Chuka Umunna MP

Chuka Umunna MP has today submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Treasury to obtain a memo outlining the true impact of last week’s Budget on unemployment.

Today, The Guardian reported a leaked Treasury memo predicting 1.3 million job losses over the next five years, specifying “100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts”.

In Prime Minister’s Questions today, David Cameron was asked about precise details of this prediction by the Leader of the Opposition, but failed to provide answers.

The leaked memo also claims that 2.5 million private sector jobs can be created over the next five years, The Guardian reports. However, according to the Office of National Statistics, just 1.5 million such jobs were created over the ten years of growth between 1997 and 2007.

Chancellor George Osborne, in his Budget statement last week said:

“I am not going to hide hard choices from the British people or bury them in the small print of the Budget documents. You’re going to hear them straight from me, here in this speech.”

“The unemployment rate is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak this year at 8.1 per cent and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1 per cent in 2015.”

However, reports of the leaked memo have thrown doubt over this assessment.

Last week, Mr Umunna was elected by his colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee, and since his election has challenged government ministers on the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund in the House of Commons.

Commenting on his Freedom has of Information request, Mr Umunna said: “It is essential that the government comes clean about the true extent of job losses resulting from last week’s Budget.

“This memo is deeply worrying, suggesting that the true picture is very different from the one painted by the Chancellor in his Budget statement last week. The Government must explain why this information has not been made public.

“Many people will not just be shocked by the scale of the unemployment that will be caused by last week’s budget. They will also be angry and disappointed that, just weeks in, the new government is attempting to hide this from the public when the Chancellor claimed he would disclose all details only a week before.”

Have your say on the Streatham Hub redevelopment

During the election campaign, Chuka pledged to hold People’s Questions Time events if elected as MP. On Thursday July 15, the first of these events will take place, allowing local residents to have their say on the Streatham Hub redevelopment.

The public meeting will be held at Dunraven School, Leigham Court Road SW16 2QB on Thursday July 22 at 6.30pm. Officers of Lambeth Council and Tesco have been invited; the event offers them an platform to update residents of the scheme’s development.

Tesco purchased the site where Streatham Ice Rink is currently situated almost a decade ago. In June 2001 the retailer published plans to demolish the Ice Rink – these were abandoned following strong opposition from local user groups, community and voluntary organisations.

Revised proposals were approved by Lambeth Council in February 2003 with a Section 106 Agreement associated with the scheme – which has become known as the ‘Streatham Hub’ – being concluded between the Council and Tesco in 2007. The development is set to provide new leisure facilities, a new supermarket and affordable housing for the Streatham area. There will also be a new transport hub linking road and rail. Lambeth Council has said that Tesco will not be allowed to open a supermarket until a new leisure centre and ice rink have been opened.

As part of the plan, the option of siting a temporary ice rink on Streatham Common while a new rink is built has been discussed and alternative sites have also been proposed. At a public meeting in October 2009, Tesco sparked anger by refusing to guarantee that it would be able to fulfill its original guarantee continuity of ice.

In March this year, the Streatham Hub agreement got the go-ahead: following pressure on Tesco by the campaign to ‘Keep Streatham Skating’, spearheaded by Chuka, Tesco agreed to take forward its redevelopment plans guaranteeing continuous ice rink provision.

In Parliament last week, Chuka met with representatives of umbrella group Hands Off Our Common, which includes the Streatham Society, Friends of Streatham Common, Sustainable Streatham and Streatham Action, and with groups representing users of Streatham Ice Rink including Skaters for the Hub, Streatham Ice Skating Action Group and Streatham Redskins.

And by holding the first People’s Question Time, Chuka is also ensuring that the community at large is fully consulted as part of this ongoing process. He will use future People’s Question Times to give the people of Streatham a forum for discussion of similarly important issues.

