Last week’s report for the End Child Poverty campaign prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed what many of us were already all too aware of: George Osborne’s emergency budget will hurt the poorest the most. It’s no surprise that a budget whose headline measures included an increase in VAT, freezing child benefit and linking future increases in welfare benefits to the less generous consumer price index will be highly regressive in its effect, hitting ordinary families hard. Meanwhile, the Fawcett Society has begun legal action, arguing that the budget bears significantly more harshly on women, and now it emerges that Theresa May had warned the Treasury before the budget of the need for an equalities impact assessment, one that it was likely to fail.

Ministers are more than a little miffed at this wave of criticism, and have hit back at the IFS’s findings. Their strongest argument is that the IFS has failed to take account of the increase in employment that Ministers say will result from measures such as welfare reform and cuts in corporation tax. That, they argue, will lift more families out of poverty – yet a range of commentators, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to George Osborne’s own Office of Budget Responsibility cast doubt on the Government’s employment claims.

The Government’s other argument, that there’s no alternative, public spending must be cut, owes more to ideology than to proper stewardship of the economy or to fairness. And here is where the battle for hearts and minds must take place. We know that the pain that’s coming from swingeing cuts to public spending, frontline jobs and services will be highly damaging, and lasting in its effect. The long-term damage as young people struggle to get into higher education or onto the employment ladder, the risk to families under increasing pressure as financial support is cut, the harm that is done by reducing investment in the crucial early years – health in pregnancy grants, Sure Start, Playbuilder and Building Schools for the Future – all this sets back a whole generation of children and young people, damages their wellbeing, their future potential and lifechances. That’s bad for individual, bad for the economy, wasteful for society as a whole.

The ConDem government clearly doesn’t get why the underpinning support of the welfare state is so important, both as a safety net and as a springboard to enable people to get on and get ahead. Yet for Labour it’s always been fundamental, from the visionary ambition of the post-war Attlee government to the bold New Labour programme of social justice and redistribution effected under Blair and Brown.

Now our job is once again to make that case compellingly to the public, and to expose the huge gulf between us and the Government, not exaggerate divisions among ourselves. And we can be confident and courageous in doing that. After all, we should not forget the popularity that Labour’s progressive policies enjoyed from 1997, or ignore the public outrage at the culture of excessive rewards for a few that brought our financial system to its knees, and nearly brought the economy down.

Labour came out of a bad election defeat surprisingly united, up for the fight, in good heart. That’s because we share a vision, and we know the scale of the threat. In the weeks and months ahead, our job is to re-convince the voters of our competence, our integrity, our radicalism, and our commitment to a better future for all. Head-on measures to reduce inequality mark us out as 100% different from the ConDem government, offer the fairest future to the many, the surest route to sustainable economic recovery, and lie at the heart of our Labour values. Let’s be bold in speaking out for them now.

The MP visited Irwell Valley for an in depth tour around three services in her constituency provided by Irwell Valley that help young people aged 16 – 25 into education, training, apprenticeships or employment as well as coaching them in valuable life skills, budgeting and tenancy management.

Her tour included Leighton Rd, a scheme that assists young vulnerable women to manage their tenancy and move on successfully, followed by a meeting with residents and the project team at Greenbank in Old Trafford, – a supported accommodation for homeless young people where they can develop the skills they need for independent living and managing their own home.

Kate also met former residents of both schemes and who are currently receiving Floating Support. They told the MP about the vital services provided by Irwell Valley that have made a difference to their lives.

Commenting after her visit, the MP said:

“Irwell Valley is doing a superb job, helping young people with education, training and finding employment and housing.”

She added:

“This makes such a difference to young people starting out in life giving them the best chance of success. It’s got to be a priority to keep services like these going – especially in difficult times.”

Giles Parlett, Supported Services Manager, Irwell Valley endorsed the MP’s comments.

“The successes we have had in our services clearly show how valuable they are to Trafford and the young people who use them. We look forward to continued support for our services from our partners in Trafford.”

Kate said: “As part of my drive to ensure that all families have top quality services I’ll be campaigning on the Every Disabled Child Matters pledges. I know from the letters and emails I’ve received in my postbag that some families are concerned about the level of support the Council provides to disabled children and young people. It’s really important that all children, including those with disabilities, have the best start in life and I’m keen to work with local families, groups and voluntary organisations to ensure this.”

