General Election Debates - Labour Party

[The Chair]

This thread is for the Labour Party PPC to post their answers to the debate questions they have been sent. Please do not post anything in this thread until that has occurred. Thank you.

[TJMP]

Hi everybody. Here are my responses to the debate questions.

Thanks to the EDF for organising this. Do PM me, email me ([email protected]) or post on here if you have anything you would like me to address on these subjects - or any other.

Tessa

1) Should MPs live in the constituency they represent?

Since this appears to be aimed at me I will tackle it head on and at some length. I have had to make a judgement that balances family commitments against the demands of being an engaged and effective constituency MP. I, and my constituency team, deal with over 5000 cases from local people every year. I have weekly advice sessions, mobile surgeries and coffee mornings where people can come and raise any issue they like. I?m always out and about locally. There is never, ever, anything of note that happens in my constituency that I do not quickly know about.

How?s your knowledge on the plans for a new combined health and leisure centre in West Norwood for example? What about the new schools that we have delivered in Lambeth - Evelyn Grace and the Elmgreen? What did you think about the recent listing application for the historic Brixton Markets? What's your take on the problem of primary school places in Norwood? (no, not East Dulwich - that?s conveniently been put off by the Lib Dems until after the election remember - whilst the Lambeth offers go out next week).

My constituency is incredibly diverse and comprises many communities, each with a distinct and proud identity: East Dulwich, Dulwich, West Dulwich, Gipsy Hill, Crystal Palace, West Norwood, Upper Norwood, Herne Hill, Camberwell and Brixton. I really do understand what makes it tick and I love it - stretching as it does from what used to be the Old White Horse on Brixton Road in a sweep across to Sydenham Hill and over as far as Streatham Common.

I acknowledge that where I live has been used as a stick to beat me with by my political opponents - that?s up to them. But not one of the tens of thousands of constituents I have helped in 18 years as the local representative have said ?Thanks Tessa but I would have appreciated it more if you lived here.? A few years ago we sold our family home and I assumed that I would move to the constituency. But I now have my children and step-children living nearby with four lovely grand-daughters that I already see far too little of. The anguish that my family felt at the prospect of my moving away from them at what was already a difficult time was something I simply could not ignore. The families of MPs often pay a heavy price and the judgement I made was that I had to put my family first in this decision. That is the choice I have made.

Every week, every day, every hour, I am working and my constituency team is working to get action and investment for East Dulwich and the rest of my constituency. I believe that every day we make something better for someone I represent.

2) What is the fairest way of capping individuals annual earnings i.e Bob Diamond ?63 million at Barclays?

The best way is by progressive taxation and - a more difficult task - bringing such individuals and their remuneration committees back to reality after they have been bailed out by governments around the world. I welcome the recent proposals from the IMF, building on work initiated by Gordon at the G20 summit last year. This has to be resolved on a global basis or we will end up with ?onshore-offshore? countries competing to attract the sort of companies who brought the world economy to the brink. It is detailed, intricate, policy making that requires experience and good relationships with our partners across the world to deliver a new settlement that, I firmly believe, will set the world economy on a new path that places greater value on those who contribute to our community in terms of jobs, wealth and our wider society.

3) Do you accept that whilst the crime solving benefits of surveillance are considerable, there must surely be a level at which the costs to an individual's privacy and sense of freedom outweigh the potential benefits?

Absolutely. But I have to take on board the views of good people I represent and deal with every day who often have committed their lives to improving their communities. If they tell me that their area needs CCTV simply to secure evidence to use against people who are making the lives of hundreds of people a misery through anti-social behaviour or open drug dealing I will side with them. But the provision of CCTV should be proportionate and subject to review.

4) Could the candidates please outline how they intend to offer this area (East Dulwich, Nunhead and the wider Southwark/South East London area) better transport links to other parts of London. Although I realise the Mayor has overall responsibility for transport in London, do any of the parliamentary or council candidates have a view/ have plans to propose measures to improve the connections between South East London and the rest of the city?

Simple things often help. More people working on our railways with the dedication, tenacity, ingenuity and communication skills of Barry Jones - the area station manager - would make a massive impact and I would want to see our rail companies develop in a way that such exceptional public service is recognised, rewarded and encouraged.