Last week the new Chancellor, George Osborne, made the Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition government’s first Budget announcement. He described its measures as “tough but fair”, but a closer look at the policies proposed shows that, though the spending cuts are undoubtedly tough, they are also extremely unfair.

This is a budget that will hit the poor hardest, and places like Streatham will suffer most.

The measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne included a cut in child benefit in real terms, the abolition of the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mums and Child Tax Credits set aside for parents of new-born babies.

The 25% cuts to public spending threaten to increase unemployment and could put large numbers of Streatham residents on the dole queue. Public sector jobs make up a larger proportion of employment in Lambeth (36%) than in London as a whole (23%) and, as Colin Talbot of Manchester Business School has predicted, one in five public sector jobs could be slashed to make the cuts promised in the budget.

The VAT rise (from 17.5 to 20%) is also unfair on Streatham. As Save the Children has said: “A 20% VAT rate means that the poorest parents will see their VAT bill rise to at least £1,600 a year – affecting already overstretched budgets – and driving some into the arms of loan sharks.”

The cut in Child Benefit will affect no fewer than 25,160 children from 14,735 families in Streatham.

The abolition of the Future Jobs Fund will cut the 198 jobs, apprenticeships and training places that the fund provides for young people in Lambeth. The government’s own figures show that, by cutting so deep and so quickly, the budget will reduce economic growth and increase unemployment by 100,000 – this too is bound to be felt locally.

The budget did not specify whether or not the government will cut the Building Schools for the Future programme, increasing uncertainty amongst parents and teachers at those three Streatham schools where it is unclear whether planned building work will go ahead – Dunraven, La Retraite, Bishop Thomas Grant.

So whilst Labour’s plans to reduce the deficit would protect the vulnerable and invest in growth; the Tory-LibDem plans put the greatest burden on the poorest and risk slowing the recovery.

In fact, a study by the Fabian Society and Landman Economics has shown that whilst the richest 10% of households will be 1.6% worse off as a result of this budget, the poorest 10% will be 20.5% worse off. Streatham is in the 19th most deprived borough in the country – and it is in constituencies such as this that the pain inflicted by this budget will be felt most strongly.

During the recession in the early 1990s, unemployment in Streatham was 56% higher than when Britain emerged from recession under Labour earlier this year. It is feared that the new government’s approach, in line with that adopted by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, could lead to higher unemployment.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has responded to the plans in the Budget by revising down its employment predictions by 100,000 and downgrading its growth forecast for next year from 2.6% to 2.3%.

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has warned of the impact the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Budget will have on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and in his own constituency.

Making a speech in the Budget debate in the House of Commons, Mr Umunna compared last week’s Budget with those of the Thatcher administration’s early years in which large cuts to public sector spending were made.

The 1981 Budget, which made sickness and unemployment benefits taxable was followed by the Brixton Riots in the north of Mr Umunna’s Streatham constituency.

Following the public inquiry into the riots conducted by Lord Scarman, social and economic factors, particularly high unemployment, were cited alongside police racism as a root cause of the disorder.

In his report, Lord Scarman stated that unemployment “was a major factor in the complex pattern of conditions which lies at the root of the disorders in Brixton and elsewhere. In a materialistic society, the relative deprivation it entails is keenly felt, and idleness gives time for resentment and envy to grow.”

While between 1981 and 1984 the Thatcher government made cuts to government spending of 4%, in last week’s Budget the Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration announced spending cuts of 25% across government departments.

In his speech, Mr Umunna accused the government of ignoring President Obama’s letter the Prime Minister and other G20 leaders imploring them not to withdraw economic stimulus or make cuts too quickly.

He also pressed the government for answers on the issue of youth unemployment. Last month, the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition announced the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund, brought in by the last government to create jobs for young people out of work for six months or more.

Having met with Jobcentre Plus officials, Mr Umunna learned that statistics on the success of the scheme are not yet available and has called for a full debate on why the fund has been axed before it can be properly evaluated.

