Friday, August 14, 2009
Reflections on Elections - a Briefing Note for Labour Party Members Maidstone and Weald CLP
I pen this Note to stimulate discussion at this critical time in the history of the Party and to share some information I have gathered - I would be glad to join in further discussions. Please forward it to others.
****************************************************************************************
1. Turnout at recent Elections :- some worrying statistics
i) Norwich, nearly 45% -- County Election (Kent figures) average of all Divisions 39% - European ,UK 34.7%
ii) Electorate for E-Parliament : UK 45,312,626 - actual UK voters 15,714,510
iii) After 12 years of Labour in Government the number who voted Labour diminished from around 24% in 2004 to 15.7% (EU voters) (NB only 0.8% more than UKIP)
Question : why do about 60% of the voters stay at home? - the bulk of those, must be (could be, should be) Labour voters!
2. When 60% stay at home is it because :
i) A great number of them do not agree with Labour's policies, or
ii) Many do not find ANY of the Parties' policies answer their needs, or
iii) They have been disappointed by un-kept promises or certain political action (such as the numbers of houses to be built)..
Question : There have not been any large scale demands for new policies (such as on the scale of the anti-Iraq War demands) - is just staying-at-home itself a political protest movement by the weak? If it is not to do with Policy, what else can it be?
3. Beyond POLICY? Other possibilities are :
i) The stay-at-homes do not find the method, timing, place of voting convenient,; the Parliament will no doubt urgently reform in several areas, but the Party must discuss it internally also.
ii) If the stay-at-homes obviously did not want to vote for ANY of the actual Incumbents or Candidates (irrespective of party); is it because they doubt that they can be adequately represented by them?
If the reluctance to vote is to do with their disapproval of those presented to them, what could it be about them which gives rise to the anathema? We are all aware of the scandals in Parliament and it is not clear how the Party will successfully cleanse itself; one attempt at Norwich went very wrong. Is the slogan "They're all the same" a reasonable reaction?
If the assumption is reasonable that most of Labour's lost voters are in the 60% non-voters (and have not just transferred to other Parties) they must be from what the politicians call the "hard-working" families of manual and lower paid blue collar workers as the other parties' voters, (the figures show in the 40% ), seem to have remained loyal to them or voted for the newer parties such as UKIP which now is likely to rival the Tories .
4. If it is mostly Labour-voters who are prominent among the 60% who-did-not-vote, (and the slump of votes for Labour seem to bear that out), are there policies or actions that might tempt them to vote next time? It is not possible in this note to review the whole political scene and to try to determine what among all the aspirations of the majority of the 60% could be singled out as the most relevant to their situation and has caused them to go on strike against Labour and to shoot themselves in the foot First of all I would assert my opinion that it is not just that they are apathetic, or insensible to events, but on the contrary many often are overwhelmed by their own difficulties with life and succumb to passivity; politics and its choices do not figure high on their agenda; indeed their own passivity is a way of protest against the Establishment; it is a weapon of the weak!
However, can one look at the totality of manifesto and other policies, and promises and single out say one overshadowing Domestic Issue, the solution of which would do much for the lives of millions particularly among the younger generation, and in its present form is particularly prejudicial to the 'hard-working working- class' voter? And would that issue make so much of a difference that it alone would cause many of the 60% to stay at home?
It would appear to me that there is certainly one Issue which affects many millions of families for a multitude of social and econonic reasons (perhaps as many as half of all the families in the land) so badly that a serious amelioration of it might make a vast difference in their voting intentions because it affects such fundamental aspects of their lives. Could that be the HOUSING POLICY? There are gross deficiencies in it after 30 years of political mismanagement with a decade of Labour's inability to pursue it in other than as a continuation of Tory policy; and the Tories left it with their values and aspirations too. Additionally Housing Policy's inherent difficulties have been greatly magnified in the last 12 months by the effects of the current economic conditions (the credit crunch et al); indebtedness has mounted astronomically, 1.4 m.face the end of fixed mortgage rates, hundreds of thousands face eventual negative equity, and many fear dispossession.
