UNIONS DEFY BROWN OVER EU REFERENDUM

120 Labour MPs demand EU referendum

Gordon Brown is facing a deepening party split over Europe after it became clear that more than 120 Labour MPs, including several senior ministers, want a referendum on the new EU reform treaty.

Changes to EU treaty sought by Labour MPs Sign the Telegraph EU referendum petition Justice Secretary Jack Straw is thought to be sympathetic to the Labour rebels The figure - more than a third of the Parliamentary Party - was disclosed by Ian Davidson, a Scottish Labour MP who, despite being close to Mr Brown, is co-ordinating the strong internal campaign for the British people to be given a say. Mr Davidson, who has written to Mr Brown on behalf of the Labour rebels demanding major changes to the proposed EU Treaty - or alternatively a referendum - told The Daily Telegraph that support among his fellow MPs was running at levels similar to 2004 when Tony Blair had to give way and promise a plebiscite. "On the basis of the soundings and conversations I have had with colleagues, the support for a referendum is similar to last time round when well over 120 Labour MPs publicly or privately backed a referendum," Mr Davidson said. It is understood that several senior ministers are privately supporting the campaign. Some Labour MPs claim that Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is among those sympathetic to the rebels, believing that the party cannot claim to be more in tune with voters' concerns and more ready to listen than under Mr Blair, while denying them a say on relations with the EU.

It was Mr Straw who, as foreign secretary, persuaded Mr Blair to promise a referendum on the defunct constitutional treaty in Labour's 2005 general election manifesto.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Brown has insisted that a referendum is not necessary because the replacement treaty - negotiated by Mr Blair in his last act as prime minister on the foreign stage - is less far-reaching than its predecessor. This was rejected in 2005 by French and Dutch voters and therefore never came into force.

However, his claim has incensed Labour rebels who have found common cause with several unions, and the Tories. All insist that the two treaties are virtually the same in all but name - and that as a result Labour should honour its 2005 election pledge.

More than 60,000 people have signed up to The Daily Telegraph campaign for a referendum.

In the letter to Mr Brown, Mr Davidson writes that the new treaty, which strengthens all the main EU institutions, is "virtually identical" to the Constitutional Treaty "and that we are therefore bound by our manifesto commitment to give the people a say before ratification".

He demands 12 reforms - which other EU leaders will refuse to accept - as the price for dropping his campaign.

These include keeping policing and criminal justice issues outside the remit of the European Court of Justice and scrapping plans for an EU foreign policy supremo with a back-up diplomatic service.

The rebellion is said to have caused deep alarm to Mr Brown who fears the party will appear as split over Europe as the Tories were in the 1980s and 1990s.

Government whips are said to have been telephoning Labour backbenchers warning them that their careers will be under threat if they go public to back the pro-referendum campaign.

Last night, senior union sources said they understood Mr Brown would try to avoid defeat on the referendum issue at next month's TUC Congress by promising that British workers would enjoy protection equal to other EU workers.

Several unions are supporting motions to the TUC calling for a referendum on the grounds that Britain has secured an effective opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which ministers feared would strengthen their position, including the right to strike.

Some Labour MPs believe Mr Brown may be increasingly tempted to call an early election if the EU referendum campaign continues to gather pace. One idea is that he could include a commitment to ratify the treaty in the election manifesto and, if he wins, use this to say he has a mandate not to call a referendum.

Labour MPs say the rebel group is made up of MPs from all wings of the party. It ranges from members of the 40-strong Campaign Group of Left-wingers to moderates such as the former minister Gisela Stuart, who was appointed by Labour to negotiate the original constitutional treaty.

The old hand at stirring rebellions

Ian Davidson is an old hand at stirring Labour rebellions over Europe - and every time he does so he seems to be successful.

The 57-year-old MP for Glasgow South West first made his Euro-sceptic presence felt when he set up and chaired the Labour Against the Euro group in 2001, when Tony Blair was still determined to take Britain into the single currency.