Youth unemployment in the Streatham constituency, which is demographically one of the youngest areas in the UK, has increased by 6.5% over the past year. In contrast, youth unemployment fell by 27.3% in Prime Minister David Cameron’s constituency.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office of Budget Responsibility, responded to the Budget by revising up its unemployment predictions by 100,000.

The rise in VAT announced by the Chancellor from 17.5% to 20% will disproportionately affect those on low incomes. According to the Office of National Statistics, the richest 10% pay just one in every £25 of their income in VAT while the poorest 10% pay one in every £7.

Chancellor George Osborne also announced a cut in child benefit in real terms, restrictions and cuts to housing benefit and the abolition of both the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mothers and Child Tax Credits set aside to parents of new-born babies.

Mr Umunna said: “What were the effects of the approach adopted by Geoffrey Howe in the 1980s? I can describe what they were in my constituency, in which I am proud to say that I have lived all my life.

“In April 1981 my mother was out shopping with my sister and me in the middle of Brixton when the riots broke out. I was too young-just two and half-to be able to remember what happened, but my mother remembers it well, and it was terrifying.

“The real question that I want answered is: what comfort can he give to the people who live in places such as the Tulse Hill Estate in my constituency that they will not have to pay the price? What measures will he take to help them to get back into work?”

Below is a video of Chuka’s first contribution in the chamber of the House of Commons, which he made earlier this month.

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has been elected by his colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee.

For the first time, Select Committee members have been chosen by election rather than appointment following reforms to the system. Mr Umunna, who is the youngest Member of Parliament in London, was selected by colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party to fill one of its allocation of five places on the committee.

Before his election to Parliament last month, Mr Umunna practiced as an employment lawyer and has worked extensively in the City acting both for and against investment banks. Later in his career Mr Umunna switched to acting for employees fighting unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Last week, Mr Umunna criticised the Lib Dem Tory coalition in the House for abolishing the Future Jobs Fund before it has been properly evaluated, and asked Chancellor George Osborne what arrangements he is making to reform credit rating agencies.

Commenting, Mr Umunna said: “I am delighted to have been chosen by my colleagues to serve on the Treasury Select Committee.

“Much of the blame for the global economic downturn can be placed at the door of the financial services sector. The financial catastrophe led to the bail out and a situation where hard-working people were left to pick up the tab for a crisis that was not of their making.

“My primary aim on the Treasury Select Committee will be to ensure that this never happens again and that the government’s economic policies are subject to intense and forensic cross-examination.”

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has slammed the Liberal Democrat – Conservative government’s Budget for hitting public sector workers and local families hardest, failing to address the issue of youth unemployment and failing to guarantee the future of vital local school building projects.

The measures announced by Chancellor George Osborne included a cut in child benefit in real terms, the abolition of the Health in Pregnancy Grant for new mums and Child Tax Credits set aside for parents of new-born babies.

According to HMRC statistics, last year 25,160 childen from 14,735 families in Streatham claimed child benefit and will now lose out as a result of its payments being frozen.

During the recession in the early 1990s, unemployment in Streatham was 56% higher than when Britain emerged from recession under Labour earlier this year. It is feared that the new government’s approach, in line with that adopted by the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s, could lead to higher unemployment.

The independent body set up by the new government to review economic policy, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), has responded to the plans in the Budget by revising down its employment predictions by 100,000 and downgrading its growth forecast for next year from 2.6% to 2.3%.

Because public sector employment is disproportionately high locally, our area will suffer more heavily than others from the public sector pay freeze announced in the Budget. In Lambeth, public sector employment accounts for 36% compared to 23% in London as a whole.

In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to outline any measures to tackle Youth unemployment to replace the Future Jobs Fund which the Liberal Democrat Conservative government has axed.

Last week, Mr Umunna asked Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander MP why the Future Jobs Fund had been abolished before its effectiveness had been evaluated and called for a fuller debate on the project once the information is available.