5. Because HOUSING POLICY is possibly of strategic importance and the present situation a tragedy (using that word advisedly) I discuss it in two of its aspects -
a. The Housing bubble : For over a decade in power Labour followed the Tory policies and allowed house prices to escalate into a 'housing bubble', when greed, and ignorance of the consequences of escalating prices, were virtually uncontrolled, and which led to expectations which have turned out to be bad dreams for so many millions. The Labour Housing Group's (LHG) Summer Newsletter tells us that "current Government Mortgage Rescue schemes, only cover a small proportion of the expected repossessions during this year. The gap between rescue provision and expected need is around 60,000. In addition it is forecast that there will up to 500,000 borrowers" (out of the 39% of householders with mortgages) "with mortgage arrears with up to three months-potential repossessions" who could see virtually no help by government. There are, at this date, still 86% of local authority areas where houses are not affordable to those around the average wage of £25,000.
b. Social Housing. Additionally for the lowest paid, those on the minimum wage (now around £12,000) for instance,(and those on Benefits), the hope and expectation that a Labour Government would see the need for a decent home as a Right for all and not a luxury, has not been realised. The weakest members of society look to social housing for their families; and tens of thousands have suffered in temporary accommodation while they waited in vain for years for a council home. The promises of an adequate number, 240,000 each year, of new homes of all categories after the Barker Review and the Green paper have not been fulfilled and no target has been achieved; In 2008-9 the National House Building Council estimates that as few as 85,000 were likely to be completed!. Shelter, the housing charity, refers to 1,800,000 on Local housing waiting Lists and there are estimates in the press of nearly 4m individuals affected. The present output (a few hundreds last year) of social homes both as an outcome of section 106 Planning Agreements and Local initiatives by Residential Social Landlord, (RSL), and Councils, is pitiful when matched against the need and the growth of numbers of households (estimated to be rising to 223,000 p,a,) and the expectation that Government would be able to increase the numbers of social rented home to 45,000 p,a, by 2010/11. Judging by past efforts it is unlikely that any RSL building policy initiative could be effective in time to be noticed at the General Election. However what would make a large difference to the 34,106 unemployed in Kent, (2,365 in Maidstone), if Kent had a share of a large number of firm contracts for say 300,000 new homes nationally, with half of them social houses (a figure which has been achieved in the past by Tory Governments); that could also put to work some of the fastest growing section of the unemployed in Kent; 18 to 24 years old, now almost 8,000 of them.
6. Is there a future for Labour? In Kent the unremitting whittling away of Labour support has been going on for several years and in Maidstone has led to the elimination of Labour Councillors entirely, (and Swanley has elected the first BNP Councillor south of the Thames). If the pattern of voting shown clearly by the figures now available is repeated in 2010, Labour cannot expect re-election, although some hope otherwise as evidenced by the Labour Housing Group (LHG) Newsletter which outlines a scheme by Kerry Pollard and Graham Martin, called the 'New Saver' Policy, for threatened mortgagors, and they say remarkably : " it would have a positive impact upon our Government's standing - this could win the next election for Labour". (NB The President of LHG is a former Housing Minister, Nick Raynsford MP).
That comment by the LHG does at least confirm the argument made here that Housing is more than a critical Policy.. - it could be a decisive one. Can the forthcoming Labour Conference Programme put in place the minimum policies aimed directly at this main problem? Housing Policy with all the social, economic and moral problems which it encompasses must be redirected to give hope to millions of Labour's core voters. Will our Delegates advocate such policies and "win the next election for Labour"...and meanwhile will our CLP continue to make representations to Government to that end?
Sincerely, Leslie Turner, (about half a century associated with Maidstone Labour)
PS : Figures and statistics are gathered/calculated from these sources:-- The Office of the European Parliament, Government statistics, Kent County Council for Kent elections and Kent Research and Intelligence office, the LHG, and Shelter, and The Guardian A breakdown of the total figures for voting by parties in the KCC elections is awaited from KCC research.
I pen this Note to stimulate discussion at this critical time in the history of the Party and to share some information I have gathered - I would be glad to join in further discussions. Please forward it to others.