Just making it easier to use local transport can have a big impact. So I am very pleased that, from the end of this month, Southern Rail stations including East and North Dulwich will be staffed from first to last train as a consequence of the franchise negotiations that I was involved in as Minister for London and during which Ken Livingstone committed investment from TfL to fund inner London Metro rail services. The introduction of Oyster PAYG was also a specific condition of the new franchise - to focus minds - and it worked. From the end of May the ridiculous gaps in the morning peak service (7-9am) will be reduced so that the longest gaps will drop from 22 mins - much higher even than off peak - to 14 with many 10 or fewer. The core peak service from ED, for example, will change from:

7.03; 7.14; 7.29; 7.51; 8.05; 8.14; 8.35; 8.41; 8.56; 9.16

to:

7.05; 7.15; 7.29; 7.34; 7.46; 7.57; 8.04; 8.14; 8.27; 8.33; 8.45; 8.59; 9.04

I am sure that the extra trains and more even spacing will help relieve the difficult conditions that too many people have to endure. I have consistently raised this specific issue with the rail companies and Ministers and I am delighted that this change is now about to come.

We will have the East London Line phase 2 opening in the near future (phase 1 opened with a limited service yesterday, 27/4 and there will be a full service from 23/5) that will give cross-platform choices at Peckham Rye (and access at Denmark Hill for ED bus users) for journeys towards Clapham Junction in the west and Docklands and beyond in the east. I supported the Cross River Tram that Ken backed and Boris scrapped and the Croydon tram extension to Crystal Palace that, well, Ken backed and Boris scrapped.

I have supported the retention of the South London Line services that run between Victoria and London Bridge, making detailed representations on two different Rail Utilisation Strategy Consultations. I will continue to work with colleagues on this and have already had several discussions with Ministers on the subject. I am also campaigning to ensure that the ?Wimbledon Loop? Thameslink services through Herne Hill will continue to travel through the tunnel at Blackfriars after 2015.

I think we should be looking at extending certain bus routes as a simple way to open up travel options - the extension of the 63 to Honor Oak, and the 68 to Crystal Palace to link into stations served by the phase 1 East London Line extension, for example. I have also always supported the extension of the 42 beyond Sunray Avenue to serve East Dulwich and Dog Kennel Hill.

5) I would like to ask the candidates what they would do to ensure that all local children can go to good local state primary and secondary schools (with the emphasis on good as well as local).

This is an area where Labour has really delivered locally and, whilst I am MP, I will make sure it is always a top priority. Key Stage 2 achievement levels in East Dulwich primary schools in English, Maths and Science are up on average by over 25 percentage points since 1997. We have invested in schools, teachers and teaching assistants so that a local state primary school is now a natural, positive, choice for people locally.

The same is true at secondary level. I was involved in the campaign to secure the Charter School where, initially, pupils from as far as Peckham Rye itself obtained places. Its success, meant that the catchment area shrank so new alternatives were needed. I worked with SchoolWorks to develop a ground-breaking strategy for the redevelopment of Kingsdale School. Tens of millions of pounds later and given the dedicated input of one of the most charismatic and effective Heads in the country and his staff, Kingsdale too, is a huge success and is now used by many East Dulwich parents when it was not before.

I campaigned for a mixed secondary school for East Dulwich on the old Waverley site, working with the EDEN Campaign but our efforts were stymied by a lack of support from the Lib Dem administration. When Waverley school allowed the use of their lower site as temporary accommodation for the City of London Academy in Lib Dem Bermondsey, plans for a mixed school for East Dulwich were mysteriously dropped. I think it demonstrated weak political leadership by the Lib Dems. It is still a regret that there will be two single sex schools in East Dulwich - albeit confederated - rather than a mixed school, but we had to move on and look at new options that would serve the growing demand for secondary places in East Dulwich. I fully supported plans for the new Harris East Dulwich Boys? School on the Waverley lower site and I firmly believe that this will become a popular and achieving local school. I also believe that the Harris Girls? School will become a popular option for East Dulwich parents in years to come if the investment in our schools is protected as it will be by Labour.

Last year when it became apparent that there were too few primary school places locally, I intervened because local parents told me they had been ignored by their Lib Dem councillors in East Dulwich when they tried to contact them. I set up an emergency meeting of parents - pointed out the inadequacies of Southwark?s creaking admissions system, agreed to work with the Lib Dem Leader of Southwark in an application for extra money that the government was making available, supported parents in their tussles with Southwark, lobbied Education Ministers again and again to put the Southwark (and Lambeth) case and helped to secure ?12 million of extra investment for Southwark (and ?9 million in Lambeth).

Many of the improvements that Southwark are now trumpeting about an improved admissions team etc came out of this process where I facilitated a dialogue between East Dulwich parents and Council Officers that is continuing. The political leadership in Southwark is still too weak in its approach and has even put off notification of places until after the election - I believe for purely political reasons. I fear that their plans to deal with the surge in applications for local primary places may be inadequate. Lambeth faces similar problems but it will notify parents next week about primary school places, as usual, and has made detailed contingency for eleven extra primary classes this year.