Youth unemployment in the Streatham constituency, which is demographically one of the youngest areas in the UK, has increased by 6.5% over the past year. In contrast, youth unemployment fell by 27.3% in Prime Minister David Cameron’s Witney constituency.

The Chancellor did not disclose whether local school building projects would still be going ahead, but announced that the Department for education would see its budget cut by 25%.

School building projects at three local schools, La Retraite, Dunraven, and Bishop Thomas Grant, which were planned under the former government have been thrown into doubt by the Liberal Democrat Conservative coalition which is yet to clarify its intentions.

The Budget was also silent on whether funds to improve local housing will be forthcoming.

The rise in VAT announced by the Chancellor from 17.5% to 20% will disproportionately affect those on low incomes.

Only weeks ago during the general election, Liberal Democrats campaigned against what they described as a ‘Tory VAT bombshell’ and in favour of “fairer taxes”.

However, VAT is a regressive form of taxation: according to the Office of National Statistics the richest 10% pay one in every 25 pounds of their income in VAT, whilst the poorest 10% pay one in every seven, so the VAT rise will hit the poorest much harder than the wealthy.

As Lambeth is the nineteenth most deprived local authority in England, the VAT increase will be felt disproportionately in areas like ours.

Chuka Umunna MP said: “This Budget places the bulk of the government’s deficit reduction programme on the shoulders of the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Cutting Housing and Child Benefit will disproportionately affect areas like ours.

“I am also deeply concerned about the impact of today’s Budget on local jobs. The government has adopted the same approach as the Conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s which led to such terrible unemployment and deprivation here.

“I find it shocking that the Liberal Democrats, whose leader visited my own constituency recently claiming to stand for fairness, have sold out on their beliefs in supporting this Budget and sanctioning the devastating affect that it will have on our area.”

“There is real danger of a double-dip recession and ¬by cutting too fast the coalition will hit growth. President Obama’s letter to the G20 last week urged governments to keep in place spending measures to help economies recover from the recession, but the Lib Dem Tory coalition has ignored this advice.”

On the Building Schools for the Future Programme, Mr Umunna said:

“The fact the Chancellor did not explain what the government’s plans are for vital Building Schools for the Future projects at the same time as imposing a 25% cut in the education budget will only serve to increase uncertainly among local parents, students and teachers.”

“I will continue to put pressure on the Liberal Democrat – Conservative government, demanding answers and making the case for these crucial projects going ahead as the previous Labour government planned.”

The charity Save the Children said:

“A 20% VAT rate means that the poorest parents will see their VAT bill rise to at least £1,600 a year – affecting already overstretched budgets – and driving some into the arms of loan sharks”.

Below are videos of Chuka’s recent keynote speech to the Compass Conference (in two parts):

Chuka Umunna, Member of Parliament for Streatham, has challenged ministers from the Liberal Democrat-Conservative government over their announcement of severe cuts to funding for tackling youth unemployment.

In the House of Commons chamber, Mr Umunna asked the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander MP why the Future Jobs Fund jobs programme is being cut when data on the effectiveness of the scheme is not yet available.

Posing a question to Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young, he also called for a full debate on the Future Jobs Fund so that its impact can be properly assessed.

This week, Mr Umunna met with local Jobcentre Plus representatives to discuss the impact of the Future Jobs Fund in the Streatham constituency and learned that full data is not yet available.

Last month the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition government announced that the Future Jobs Fund would be axed as part of £6 billion of spending cuts.

The Future Jobs Fund, an investment programme launched by the previous Labour government to tackle unemployment among young people, provided funding to create 110,000 new jobs for 18 to 24 year olds unemployed for six months or more.

Any organisation in the private, public or third sector was able to apply for funding for new jobs through the scheme.

This week, as part of £2 billion of additional cuts the Liberal Democrat-Conservative government announced the axing of the ‘young person’s guarantee’ introduced by the last government which meant that young people out of work for six months were guaranteed a place in a job or training.