****************************************************************************************
1. Turnout at recent Elections :- some worrying statistics
i) Norwich, nearly 45% -- County Election (Kent figures) average of all Divisions 39% - European ,UK 34.7%
ii) Electorate for E-Parliament : UK 45,312,626 - actual UK voters 15,714,510
iii) After 12 years of Labour in Government the number who voted Labour diminished from around 24% in 2004 to 15.7% (EU voters) (NB only 0.8% more than UKIP)
Question : why do about 60% of the voters stay at home? - the bulk of those, must be (could be, should be) Labour voters!
2. When 60% stay at home is it because :
i) A great number of them do not agree with Labour's policies, or
ii) Many do not find ANY of the Parties' policies answer their needs, or
iii) They have been disappointed by un-kept promises or certain political action (such as the numbers of houses to be built)..
Question : There have not been any large scale demands for new policies (such as on the scale of the anti-Iraq War demands) - is just staying-at-home itself a political protest movement by the weak? If it is not to do with Policy, what else can it be?
3. Beyond POLICY? Other possibilities are :
i) The stay-at-homes do not find the method, timing, place of voting convenient,; the Parliament will no doubt urgently reform in several areas, but the Party must discuss it internally also.
ii) If the stay-at-homes obviously did not want to vote for ANY of the actual Incumbents or Candidates (irrespective of party); is it because they doubt that they can be adequately represented by them?
If the reluctance to vote is to do with their disapproval of those presented to them, what could it be about them which gives rise to the anathema? We are all aware of the scandals in Parliament and it is not clear how the Party will successfully cleanse itself; one attempt at Norwich went very wrong. Is the slogan "They're all the same" a reasonable reaction?
If the assumption is reasonable that most of Labour's lost voters are in the 60% non-voters (and have not just transferred to other Parties) they must be from what the politicians call the "hard-working" families of manual and lower paid blue collar workers as the other parties' voters, (the figures show in the 40% ), seem to have remained loyal to them or voted for the newer parties such as UKIP which now is likely to rival the Tories .
4. If it is mostly Labour-voters who are prominent among the 60% who-did-not-vote, (and the slump of votes for Labour seem to bear that out), are there policies or actions that might tempt them to vote next time? It is not possible in this note to review the whole political scene and to try to determine what among all the aspirations of the majority of the 60% could be singled out as the most relevant to their situation and has caused them to go on strike against Labour and to shoot themselves in the foot First of all I would assert my opinion that it is not just that they are apathetic, or insensible to events, but on the contrary many often are overwhelmed by their own difficulties with life and succumb to passivity; politics and its choices do not figure high on their agenda; indeed their own passivity is a way of protest against the Establishment; it is a weapon of the weak!
However, can one look at the totality of manifesto and other policies, and promises and single out say one overshadowing Domestic Issue, the solution of which would do much for the lives of millions particularly among the younger generation, and in its present form is particularly prejudicial to the 'hard-working working- class' voter? And would that issue make so much of a difference that it alone would cause many of the 60% to stay at home?
It would appear to me that there is certainly one Issue which affects many millions of families for a multitude of social and econonic reasons (perhaps as many as half of all the families in the land) so badly that a serious amelioration of it might make a vast difference in their voting intentions because it affects such fundamental aspects of their lives. Could that be the HOUSING POLICY? There are gross deficiencies in it after 30 years of political mismanagement with a decade of Labour's inability to pursue it in other than as a continuation of Tory policy; and the Tories left it with their values and aspirations too. Additionally Housing Policy's inherent difficulties have been greatly magnified in the last 12 months by the effects of the current economic conditions (the credit crunch et al); indebtedness has mounted astronomically, 1.4 m.face the end of fixed mortgage rates, hundreds of thousands face eventual negative equity, and many fear dispossession.