When Labour was first elected in 1997, teaching, as a graduate destination, was way down the list. Now it is one of the most popular destinations for graduates and it is attracting some of the brightest and the best. When I visit our local schools I am simply bowled over by what they are learning and how they are learning. I will always remember a down-the-line lesson from NASA that I witnessed, open-mouthed, at one of our local secondaries.

When I was first elected as the MP for Dulwich in 1992 many of our local schools had ?temporary? classrooms that had been there for twenty years. Some even had outside toilets. All that has changed with unprecedented levels of investment including five new schools with more on the way. When pupils moved on at the end of year six they would often go on in their ones and twos to 30 or 40 different secondary schools - that too has changed. I believe that a good local school is one of the building blocks for a good, strong, local community. Fighting for more and better local primary and secondary schools when they are needed will always be the number one priority for me because I know that, when it comes to our children?s education, we can never go back and give our children a second chance.

6) Should the government departments treat humanist, secular and religious organisations equally in policy making, funding decisions and consultations?

My personal view is yes.

(Revised to reflect limited launch of East London Line Phase 1 extension on 27/4 and confirmed date for full service on 23/5)

[????]

Hurrah - A response...I was getting worried. Thanks and well done for being first.

Haven't looked at it yet though :)

[silverfox]

Thank you for taking the time to respond Tessa, if I may be so familiar.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary for politicians to live in the constituency they represent.

Secondly, the question of renumeration is a difficult one. It's not that there should be an upper limit set on what a person may earn per se, rather how it is earned or awarded. What the financial crisis exposed for all to see was how many workers in the banking industry were receiving huge bonuses prematurely, ie, being rewarded in advance for deals that turned out to be disasterous. Bonuses paid in arrears would be the answer here, as well as progressive taxation.

However, there cannot be any doubt in most people's minds that there has been a profound explosion of 'Big Brother' surveillance under Labour which cannot simply be excused by fears of terrorism or anti-social behaviour. In fact, much of the surveillance appears to be generated by the need to make money and raise revenue, eg, speed cameras, congestion charge.

Let's hope the idea of Identity Cards is now dead and buried.

[Moos]

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail to the questions.

[peckhamboy]

Tessa - thanks for taking the time to respond. On the subject of remuneration, your response implies that you agree with the premise that an individual's earnings should be capped. Is that correct? If so, how do you suggest the upper limit should be set? Additionally, how would this sort of policy encourage hard work and productivity (which in turn leads to higher tax income which is required to fund the massive public sector and budget deficit in this country)? Is there not a risk that it would in fact discourage aspiration and entrepeneurial behaviour, leading to stagnant or decreased tax income and an ever-increasing budget?

[Mick Mac]

peckhamboy Wrote:

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

> Tessa - thanks for taking the time to respond. On

> the subject of remuneration, your response implies

> that you agree with the premise that an

> individual's earnings should be capped. Is that

> correct?

She said progressive taxation - that to me means no cap, but higher taxation, which of course Labour have already implemented - effective 6 April :(

[peckhamboy]

Given the way the Q&A was phrased, I assumed she meant progressive up to 100%...

[silverfox]

I read her answer as making a distinction between the likes of Bob Diamond at Barclays (and other high earning company executives) and those people at bailed out banks/companies.

Barclays was not bailed out so no cap applies and progressive taxation is the answer for all highly paid executives.

Bailed out banks/companies are a special case, tax payers shouldn't lose out, hence the need for an international agreement.

[Jeremy]

My interpretation of her answer was that salaries of private companies should not be capped (and quite rightly so IMO).

However, rather strangely, it does sound to me as though she believes Barclays were bailed out by the government.

[Siduhe]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> However, rather strangely, it does sound to me as

> though she believes Barclays were bailed out by

> the government.

Well they effectively were - just not the UK government. Qatar Holdings is a sovereign wealth fund, i.e. the investment arm of the government of Qatar.

[Jeremy]

That's irrelevant Sidhue, it was an investment.

A pretty good one, actually.

[Siduhe]

Oh I agree, it was a good investment by the Qataris, in the same way as Lloyds and RBS look to be good longer term investments by the UK. However, Barclays still needed ?6.6bn at the height of the crisis - it chose to get this through a deal with the Quataris rather than take on the restrictions which were part of the UK government offered package. I read TJMP's post as referring to the need for the bailout rather than saying it was the UK which had done this.

[peckhamboy]

The reason for Barclays requiring additional investment was primarily because of changes to capital adequacy rules imposed at very short notice as part of the response to the meltdown, meaning (in very abridged form) that all banks had just a few months to make sure that they were holding liquid assets representing a higher proportion of total deposits. So the Qatari investment was to make sure that they met the new regulatory capital threshold rather than to ensure that they didn't go bust. That's not a bailout but a prudent response to a changed regulatory landscape. Of course, that doesn't make the same sort of headlines.

[ruffers]

Thanks for responding Tessa.