The EDCM Pledge means Kate will:

1) Meet with disabled children, young people and their families to discuss key issues of concern to them;

2) Raise these issues of concern, and promote rights and resources, for disabled children, young people and families from Stretford and Urmston in Parliament;

3) Visit local services for disabled children and their families on a regular basis;

4) Support measures to transform services for disabled children and their families, such as the Aiming High for Disabled Children programme in England;

5) Find out how funding is being used in Stretford and Urmston to improve services for disabled children, young people and their families.

Worse, figures hidden in the Budget show that local pensioners will be hit every year by changes that hit them in the pocket;

* From January, pensioners will face a £400 million VAT tax bill which they will have to start paying months before any increase in the Basic State Pension. Pensioners face paying nearly £8 billion in VAT over the parliament.
*
In 2011, weekly pension increases fall behind VAT-fuelled price rises.
*
In 2012, pension rises fall behind price rises again, after the Treasury quietly changed the way the so-called ‘triple lock’ up-rates pensions in practice.
*
By 2013, pensioners face cuts to Disability Living Allowance benefits, which may total £350 million a year by the end of the Parliament, alongside cuts to Housing Benefit and the lower uprating of public service pensions and benefits.

Kate Green MP sought to protect local pensioners by supporting an amendment to the Finance Bill which would have delayed the VAT increase until a proper plan for shielding pensioners was in place. But Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs ganged up to block the move during Parliament’s last session.

Trafford’s 41,000 pensioners will now start paying £33 million extra in VAT a month starting in January.

Kate Green MP said:

“This is a betrayal of our local pensioners by the Tory-Liberal government. Our retired community has paid in for a life-time and is now being hit hard in the pocket.

“I wanted a plan in place to protect local pensioners from the £8 billion VAT bill but the Liberal Democrats refused to help.

“I can’t believe the Tories and Liberals are trying to disguise the tax bill with a few promises which on closer inspection just don’t add up. The Budget small print says pensioners keep up on getting hit every year with a host of Treasury tricks”.

Kate met today with the District Manager and staff at Stretford Job Centre Plus to hear about the support they can offer to local people looking for work.

Kate said: “These are worrying times with people concerned about their jobs as cuts start to bite. But we do have new and growing businesses coming into Stretford and Urmston, and local opportunities, and Jobcentre Plus can do a lot to help support local people to find work.”

Kate has a jam packed diary of advice surgeries, meetings with local organisations and agencies. She’s meeting the new Chief Executive of Trafford Council, Sir Bill Moorcroft at Trafford College, and the District Manager of Job Centre Plus in Stretford. She’s also popping in to a Companions, Carers and Older Person’s Lunch Club, an Old Trafford Playday Funday and visiting Unilever in Trafford Park.

Kate said: “I’ve really enjoyed my first Parliamentary session, I’ve been called to tackle both the Prime Minster and Deputy Prime Minister at Prime Ministers Questions as well as speaking up in lots of different debates on issues that people here care about; jobs, education, support for disabled people and campaigning against the unfair increase in VAT brought in by the Tories and their Lib Dem stooges.

I’m looking forward to getting out and about across Stretford and Urmston in the next month or so while Parliament is in recess as well as take a short break and recharge my batteries for the next Parliamentary session. It’s good to be able to spend time here at home catching up with residents and listening to their issues and concerns.”

Kate said: “I’ve been pleased to have been elected to the Vice Chair of the All-Party group on retail. Retail makes a big contribution to our local economy; the Trafford Centre’s a major retail hub, and many jobs depend on it. But I also want to work with retailers to improve our town centres in Stretford, Old Trafford, Partington and Urmston. And the decision that the Old Trafford Tesco is to go ahead will also have a major impact and I want to make sure we get the most for local people and businesses.”

In truth, this is a remarkably thin document, offering more in the way of broad brush proposals (a universal credit, a single IT-based delivery system) than specifics about plans – or costs. No-one will argue that our welfare benefits system ought to be simple to understand, and to ensure work pays. But our system of social support fulfils many broader functions – as a safety net, as a demonstration of social solidarity, as a means of recognising and supporting caring and wider social contribution – as well as promoting and incentivising work. These goals are missing from the document, and, it has to be assumed, from the government’s vision for social security too.