5. Because HOUSING POLICY is possibly of strategic importance and the present situation a tragedy (using that word advisedly) I discuss it in two of its aspects -
a. The Housing bubble : For over a decade in power Labour followed the Tory policies and allowed house prices to escalate into a 'housing bubble', when greed, and ignorance of the consequences of escalating prices, were virtually uncontrolled, and which led to expectations which have turned out to be bad dreams for so many millions. The Labour Housing Group's (LHG) Summer Newsletter tells us that "current Government Mortgage Rescue schemes, only cover a small proportion of the expected repossessions during this year. The gap between rescue provision and expected need is around 60,000. In addition it is forecast that there will up to 500,000 borrowers" (out of the 39% of householders with mortgages) "with mortgage arrears with up to three months-potential repossessions" who could see virtually no help by government. There are, at this date, still 86% of local authority areas where houses are not affordable to those around the average wage of £25,000.
b. Social Housing. Additionally for the lowest paid, those on the minimum wage (now around £12,000) for instance,(and those on Benefits), the hope and expectation that a Labour Government would see the need for a decent home as a Right for all and not a luxury, has not been realised. The weakest members of society look to social housing for their families; and tens of thousands have suffered in temporary accommodation while they waited in vain for years for a council home. The promises of an adequate number, 240,000 each year, of new homes of all categories after the Barker Review and the Green paper have not been fulfilled and no target has been achieved; In 2008-9 the National House Building Council estimates that as few as 85,000 were likely to be completed!. Shelter, the housing charity, refers to 1,800,000 on Local housing waiting Lists and there are estimates in the press of nearly 4m individuals affected. The present output (a few hundreds last year) of social homes both as an outcome of section 106 Planning Agreements and Local initiatives by Residential Social Landlord, (RSL), and Councils, is pitiful when matched against the need and the growth of numbers of households (estimated to be rising to 223,000 p,a,) and the expectation that Government would be able to increase the numbers of social rented home to 45,000 p,a, by 2010/11. Judging by past efforts it is unlikely that any RSL building policy initiative could be effective in time to be noticed at the General Election. However what would make a large difference to the 34,106 unemployed in Kent, (2,365 in Maidstone), if Kent had a share of a large number of firm contracts for say 300,000 new homes nationally, with half of them social houses (a figure which has been achieved in the past by Tory Governments); that could also put to work some of the fastest growing section of the unemployed in Kent; 18 to 24 years old, now almost 8,000 of them.
6. Is there a future for Labour? In Kent the unremitting whittling away of Labour support has been going on for several years and in Maidstone has led to the elimination of Labour Councillors entirely, (and Swanley has elected the first BNP Councillor south of the Thames). If the pattern of voting shown clearly by the figures now available is repeated in 2010, Labour cannot expect re-election, although some hope otherwise as evidenced by the Labour Housing Group (LHG) Newsletter which outlines a scheme by Kerry Pollard and Graham Martin, called the 'New Saver' Policy, for threatened mortgagors, and they say remarkably : " it would have a positive impact upon our Government's standing - this could win the next election for Labour". (NB The President of LHG is a former Housing Minister, Nick Raynsford MP).
That comment by the LHG does at least confirm the argument made here that Housing is more than a critical Policy.. - it could be a decisive one. Can the forthcoming Labour Conference Programme put in place the minimum policies aimed directly at this main problem? Housing Policy with all the social, economic and moral problems which it encompasses must be redirected to give hope to millions of Labour's core voters. Will our Delegates advocate such policies and "win the next election for Labour"...and meanwhile will our CLP continue to make representations to Government to that end?
Sincerely, Leslie Turner, (about half a century associated with Maidstone Labour)
PS : Figures and statistics are gathered/calculated from these sources:-- The Office of the European Parliament, Government statistics, Kent County Council for Kent elections and Kent Research and Intelligence office, the LHG, and Shelter, and The Guardian A breakdown of the total figures for voting by parties in the KCC elections is awaited from KCC research.
Labels: county election
Monday, August 03, 2009
B-B-Q
In Put - Margaret Rose
Big THANK YOU to Morel and Karin for a great evening on 31st July at their annual B-B-Q.
We had a very pleasant time meeting and chatting with friends and the food was brilliant!
Thanks Morel and Karin for your hard work and wonderful generosity.
(Sorry no photos - I forgot my camera :-( !
Big THANK YOU to Morel and Karin for a great evening on 31st July at their annual B-B-Q.
We had a very pleasant time meeting and chatting with friends and the food was brilliant!
Thanks Morel and Karin for your hard work and wonderful generosity.
(Sorry no photos - I forgot my camera :-( !