In the chamber, Mr Umunna said: “When I visited my constituency’s district Jobcentre Plus office on Monday, I was told that it was far too early to judge the effectiveness of the scheme, because no data are yet available.

“May I suggest that we have a debate on the scheme, so that we can work out whether what we are being told about the DWP’s view of the matter is a reflection of what is happening on the ground?”

Mr Umunna added: “In their manifesto the Liberal Democrats promised to begin their term in office with an economic stimulus and job creation package and are reneging on that by axing this very important scheme with their Conservative coalition partners.”

Writing in the New Statesman, leading economist and former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee Professor David Blanchflower said: “Youngsters without skills or qualifications are especially at risk. The danger is that they lose self-esteem and do not make a successful trans¬ition from school to work, potentially scarring them forever. That is bad for them: it means more unemployment, lower wages, less happiness and worse health later in life.

“It is also bad for the rest of us, not just because of the lost output, but because of the social costs. Crime rates in general and property crime in particular tend to rise in these circumstances. Above all, these are our children and it’s our problem. Unemployment makes everyone unhappy.”

On Saturday, Chuka spoke at the Compass 2010 Robin Cook Memorial Conference: A New Hope, at the Institute for Education in London.

Below is a transcript of Chuka’s speech, which closed the Conference:

“Thank you very much Gavin and thank you to everyone here who supported my election campaign – we could not have done it without you. Before I begin, I just want to say a little something about our man here – Mr Cruddas – and Compass itself.

I know many people in this hall were extremely disappointed when Jon decided not to run for the leadership of the Labour Party. I know many more, out in the country, share that disappointment.

Jon said he could not stand just to contribute to a debate; he said he did not want to be Labour’s leader or prime minister because both roles require certain qualities that he does not possess. To stand for election to Parliament, let alone to be leader of a political party, involves a certain amount of self promotion – one might say a touch of ego.

Just consider what politicians do to get elected. How many people do you know send out copious amounts of self promotional literature to thousands of people, most whom they have never met? It is rather odd behaviour, isn’t it?

The thing about Jon is this: it has never been about him. Jon has always been about the politics and the ideas, not grand plans and personal ambition. That is why, when he ran to be deputy leader, he made it clear he did not want to become deputy prime minister.

Ironically, that’s why so many people thought Jon would have been such a fantastic leader. But Jon has made his decision and we must respect it. In making that decision, he makes an important point: politics is not a career, it is a mission. Too many people forget this but Jon certainly hasn’t. Robin Cook – after whom this conference is so appropriately named – certainly didn’t when he left the cabinet out of principle.

Though we might not have Jon as our leader, thank God we have him there to keep us on the straight and narrow and to remind us, when we lose our way, what this is all about. In making such a huge contribution and mapping out a vision of the good society, Jon has raised the bar in what we expect from those who are on the ballot paper. Wishy-washy platitudes and generalisations will not do. We need an honest appraisal of what we got right and where we went wrong. And above everything else, we need a vision – the kind of vision that was wholly absent from the General Election campaign – a vision around which policy can be built and society can be changed.

Over 1000 people have been discussing what that vision of the good society should look like at this Compass conference today. And Compass is not an organisation that simply “talks the talk”; it is a pressure group that “walks the walk” as last year’s successful campaign to stop the ludicrous part privatisation of the Royal Mail demonstrated. So today, as always, is just the beginning.

In March this year, the Sunday Times published a list of prospective newcomers to the Parliamentary Labour Party. It was headlined “Look out, here come the red barons”. In the piece I was described as follows: “Chuka Umunna – Streatham May dress and sound like a Blairite, but do not be fooled. He sits on the management committee of Compass, the left-wing group that has called for a renationalisation of the railways and a ban on all outdoor advertising.”

