would have been forced into a far more libreral consensus (as a minority government) had all three parties had to work together.

> Labour spin-doctors are taking every opportunity

> to attack us.

And Cameron and Clegg have their own spin...that's politics - have you already forgotten your days in opposition? All parties are as bad as each other in that respect and you make the mistake of thinking the public can't see that.

But they won't have any credibility

> until they start talking about how they would deal

> with the problems they've left for Britain and why

> they let Britain get into this pickle despite Lib

> Dem warnings years in advance.

Well the crisis would have come what ever the government. Do you really think a Conservative government or yourselves would somehow have reined in the banks and housing market to prevent such a crisis?. Please don't insult our intelligence.

Labour did talk about how they would deal with the problems. They were going to hold off on cuts for a year and then would have made cuts but not necessrily in the same areas or way as the coalition. Who can say which route would have worked best. All I know is that when you cut so drastically and don't invest in jobs and people you shut down an economy. That is what a lot of people are afraid of (where was the sense in the decision on the grant to Sheffield forge for example?)

> We are going to deliver on political reform, civil

> liberties, and the environment.

Really? your electoral reform aspirations looked doomed to fail!

We will continue

> to be a strong voice for a fairer Britain,

> throughout the life of this government. We will

> continue to be a thriving organisation that keeps

> campaigning, develops new ideas and policies and

> promotes Liberal Democrat values further.

That I don't doubt and I know that most Lib Dem MPs do work very hard. I just think you are in deanial as to the level of influence you can have within the coalition (we can already see signs of that) and it is the view of many that that is going to cost you votes next time round.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

I can't pretend the colaition will fix everything during its 5 years and I suspect we'll never agree anyway. But the first budget, considering the overal pickle, is positive and moves the country broadly along Lib Dem values.

The UK enterred into recession much earlier than anyone else, much deeper than anyone else and is taking longer to come out. This must be structural with how the country has been run in the past.

[DJKillaQueen]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

is positive and moves the country

> broadly along Lib Dem values.

>

Which is another way of saying the party that came third is now governing the country...how very undemocratic. If you want to move the country along Lib Dem values, you have to win an election. ...not side with a party that is tradionally tough on the poor and lock out the party that came second. Was the pipe dream of political reform really worth the misery about to be heaped on the unemployed (both new and old) and poor?

> The UK enterred into recession much earlier than

> anyone else, much deeper than anyone else and is

> taking longer to come out. This must be structural

> with how the country has been run in the past.

Yes, from economic conditions initially created by the Conservatives in the 80's (through major deregulation) and continued by Labour following them. But I don't see anything in your policies or the new Conservative coalition that acknowledge any of that, less still are prepared to do anything meaningful about it.

The offered solutions simply are designed to keep the economy ticking over (while redicing the deficit) before retuning back to more of the same. That is neither sensible or radical. Then only policy we have had in relation to banks is a levy...where is the kind of regulation that will help to ensure we don't continue to have the boom and bust economy that we had for the last 30 years?...that's ONE recession for EVERY decade. We've learnt nothing.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

No one won the election. Two parties have come together who between them command a majority.

Together they're running the country.

If one party had won the election they would have majority of MP's but not a mojirity of the votes cast. Since the 50's when two party state ended the proportion voting for 3 or other parties has steeply risen.Even within the old big parties they have wings vying for influence. Occassionally these wings split ie SLP occassionally they go to ground for periods Tory Europhiles under Michael Howard.

Where you work do you alays get your way?

Suspect not. Suspect you compromise on some things. Feel aggrieved on others. Coalitions, part of everyday life.

[DJKillaQueen]

I have no issue with coalition, only coalitions formed by a party that lock out a party with more votes than them. The Conservatives could have ruled as minority government with Labour then having an equal say in matters along with yourselves. That is what the electorate voted for. What will now happen is that Lib Dem MPs will be forced to vote for policies they have no belief in (like the VAT rise) because your whip will demand they do so for the coalition.

Just because the rules allow for something else doesn't make it right or fair (as we saw with MPs expenses for example). To be honest I think Labour are rubbing their hands with glee. They'll be back in power next time round after the four miserable years the country is about to go through probably.

All of that aside though. There is no doubt that Lib Dem influence could save us from a complete disaster but you need to do far more to make sure that the Conservatives are held back from their most unfair policies.