Then, he was on the same side as his good friend Gordon Brown, who was also hell bent on preventing Mr Blair from ditching the pound. Mr Brown - and Mr Davidson - won that battle.

Three years later Mr Davidson helped co-ordinate Labour pressure for a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty in defiance of party policy.

A few weeks ago, he was at it again, and finding as much, if not more, interest. He now plans to expand the campaign, and is hoping for a hat-trick.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/28/neu128.xml

Setback for Brown’s housing targets

Plans for 3m new homes in the UK will be dealt a blow on Wednesday by an official report recommending a lower rate of housebuilding growth for the south-east, the region at the heart of Gordon Brown’s plans to increase home ownership.

The prime minister is keen to see swaths of new estates, not only in “regeneration” areas such as the Thames Gateway and Milton Keynes, but right across the Home Counties.

But the pace of that expansion may be held back after publication on Wednesday of a report on the south-east by three government inspectors appointed to assess the viability of that region’s development strategy.

The report says 32,000 new homes a year should be built over the next two decades, equal to 640,000 by 2026.

Although ahead of the 28,900 proposed by the region’s local assembly, the recommendation is behind the target of up to 38,000 homes a year set by the Government Office for the South East, which represents central government in the area. The 38,000 figure is in line with last month’s housing green paper, which lifted the government’s house building target to 3m new homes by 2020.

If Mr Brown wants to meet this target in the south-east, he may have to override the advice of the independent inspectors as well as local councils opposed to ad hoc development. The inspectors make clear that the figures in the report are targets, not ceilings.

But Henry Smith, chairman of the South East County Leaders, claimed: “Gordon Brown’s plans to impose millions of new homes on the south-east are in tatters after the government’s own planning inspectors rejected them.”

The proposals had been “impetuous and ill thought-out”.

In a further setback for the government, the inspectors say it is not possible for the nation to build its way out of the affordability crisis. “We cannot say whether there would be any discernible benefit at the regional level on affordability from our recommended increase in housing levels,” says the report.

Government-appointed inspectors are yet to report back on the strategies of England’s other regional assemblies. East Anglia’s report last year demanded a big increase in its housebuilding and others may do likewise.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said it was within central government’s power to make changes to the plan while taking on board the panel’s advice, the housing green paper and “any other evidence”. The government is still consulting on the green paper.

The south-east is the fastest-growing region of the UK, reflecting increased immigration and the economic strength of London.

The panel’s report avoids any large review of the area’s Green Belt, but concludes that some sites could contribute to development. The panel stays out of the flooding debate, saying this is an issue for local councils.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b5b11a00-55aa-11dc-b971-0000779fd2ac.html

Why Gordon Brown’s poll lead is slipping

Latest polls show the Brown honeymoon coming to an end. The idea that he is new and different has taken several knocks in the last few weeks.

Our troops are still fighting in difficult conditions in Iraq. Hopes that Gordon Brown would bring them home early have been dashed, whilst he also seems unwilling to reinforce or protect them properly.

The credit crunch and continuing higher interest rates have reminded people that economic management has not been good in recent times. People are feeling the pinch from Brown’s higher taxes and money squeeze. Conservative plans for tax cuts got a great welcome, as people are fed up with paying more but not getting value for money.

Some hospital Maternity and A and E departments are still under threat of closure, depsite all the money being spent, reminding people just how much waste there is and how they are not getting what they want from all the tax paid.

Recent violent crime has reminded people that “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” was just a slogan.The Home Secretary has not looked as if she knows what to do to curb violence.

In summary, it looks like business as usual from Blair’s deputy. Tony may have been airbrushed out of the script by the spin doctors, but until there are some decisive changes in policy and direction people will not buy the idea that this is a new government with something good to offer.

It is unlikely Brown will go for an early general election against this background.