Think about a few things. Politicians from all the major parties now talk about the Social Recession, The Good Society, and the limits of consumerism. Compass was there five years ago. To his credit, Ed Miliband supports the creation of a High Pay Commission. The first coverage of that idea came when Compass started campaigning on it a year ago. Calls to review the replacement of Trident seem to be reaching a crescendo; Compass led the parliamentary rebellion on that issue in 2007.
Electoral reform is this season’s most fashionable proposal; Compass places it at the core of what we believe. There’s a world of difference between the political fringe and the cutting-edge. And we all know where Compass is.

I joined Compass in 2003 when I was most disillusioned with New Labour. I joined because I felt my party was losing its way. I thought Compass could help us get back on the right track. How did I feel we lost it? Remember Labour’s famous 1997 pledge card. Among the pledges were the commitments to implement a national minimum wage and get 250,000 young people off benefit and into work by using, wait for it a windfall tax on the privatised utilities. We abolished the assisted places scheme and used the money to reduce class sizes in primary schools. It’s easy to forget this, but lots of good social democratic stuff was achieved in that first term.

The second term saw record investment in our public services come alive in a very tangible way in every constituency, including my own and Jon’s, with initiatives such as the Building Schools for the Future programme, transforming school buildings across the country, and New Deal in the Community zones, regenerating areas of deep poverty.

So we started on the long journey away from Thatcherism, towards a more social democratic future. But from the middle of the second term we got stuck in various pot holes en route to the promised land – top up fees, foundation hospitals, 90 days detention.

Labour’s thinking was clouded by a new emphasis on marketisation and privatisation. The government was too keen on rhetoric and policies that were shrill, sour and authoritarian. And there was that massive, era-defining mistake – Iraq. But this was only part of the story. By the beginning of the third term, it was obvious that we’d failed to capitalise on the huge wave of popularity on which the Labour government was first elected. And I think this had much to do with the collective state of mind of New Labour.

As a young Labour Party activist in the late 1990s and early noughties, I was forever advocating that we go further. I was determined that we should be embedding and advancing OUR politics so they would endure as powerfully as Thatcherism.

But that failed to happen. Why? Because tax credits are all well and good, but a more progressive taxation system would have truly embodied our values. Because the national minimum wage was one of Labour’s greatest achievements, but we could have used the public sector to pioneer a living wage; Because SureStart is Labour’s values incarnate but so too is the comprehensive school ethos which we should have more passionately and consistently argued for; Because there is greater equality of opportunity after 13 years of Labour government, but the average FTSE 100 CEO still earns over 120 times the average salary of his workers. I could go on.

So New Labour did lots of good things and I’ve just spent many months telling people about them on the door step. But, lets face it, we should have done so much more and we should been so much more radical. The reason we did not do more was because of our collective lack of self confidence.

Every time one agitated for more radical change, the leadership would tell us it was not politically feasible. “We live in a conservative country, you just cannot talk about these things”, they would say. Less “yes we can”, more “no we can’t”.

And let’s get one thing straight: we were not asking for a return to the policy platforms of the 1970s and 1980s. My generation are lucky. We did not fight the battles of the 1980s. When Labour published its suicide note manifesto – an appropriate description – in 1983, I was 4 years old. When the party was left bewildered after the 1992 General Election defeat, I was just 13.

My generation wasn’t scarred by those experiences. But I think the ’80s and the early ’90s destroyed too many people’s faith in the electoral appeal of centre-left politics, despite the huge size of that landslide in 1997. In fact, by the late 1990s, the world was very different, and there were openings for our ideas that people of that generation either failed or didn’t want to recognise. And by the time of the great financial crash, the need for a renewed kind of social democracy was obvious. Yet still Labour stuck to the politics of caution, and fought shy of a really progressive vision for the country.