There needs to be government investment in the umeployed and business to get job creation going. Telling people they should move is just not good enough. You know as well as I do that Conservatives have a total belief that the banks and the free market are all that are needed to take care of things (in spite of all the diasters to emanate from that model of the past 30 years). We can not go back to a world where the banks are so in control of our economy, unregulated.

The cancelling of the Sheffield Forge grant was a huge mistake imo. Investment will have far more benefit long term than the extra year or two it might add to reducing the deficit. I half get the sense that the Conservatives only desire is to clear the deficit so that at the next election they can say 'we returned the country to the red' like that will be a vote winner. It won't matter that unemployment will have risen and repossessions shot up, that the poor are poorer and that vulnerable people have been pushed over the edge. I believe the Conservatives are naively over optimistic about growth in the private sector, esp in the grip of recession.

The Conservatives also conveniently forget that the swell in piublic services under Labour is partly the result of their previous complete lack of investment in public services. Have we all forgotton what life was like under Thatcher, unless you were affluent of course? Conservatives under invest, Labour over invest but most people would say that over investment is preferable to the debacle of before.

A lot of vulnerable people are going to be hit by the coming welfare reform (along with newly unemployed) and so far we've seen no financial commitment to make sure jobs are created (only the opposite, cuts that will cost jobs, at least half a million of them). This is a real concern. Several bodies have warned for example that the tests used for reassessing ESA and Incap Recipients (intended to be trialed for 18 months before review - so again a myth that Labour were not addressing the issue) are extremely flawed and that 80% of appeals (which in themselves cost money) are successful.

Why the coalition sees fit to start reassessments in October using these same tests is mystifying. Again it seems the desire to cut has taken presidence over real consideration for the best means for accurately sorting those fit for work from the truly vulnerable. And you know as well as I that those most likely to be hit are those with mental health problems (people least able to fight for themsleves).

NO-ONE can live on ?65 per week for very long (wether mentally fit or otherwise). How on earth do you expect people to cope? I personally spend about half that a week on electric and gas (averaged over a year) alone! lol.....How do you afford food and everything else on top? The extra ?12 per week that ESA is worth to the vulnerable in nothing to Cameron but it's everything to those people. The real bottomless pit with welfare is housing benefit, but typically Cameron won't do anything that involves regulating the vastly over inflated housing market and rents within it. Capping higher rents doesn't go far enough.

Fuel poverty is a real issue and that's something I'd like to see governamnt tackle too. It can not be right that the poorest people using prepayment meters are paying up to 20% more for their fuel than other customers whilst at the same time being locked out of finding cheaper suppliers if they have a debt of over over ?100. Many of these people got into debt in the first place because of steep rises in fuel prices (compared to small rises in benefits). To then further punish them, esp when the meter system ensures they repay the debt is scandalous.

Food for thought James.

[James Barber]

I thoguht the Labour government 1997-2005 broadly followed tory spending plans. It was at that point they went wild.

Currently of every ?4's spent by the government ?1 is borrowed. This is staggerlingly unsustainable. Currently this huge borrwoing is at a cheap rate. If confidence slipped the interest borrowed up would drstaically rise as it did in Greece and the cuts would be harsh in the extreme.

Sheffield Forge. The loan would have enabled production of nuclear power stations in the UK. Better ways of making and minimising electricity than via nuclear power.

Fuel poverty is terrible concept in this day and age. In East Dulwich of the 3,000 roofs around 640 are uninsulated. Amazing. As local councillors we've allocated some funds to help address this and hope to leverage in more. Programme likely to start in January.

Benefits. I personallythink we need intensive help to try and change peoples lives so they no longer need benefits. REally hardto do that now while economy so slowly moving. The time to have really started this was when the economy was booming and not just after the bust. But little happened then and we are where we are.

[DJKillaQueen]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

It was at that point

> they went wild.

>

This I agree with.

> Currently of every ?4's spent by the government ?1

> is borrowed. This is staggerlingly unsustainable.

> Currently this huge borrwoing is at a cheap rate.

> If confidence slipped the interest borrowed up

> would drstaically rise as it did in Greece and the

> cuts would be harsh in the extreme.