If I were advising Gordon Brown on going early I would say do the following:

1. Withdraw the troops as soon as possible from Iraq, notifying our US allies and leaving a few people to assist with further training of the Iraqi security services.
2. Announce an end to A&E and maternity unit closures, and the expensive reconfigurations that go with them.
3. Announce more community based policing with visible police presence in the worst areas for anti social behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime, cutting the paperwork and less important issues to create more police time
4. State that tax reduction and reform on Irish lines will be important to finding jobs for the 5.4 million out of work, and stimulating the economy in the slow growth parts of the UK.
4. Announce a Referendum on the Constitution on the same day as an early General Election.

Anything less invites disappointment at the polls.

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/08/28/why-gordon-browns-poll-lead-is-slipping/

Brown accused of trying to stifle debate at Labour conference

Gordon Brown is facing his first serious clash with Labour's rank and file amid claims that he is attempting to quash debate in the party.

Union leaders and party left-wingers have warned that they will be stripped of the right to put forward emergency motions to the party conference.

A string of so-called "contemporary resolutions" has caused headaches for the Labour leadership in recent years, provoking embarrassing conference clashes over issues from Iraq to foundation hospitals. This year activists are working to secure debate on a potentially controversial motion on council housing.

But activists have accused Mr Brown of trying to push potentially divisive debates off the main agenda by removing the right of local parties to table hostile conference motions and instead refer issues to the party's national policy forum. Under the plans, published within days of Mr Brown taking over from Tony Blair as Labour leader, unions and local parties will be able to submit a "contemporary issue", rather than a formal motion, for debate. Issues would be debated on the conference floor, and would be referred to the party's national policy forum. Final policy documents will be approved by a ballot of all party members.

But critics say the change, due to be debated at the party's conference next month, would abolish the traditional votes on contemporary issues that have been a lightning rod for discontent in Labour's rank and file. There are also concerns that the reforms will strip the Labour conference of its role as the party's supreme policy-making body.

John McDonnell, chairman of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs, said: "I think they will have to pull back. People see this as the last vestige of democracy in the party. People realise if we go down on this one there is really little remaining for democracy." A member of the party's national policy forum added: "The thing that really concerns people is that conference will no longer be regarded as the sovereign body.''

The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, an internal pressure group, said giving party members a final say on all policy documents without giving any opportunity for them to be amended "would undermine the sovereignty of conference, be expensive and divisive".

A party consultation document said the system of contemporary motion debates at conference was not working. It said: "There is a feeling across the party that on one hand, the process has been used to bypass the deliberative and consensual platform carefully agreed by the national policy forum over the years and on the other the process has also left many members feeling issues of interest or concern to them have not been listened to."

Further evidence of problems for Mr Brown emerged yesterday as he was accused of trying to "buy off" union critics with public sector pay deals that breach the 2 per cent pay ceiling announced by Mr Brown in March. A deal announced this week offers 2.45 per cent to council workers with rises of 3.4 per cent for the poorest paid. Earlier this month Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, offered a flat £400-a-year rise to the lowest-paid NHS staff as part of a 2.08 per cent deal.

Chris Grayling, shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said: "This clearly smacks of an attempt by Gordon Brown to do something to buy off the unions to avoid trouble at the TUC and Labour Party conferences. The truth is that the unions are stronger today in the Labour Party than they have been for some time.''

A Treasury spokesman denied the Government had made a U-turn. He insisted settlements for local authorities and JobCentre staff were within pay limits.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2900997.ece

More Labour sleaze, surprise surprise

More Labour sleaze, surprise surprise

We are not surprised to learn - from a number of sources, including Noman Tahir and the Sunday Times (hat tip: Osama Saeed who has written a fascinating article on the subject) - that Labour is embroiled in a new sleaze scandal. An alleged front organisation, Muslim Friends of Labour, apparently gave £300,000 to the Labour Party. According to the Sunday Times,