Even within its own limited terms of addressing work incentives, the document misses much of the point. We know there are plans to introduce a Single Work Programme of interventions to help people back into work, but the linkage to those reform plans is scarcely made at all. There’s little discussion of barriers to employment or the nature of the labour market, the scantiest reference to skills and qualifications, a passing remark or two about childcare, absolutely nothing about pay, conditions, rights, vacancy rates, progression opportunities, or structural inequalities in the workplace. But just as much as the benefits system, the labour market itself creates substantial barriers to work. Perhaps the government has a strategy for addressing that – it fails to get a mention in this document.

Missing too, is any indication of the cost of the reforms, the timescale, and what the proposals mean for levels of benefits. Perhaps that’s not surprising: we’re already on notice that the Treasury’s very, very unlikely to wear any increased cost. As a result, the DWP are forced to suggest that the changes proposed can pay for themselves, even save money over time. Savings on the benefits bill, it’s been suggested, can be recycled into delivering more effective programmes to get more people into and progressing at work. That may be true to a limited extent, but the risks for the poorest are significant, the upfront costs substantial, and the economic climate unpropitious for such ideas to take root right now.

That’s not to say that a wholesale review of the goals of our welfare system, its current deficiencies, and strategic solutions, isn’t overdue. Such a review might look again at the nature of contribution and entitlement, the minimum income needed to support basic living standards and maximise life chances, the structure of the labour market, changes in demographics and support for different patterns of family life, and wider social support. That might be too much to expect of this document, but the lack of attention to this broader context creates substantial risks.

What we’re looking at is a half baked programme of reforms that will likely be paid for by cuts in benefits as the means to incentivise work. The government might deny it, but the signs are already there. The emergency budget announcements of a cap on housing benefit, a freeze on child benefit, cuts to tax credits, plans for more tests for disability benefits, and uprating benefits in future in line with the less generous consumer price index rather than RPI all carry a warning of where these proposals are likely to lead. Whatever IDS’s intentions, the plans outlined in 21st Century Welfare will surely increase poverty and fear.

Kate, who’d been contacted by local resident Charlie Donegan about his concerns about new medical tests he now faces to get disability benefits, left Nick Clegg stumped for a sensible answer. She was named “Backbencher of the Week” by Progress magazine.

Charlie suffers from long-term mental health problems, septicaemia, pneumonia and MRSA, and is a wheelchair user as a result. He receives the mobility and care components of disability living allowance at the higher rate. Under Coalition plans he will be forced to take a medical test for the benefit but Disability Living Allowance is intended to meet his non-medical needs.

Kate said: “Charlie and thousands of disabled people like him are worried about these changes, which will cause unnecessary hardship and distress. They’re going to be tested medically for a benefit which is not intended to meet any of their medical needs, but is designed to help with day-to-day living with a disability. These proposals don’t make sense, and I wanted to know why the Government is planning this unfair measure, but Nick Clegg didn’t have a clue. The Government seems more interested in cutting the benefits bill even if disabled people lose out. I’ll be campaigning for Charlie and local people like him to protect the benefits they’re entitled to.”

The motion, which has been laid in Parliament as the Government begins to make decisions about spending cuts, calls on the Government to recognise that more people are now travelling by rail than ever before and that major rail improvement projects boost the economy.

Every year 1 billion of the 1.3 billion passenger journeys made by rail are people commuting or travelling for business. Rail freight also transports 100 million tonnes of goods every year worth £30 billion.

In 25 years time there are expected to be 80% more people commuting by rail and freight demand is forecast to go up by 70%.

Commenting, Kate Green said:

“People in Stretford and Urmston rely on rail. It gets them to and from work and allows leisure journeys too. Even those who are not regular passengers reap the benefit of less road congestion and the vital role rail freight plays in transporting everyday goods and fuelling the economy.”

Kate Green MP added:

“We all know there are tough spending decisions to be made in the coming weeks and months but it is vital that the government does not make cuts to rail investment that could damage the local and national economy by not enabling future growth. This is why I am pleased to have been able to add my name to this parliamentary motion.”