[PeckhamRose]

She did not go into much detail about the Humanist Secular Religion question, maybe because in the end the composited question was just a little too vague!

[louisiana]

3) Do you accept that whilst the crime solving benefits of surveillance are considerable, there must surely be a level at which the costs to an individual's privacy and sense of freedom outweigh the potential benefits?

"Absolutely. But I have to take on board the views of good people I represent and deal with every day who often have committed their lives to improving their communities. If they tell me that their area needs CCTV simply to secure evidence to use against people who are making the lives of hundreds of people a misery through anti-social behaviour or open drug dealing I will side with them. But the provision of CCTV should be proportionate and subject to review."

Jowell is avoiding the question. Surveillance is not CCTV.

See some of Henry Porter's comments on the Labour manifesto:

"In this barely plausible document, which makes the astonishing boast: "We are proud of our record on civil liberties", there is nothing to remind us of the intrusions of state databases, the mass surveillance planned for our email, phone calls and internet usage, the new measures to allow secret interception of mail by the taxman, the attack on jury trial, the half-million people who came under some sort official surveillance last year, Britain's alleged involvement in torture and rendition?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/henry-porter-manifestos-election

Take a look at Terri Dowty's summary document concerning gathering of info about children

'Privacy Guide for Parents': http://dl.dropbox.com/u/626993/PrivacyGuideforParents.pdf

(prepared as part of the background materials for Erasing David)

[PeckhamRose]

Erasing David was absolutely amazing and upsetting at the same time. Along the same lines as the film Taking Liberties, by Chris Atkins. I am so confused as to who to vote for, because everything I assumed would be something the Tories would do or be responsible for, has been done by Blair's Labour Party (GBrown is merely a number 2 and still is, really, except now he's a number 2 to his cabinet).

[nashoi]

Thank you for answering, however

In answer to question 2)

The best way is by progressive taxation

Why don't we have a progressive tax system then? I would have assumed this was fundamental Labour policy but taxation has been regressive for the last 30 years, Labour have had 13 years to change this and have failed to do so.

[Huguenot]

Nashoi, you may be confused about what progressive taxation is?

"A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases."

Income Tax is progressive, National Insurance is regressive (because it's capped), VAT is progressive (because some 'necessity' items are untaxed), Capital Gains tax is progressive, Inhertiance Tax is progressive.

The general tex system in the UK is progressive.

[nashoi]

Thank you for your explanation Huguenot, I will make careful note of it ;-)

However I was basing my argument on figures from the Compass report "In Place Of Cuts". Unfortunately the pdf was too big to attach. You can download it from Richard Murphy's Tax Research blog here. Apologies for not posting a link in the first place.

Just for the record I'm not sure I agree with their proposals, the Lib Dem tax policies made more sense to me, just borrowing their figures.

[Huguenot]

I think that document is over-reaching a bit...

Tax can be paid on earnings (income) or on consumption (VAT). Tax on earnings is progressive.

Tax on consumption could be considered flat as both rich and poor consume the same number of DVDs or Cakes. However, that expenditure is a larger part of overall household income and so could 'appear' to be regressive.

By proving a 'regressive tax' environment by including VAT in calculating %age of household income paid in tax there's an implication that because they have earned more, wealthy individuals should bay more tax than poorer people on the goods that they consume - even if their consumption is the same.

This is patently ridiculous.

That means a loaf of bread is 1 quid to a poor person, and 3 quid to a richer one.

[nashoi]

That implication would be ridiculous which is probably one of the many reasons why they don't make it.

What they have done is compare total levels of taxation paid by decile groups in order to acertain whether the environment is regressive or progressive. Of course total tax figures have to be used here, you can't just leave some out because it disagrees with your view of the world. Having seen the lowest decile pays 46.1% and the highest 34.2% they have come to the conclusion the overall tax environment is regressive.

What they have not done is suggest, in response to this, that any taxes on consumption should be changed at all. All the taxes they talk about increasing, thus making the overall environment progressive, are taxes on income.

There is a good correlation between these figures and the income distribution figures on LadyM's equality thread. Lowest decile does worst, highest does best but with the intermediate deciles showing what the government would want, namely progressive taxation and redistributed income. Surely this correlation helps gives them credence or do you think it's a bizarre coincidence?

[Huguenot]

But nashoi, you're still missing the point.

They're still only talking 'taxes' and haven't even touched on benefits. It's just bullshit. Woooooo, heavily taxed, but sprinting down the 'social' to take out more in dole than they've ever paid in taxes.

Those hard done by over taxed lower three deciles are going positive when you add back in the benefits they're reaping - they far exceed the tax they're paying.

The study is frankly stupid and politically motivated.

I can't really believe that you believe in it either. It's nonsense.