>

There is some truth in this but this constant comparison to Greece is unhelpful and dare I say scaremongering. The Greek economy is not like our own or indeed many of the larger economies of Western Europe. Inefficency in tax collection from it's citizens is the obvious difference but there are also other key differences that made Greece extremely vulnerable in ways that the UK , France, Germany and so on would never be.

> Sheffield Forge. The loan would have enabled

> production of nuclear power stations in the UK.

> Better ways of making and minimising electricity

> than via nuclear power.

>

The grant would also have enabled Sheffield to manufacture for export. It's ludicrous to think that nuclear power won't have to be some part of our energy provision in the future (unless you want to fund vastly more expensive solar panels).

If anything, electric consumption is more likely to go up than down, simply because population is likely to grow, more homes are likely to be built and people are more likely to live longer. We don't have any natural resources anymore, apart from Wind and one of the reasons our energy prices are so high is because we have to import most of it.

I would expect you as a Liberal Democrat to have a moral standpoint on anything nuclear (and we'll always disagree on that) but to deny an area 3000 much badly needed jobs on an idealogical basis rather than economic and fiscal need defies common sense (although that is not the reason why the Conservatives took away the grant).

> Fuel poverty is terrible concept in this day and

> age. In East Dulwich of the 3,000 roofs around 640

> are uninsulated.

>

That's all well and good (and I completely support that) but it does not solve the more immediate problem of fuel poverty - many people already do ration their energy useage, many don't turn on the heating ever (so better insulation won't make any difference and many of those live in flats anyway). Do you at least agree that energy companies should be forced to offer the same rates to pre-payment customers as they do to their other customers or do you think it's perfectly reasonable for the poor to be descriminated against in this way?

> Benefits. I personallythink we need intensive help

> to try and change peoples lives so they no longer

> need benefits. REally hardto do that now while

> economy so slowly moving. The time to have really

> started this was when the economy was booming and

> not just after the bust. But little happened then

> and we are where we are.

Well it's hard to do full stop. Employers have prejudices against the long term unemployed, people over a certain age, people with health problems and those are real challenges that any government would and indeed has found difficult to tackle. And I don't think they can ever be solved unless we start paying employers to give jobs to these people. We just have to accept that there are always going to be groups of unemployable (through no fault of their own) people. The key is to find ways to engage them in society and accept that taxpayers will have to pay for it.

I agree though that in boom time Labour could have done far more to encourage businesses to regenerate areas of high unemployment but again the private sector wasn't growing at any great rate and that's because the boom was not really a boom at all. It was funded by debt, too much of it with nothing of any substance underneath. I don't expect the Conservatives to do anything about that anytime soon, yes they'll get the deficit down but they won't regulate the basis by which debt is the engine of the economy.

Labour did do far better in their help for the unemployed than the previous Conservative government. They set up specialist agencies run by private sector companies who offered tailored specialist help (as opposed to no specialist help to those other than the unskilled and illiterate under the Conservatives)....In Southwork we have Work Directions and Southwark Works (or Ingenus) who invest money into the people they help and that's been particuarly helpful to skilled people who often need specialist support that they just won't find at the jobcentre. The short term cost is higher but the success rate of getting people back into work is high too. My concern is that the Conservatives will do away with that and go back to a 'one size fits all' approach which will be a failure.

Labour invested heavily in helping 16-25 year olds which wasn't as effective as it should have been and also locked out older unemployed people from things like retraining, as young people were always given priority on places (whether they genuinely want to to learn or not). I know for fact that many young people only went to college to get the EMA payment with no intention of learning anything. A waste of time for teachers, a waste of money for taxpayers, and denying perfectly good course places to older people who genuinely want to retrain or learn.

In the worst cases colleges won't fail any pupils because they don't want to lose funding (I know of one college where this happens). The end result is that some young people are given qualifications they haven't achieved and it doesn't take long for prospective employers to work that out. The same criticsms can be levied at those sent on work placements.

We have to get away form the culture of 'getting the numbers down' as priority and focus on the quality of the help/ training given, make sure that it's properly funded and the right people are matched up with that help so that both they and employers benefit from that investment. I think we are in agreement there. And then we have to find other ways to deal with those that truly are disengaged from any part of getting into employment. Some of that has to be done in schools.

But of course, none of the above will make an iota of difference if there aren't the jobs out there for these people. There is no way that over the next four years anything like the number of new jobs needed are going to be created. And I dread to think just how desperate those living on just ?65 a week will become.