Labels: B-B-Q
Housing Letter
Input by Margaret Rose
This blog is in regard to an item Leslie Turner feels is of interest and has asked to be posted.
Mortgage Rescue
LHG Supports Homesaver Proposal
by Kerry Pollard
Current Government Mortgage Rescue schemes, welcome though they are, only cover a small proportion of the expected repossessions forecast during this year. The gap between rescue provision and expected need is around 60,000. In addition it is forecast that there will be up to 500,000 borrowers with mortgage arrears of up to three months - potential repossessions.
It is vital that Government bring forward an initiative that will bridge this gap.
Saoh a scheme has been-designediiy A group, including Kerry Pollard and Graham Martin, (both LHG executive
members). The scheme is called Home Saver, is not for profit, third sector delivered, includes non secured debt, has no cost to the public purse and brings much needed stability to both the banking and housing sectors as well as keeping many thousands of families in their homes.
The essence of the scheme is that mortgage payments will be topped up to ensure that the lenders receive full payment thus helping them with their balance sheets and cash flow whilst, most importantly, keeping people in their homes. A full 360 degree financial review of each person referred will take place to include secured and unsecured debt and then a payment profile agreed that is affordable with the shortfall being made up by Home
Saver. This process can last up to 7 years during which time stability will have returned and the borrower be in a position to resume his full obligation, or if not can be helped into more suitable accommodation. Each individual will have regular reviews and as individual circumstances improve can exit the scheme at any time.
The scheme is funded by a unique bond swap. As cash flows to lenders are secured via Home Saver there would be an immediate improvement in the value of mortgage bonds, with the lower rated bonds increasing most. It is estimated that £80bn would accrue to lenders bonds, top slicing this by 10% would release £8bn, which would more than fund Home Saver.
So it is the lenders who would pay indirectly for the scheme, at no call at all on the public purse. There would be a healing effect on banks balance sheets, more stability in the housing market, a positive benefit to PSBR and most importantly many thousands of families would not lose their homes.
Home Saver would virtually eliminate all mortgage repossessions.
Home Saver would have a positive impact on our Governments standing - this could win the next election for Labour.
This blog is in regard to an item Leslie Turner feels is of interest and has asked to be posted.
Mortgage Rescue
LHG Supports Homesaver Proposal
by Kerry Pollard
Current Government Mortgage Rescue schemes, welcome though they are, only cover a small proportion of the expected repossessions forecast during this year. The gap between rescue provision and expected need is around 60,000. In addition it is forecast that there will be up to 500,000 borrowers with mortgage arrears of up to three months - potential repossessions.
It is vital that Government bring forward an initiative that will bridge this gap.
Saoh a scheme has been-designediiy A group, including Kerry Pollard and Graham Martin, (both LHG executive
members). The scheme is called Home Saver, is not for profit, third sector delivered, includes non secured debt, has no cost to the public purse and brings much needed stability to both the banking and housing sectors as well as keeping many thousands of families in their homes.
The essence of the scheme is that mortgage payments will be topped up to ensure that the lenders receive full payment thus helping them with their balance sheets and cash flow whilst, most importantly, keeping people in their homes. A full 360 degree financial review of each person referred will take place to include secured and unsecured debt and then a payment profile agreed that is affordable with the shortfall being made up by Home
Saver. This process can last up to 7 years during which time stability will have returned and the borrower be in a position to resume his full obligation, or if not can be helped into more suitable accommodation. Each individual will have regular reviews and as individual circumstances improve can exit the scheme at any time.
The scheme is funded by a unique bond swap. As cash flows to lenders are secured via Home Saver there would be an immediate improvement in the value of mortgage bonds, with the lower rated bonds increasing most. It is estimated that £80bn would accrue to lenders bonds, top slicing this by 10% would release £8bn, which would more than fund Home Saver.
So it is the lenders who would pay indirectly for the scheme, at no call at all on the public purse. There would be a healing effect on banks balance sheets, more stability in the housing market, a positive benefit to PSBR and most importantly many thousands of families would not lose their homes.
Home Saver would virtually eliminate all mortgage repossessions.
Home Saver would have a positive impact on our Governments standing - this could win the next election for Labour.
Labels: Housing