My experience tells me that if you don’t have the confidence to be who you are and popularise what you believe in, you may as well pack up and go home. And the problem with that “no we can’t” approach is that it becomes circular. Research carried out by the respected election expert, Professor John Curtis, shows that as the Labour Party ceased to talk, loudly and proudly, about progressive ideals and policies, so those ideals and policies became less popular.

So we have got to get over the past and move forward to the future. Yes, we must learn from our history but we cannot be prisoners of it. It must not set the parameters for what we do now in these changed times. We must go forward with far greater self-confidence.

Take the big challenge of this parliament: the economy. The Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition argues that the debt is so high because of public spending profligacy before 2007. They now say public spending should be sacrificed at the altar of deficit reduction.

The Prime Minster even claims the action he will take to address the deficit will affect our whole way of life. “Our” whole way of life? Here’s a question: when it comes to the Tories themselves, how are these public spending cuts going to affect their way of life? In times of austerity, maybe we’ll all have to take a leaf out of George Osborne’s book – if you can’t get the bus, there’s always a yacht.

Conservative ministers let the cat out of bag on Thursday when one of them said that “those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”. Another referred to university students being a “burden” on the taxpayer. This is what we should be saying: our debt did not rise because of spending on public services before 2007. It rose because the global financial crisis caused tax receipts to fall and spending to rise – and, yes, we should be big enough to say we should have better regulated the bankers who caused it.

We should acknowledge that there need to be cuts, but the best way to reduce our debt is to go for growth and job creation. This will lower benefit payments and increase tax revenues. The CIPD estimates that the measures the coalition is contemplating will throw 750,000 workers on to the dole queue and do the opposite. So now is the time for us to build a progressive coalition for growth and jobs.

Take our public services. When free-market thinking has been so comprehensively discredited, should we presume the introduction of choice and the market into public services is the only way to reform? Perhaps we could start, as they have done so successfully in Newcastle City Council, by encouraging trade unions, workers and end users to put together and implement “in-house” plans for improving services.

Maybe we ought to finally think about democratising education authorities and hospital boards, and giving people a meaningful say in how things are run. Talking of which, look at our democracy. For years we thought that electoral reform was not a mainstream issue. It is now. People are hugely frustrated with our outdated First-Past-the-Post electoral system and the lack of choice it gives them.

They are also fed up with the adversarial, punch and judy politics, which the current system promotes. What we have now is coalition of small state neoliberals determined to force through boundary changes purely for party political reasons; it aint the new politics. New politics requires a new system and the people are crying out for it. The Alternative Vote solves some of these problems but when it comes to electoral reform we need to be bolder and more ambitious in our thinking.
So, we should walk tall, get out there and popularise our politics.

In some of the polling districts in my constituency people queued around the block, waiting to vote at polling stations for more than an hour – South Africa style. We saw turnouts of over 70% in places. After a terrible 18 months during which the awful underbelly of politics with all its sleaze and the expenses was exposed, who would have thought it?

People are interested in politics again. You hear people talk about it on the bus, on the train, in the restaurant. They want to be inspired. But the reason no party won this election was because no one really inspired them.

So we have a mission. Let’s make history and not be prisoners of it. Let’s stop doing social democracy by stealth but do it in the most clear and exciting way possible. Let’s hold fast to the three ideas that brought us all here today: Equality, democracy and sustainability. And let’s remind ourselves that after the crash, and in a world where people expect involvement and transparency as a right, and at a time when the planet continues to burn, those ideas have never been more needed.

It all comes down to what Martin Luther King called “The fierce urgency of now”. This, surely, is no time for the politics of out-of-control markets. It’s no time to be leaving our most vulnerable people to sink or swim, while the super-rich remain untouched. It’s no time to leave corporate power unchallenged, and bankrupt political systems basically unchanged.

We have a plentiful supply of passion, but we also need to rediscover our confidence. If today is anything to go by, it’s already happening. But its not enough to walk out of this hall feeling good about ourselves. Tomorrow, next week, next year – we’ve got to roll up our sleeves and take our politics to the people.