“Imran Khand, a Glasgow-based entrepreneur, is revealed as a leading financial backer behind Muslim Friends … As his money is paid to Muslim Friends - rather than directly to the Labour party - his identity has until now remained secret. The Electoral Commission is probing whether Labour has broken laws on the disclosure of donations by hiding the true source of its financing. Khand is a close associate of Mohammad Sarwar, the controversial Labour MP who chairs the organisation…”

This is an unauspicious start to Gordon Brown’s premiership and Wendy Alexander’s leadership of Scottish Labour – a sleaze scandal already – but it would be worse if this alleged activity had resulted in Labour clinging on to power in Scotland. At most, it can be said to have allowed Labour to maintain a number of seats (possibly including Glasgow Kelvin with a Labour majority of 1,207 over the SNP, or Eastwood with a majority of 891 over the Tories) that it would have lost had not been for this funding.

We hope that the Electoral Commission comes up with more convincing findings than those of the inquiry into Cash for Peerages.

Gordon Brown won't set Iraq pull-out timetable

Gordon Brown firmly rejected calls to set a "pre-determined exit timetable" for British troops to leave Iraq last night, insisting they would stay as long as necessary.

General warns of 'deadly' new Afghan phase Allan Mallinson: Allied rivalry isn't new, but we need each other Soldier's mother to sue over 'insulting' award The Prime Minister's remarks, in a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, were aimed at ending speculation rife in Washington that he may order a rapid pull-out of Britain's remaining 5,500 troops. The number of British troops in Iraq this year has already been reduced from 7,200 to 5,500 American military commanders have voiced concern in recent days over Mr Brown's reluctance to speak out about the Iraq crisis and expressed fears that Britain might order a complete pull-out from the southern city of Basra, leaving the United States to fill the void. Mr Brown told Sir Menzies that Britain had obligations both to the Iraqi government and the United Nations to stay the course until the country's own security forces were ready to deliver stability across the whole of the south. Decisions on troop deployment and other military issues would be taken on the basis of advice from commanders "on the ground", he said. His comments came as new figures show the total cost of the Iraq war has soared to £6.6 billion, making it the most costly conflict since the Second World War. "I believe that we continue to have clear obligations to discharge," the Prime Minister said. "We are there at the express invitation of the Iraqi government, implementing a UN mandate renewed last November. "We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq. These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon." The stronger language will reassure the White House that Mr Brown is not planning any major departure from the policy pursued by Tony Blair, his predecessor. On Afghanistan Mr Brown said "dangerous and difficult" tasks remained. But he stressed it was vital that the international community did not allow the country once again to become a "failed state". He said there was "much to do" and that progress would be measured in a wider sense than mere military successes against the Taliban. It would be judged according to the stability of government in the country, reconstruction, economic development and the building up of local security forces. The figures revealing the cost of the war in Iraq are based on the latest Whitehall departmental spending figures. They show that when aid, debt relief and security costs are taken into account, the total is £1.6 billion higher than the £5 billion outlay admitted by the Treasury. Call for second Iraq medal clasp Troop inquests five times longer than civilian cases Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan Experts say the £6.6 billion figure still underestimates the true total because it does not take into account hidden costs such as extra salaries and the long-term care for soldiers who have suffered mentally and physically. The costs of regular trips by politicians, diplomats and others to the region are also not included. Although the figures, calculated by the Financial Times, are dwarfed by the £200 billion-plus spent by the US government in Iraq - where American forces outnumber Britain's by 20 to one - their publication is certain to fuel calls for a speedier withdrawal of British forces from the combat zone. The number of British troops has already been reduced from 7,200 at the start of this year to 5,500 now. It is due to fall to 5,000 next month and Mr Brown is bound to face calls at the this year's TUC Congress and Labour Party conference to accelerate exit plans. The Iraq war has already proved more expensive than the Falklands conflict which, in today's prices, cost £4.2 billion. The Forces spent £956 million in Iraq in 2006-07 and £738 million in Afghanistan.