As MEPs from the most southerly and northerly constituencies we are backing David Miliband’s bid to be Leader of the Labour Party after hearing the views of 4 of the 5 candidates. We fear for the welfare of the most vulnerable in society and the lowest paid under the coalition Government. They need Labour back in power as soon as possible. Our duty is clear – to back the candidate most likely to achieve this. David struck us as having the drive, the programme and the commitment to make it happen.
We were impressed by David’s commitment to Europe and the role it can play in helping to build a fairer world. He has a strong reputation among social democrats throughout Europe and the commitment he demonstrated as Foreign Minister to promote active and constructive UK participation in the European Union will be invaluable.
Comment from Peter Skinner: “David was the first of the candidates to ask for our support, but we knew him already, as did a lot of MEPs, social democrats and those from across the political spectrum. David was well-known in Europe as a committed and forward-looking foreign minister. He has great respect among all of us here, and we know he is as committed as we are to seeing British engagement to help build a strong, outward-looking European Union that looks to tackle our common problems.”
Comment from David Martin: “At a time when Europe is facing big challenges and opportunities in tackling climate change, reforming the banking sector, strengthening our commitment to international development and securing balanced trade agreements, we need a leader committed to pursuing a constructive and positive role for the UK in the EU. We believe the dedication and drive in international affairs which charactarised David’s time as Foreign Secretary would be fundamental in his role as leader.”
David Martin MEP
Peter Skinner MEP
Among the many injustices of George Osborne’s first budget, a particular concern of mine is a proposal that will damage the competitiveness of employers in the South East, just as the region begins to recover from recession. Under the Tory chancellor’s plans, companies in the South East would not be exempt from £5,000 national insurance savings that competitors throughout the rest of the UK will benefit from.
Osborne is wrong to apply a one-size fits all approach to the entire South East region of Britain, which is vast and diverse. The South East is not London, it contains some poorer areas in need of further investment; Thanet for example has unemployment levels of around 9%. Osborne’s plans will damage the South East economy and make its companies less competitive.
The coalition has already begun to impose heavy burdens upon the South East. The suspension of £23m funding to the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme will take away vital funding to the Thames Gateway and the national economy as a whole. The government has turned its back on jobs and growth in the economy and is already cutting vital services, as the Kent police force, which will have to make £20million worth of savings, has found out to the cost of the local community.
Budget not fair and not forward-looking!
More generally the Con-Dem Coalition’s Budget is unfair and relies on non-progressive means to get Britain out of recession. We all know that the debt needs to be cut, but the Chancellor’s plans will impose burdens on those least able to bear them. An increase in VAT will hit pensioners and the unemployed hardest. The huge cuts in public services as welfare will mean that we will soon feel the pinch of the coalition’s cuts.
Another Lib Dem let-down
What else is poignant in all of this is that Lib Dems have been willing participants, not just cheerleaders, to the Tory axeman. Clegg and Cable told us that under the Lib Dems there would be no return to Tory cuts; instead they’ve let down all those people who put their faith in them to deliver a fairer Britain.
Government showing no faith in young people
Depressingly the real losers from the budget will be children and young people; the sad fact is many of them have already lost, witness the swathes of school children now denied free school meals. As well as this the Future Jobs Fund, created with the aim of getting 150,000 young people into work, has been ditched along with child trust funds. For those of us who supported a government intent on eradicating child poverty this budget is depressing reading. The Chancellor has shown that this Government will wield the axe and hope for the best without regard for the future of our young people.
The campaign to increase Labour support in the South East was always going to be an uphill battle as the Tory-party money machine, backed up by vast sums from Lord Ashcroft, flooded swathes of the South East with posters, leaflets and activists in order to win what they consider to be their seats by right.
I and my team were active across the region and got a warm reception in all the Labour-held constituencies we visited. A constant theme throughout the campaign was the energy and commitment displayed by Labour representatives and activists from across the South East: their drive and determination to get out the vote on behalf of ensuring a fairer Britain was a constant source of inspiration for me.
Although there were numerous disappointments on election night, no-one could accuse former MPs like Michael Foster, Jonathan Shaw and Paul Clark of not defending their slim majorities. Their loss from Parliament will surely be felt.
There were a number of Labour MPs who were returned successfully. When I went on the campaign trail in Slough with Fiona MacTaggart (pictured, second from left) it was clear that the community was well-behind their local Labour candidate, her re-election is testament to the hard work she and her staff have put in during her time as MP.
I was also privileged to be able to help out Andrew Smith in Oxford East who was returned as MP for the area.
Credit must also go to John Denham and Alan Whitehead and their election teams for all their hard work in ensuring that Southampton has two Labour MPs! There are those who think the South East is a Tory zone; thanks to the work of numerous committed Labour activists and representatives that is not the case!
My commiserations to all those hard-working Labour MPs who unfortunately lost their seats. With the election of a new leader in September the Labour Party in the South East will begin the re-building process that I am sure will result in much less blue and much more red come the time of the next election.
The last fortnight has seen the European Parliament’s ECON committee, on which I sit, vote on two very important and high profile pieces of legislation to reform Europe’s financial services industry.
Last week MEPs voted in favour of ambitious reforms of the supervisory framework under which cross-border banks, insurers and fund managers operate in Europe. This included a vote on the establishment of a European insurance and pensions authority (known as EIOPA), for which I am the Parliament’s lead negotiator.
Members of ECON voted to give significant powers and responsibilities to EIOPA, more than I had recommended on the basis of my experience of the insurance industry. Nonetheless I support the Parliament’s ambition to ensure that real change to how we regulate financial services occurs following the financial crisis, and I am now in negotiations with representatives of national governments and the European Commission arguing this point.
Earlier this week MEPs voted on the highly controversial AIFM Directive to regulate hedge funds and private equity. All parties involved agreed that these important parts of the financial system need regulation. However, the poor drafting of the initial proposal and subsequent efforts from some quarters to impose additional measures restricting access to non-European funds or investors led to wide spread criticism of the legislation, particularly from the UK, which is home to the vast majority of such ‘alternative’ funds.
Despite my support for many aspects of the legislation, I was one such critic, particularly of the third country restrictions. I think these restrictions not only amount to a form of protectionism by Europe, but will also reduce investment options for our pension funds, which is ultimately negative for European citizens. As a result I voted in favour of a number of alternative amendments that better reflected my view, and abstained overall on support for the legislation.
As with the supervisory legislation mentioned above, negotiations on the AIFM Directive will now start between Parliament, national governments and the European Commission with the aim of beginning the introduction of the legislation in 2011.
Labour Party News European Parliamentary Labour Party News S&D Group News
