PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

13 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
14
The right hon. Gentleman has had a long and
distinguished parliamentary career, which, under normal
circumstances, would end up with service in the House
of Lords, if it was not for his leader’s determination to
abolish it. However, I pay tribute to him for his excellent
speech.
On the Gracious Speech, first, let me say that we will
work with the Government on the Green investment
bank, the defamation Bill and flexible parental leave, all
of which sound remarkably like Labour ideas—because
they are Labour ideas.
This is the speech that was supposed to be the
Government’s answer to the clear message from the
electorate last week, but on today’s evidence, they still
do not get it. For a young person looking for work, this
speech offers nothing; for a family whose living standards
are being squeezed, this speech offers nothing; for the
millions of people who think the Government are not
on their side, this speech offers nothing. “No change, no
hope” is the real message of this Queen’s Speech.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear to
believe that people are turning against them because
they have not understood the Government’s economic
policy, but the truth is that people have turned against
them because they have understood it only too well.
What did the Government promise two years ago? The
Chancellor could not have been clearer in his emergency
Budget, when he said there would be
“a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation
and falling unemployment…a new model of economic growth”.—
[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 168.]
What has he delivered? He has delivered the worst
unemployment in 16 years, 1 million young people out
of work and the first double-dip recession for 37 years.
They promised recovery, but they delivered recession—a
recession made in Downing street. They have failed.
As if a failing plan was not bad enough, the Government
added insult to injury in the Budget, by making millions
pay more so that millionaires could pay less. There is no
change on that in the Queen’s Speech either. I say to the
Prime Minister that he should listen to people such as
Linda Pailing, the deputy chair of Harlow Conservative
party, who said of her constituents:
“They don’t like the fact that he didn’t keep the 50p tax…people
feel here that he is not working for them, he is working for his
friends”.
She said these elections are
“to do with what Cameron and his cronies are doing”.
It comes to something when even lifelong Tories do
not believe that this Prime Minister is on their side. Last
Thursday, the British people delivered a damning verdict
on the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their economic
strategy. The Prime Minister says he gets it, but if he
really does, the first thing—[Interruption.] Government
Members say, “What about London?”, which is interesting.
What did the Mayor of London say? He said he had
“survived” the wind,
“the rain, the BBC, the Budget and the endorsement of David
Cameron”—[Laughter.]
I think they walked into that one.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman
talks about the 50p tax, but I am slightly confused as to
why he did not vote against the change when he had the
opportunity to do so.
Edward Miliband: We had a whole amendment on
that. I wish the hon. Gentleman, having listened to his
constituents, had joined us in the Division Lobby to
vote against the 50p tax change.
The Prime Minister says he gets it. If he really did get
it, the first thing he would have done in this Queen’s
Speech was drop his tax cut for millionaires, but he has
not done so. They are carrying on with a Finance Bill to
put the 45p tax rate into law. Why are they doing that?
Because they really believe that their problems are not
those of policy, but those of public relations.
What did the part-time Chancellor say at the weekend?
He said:
“I know the way the Budget was presented meant this message
wasn’t heard.”
The Deputy Prime Minister said:
“An impression has formed that this was a budget for the rich”.
It is insights like that which got him where he is today.
The Government just do not get it. The problem is
not the presentation of a tax cut for millionaires; it is
the reality: £40,000 for every millionaire in Britain. It
is not the presentation of cuts in tax credits; it is the
reality. On the granny tax, the churches tax, the charities
tax and the whole Budget omnishambles, it is not the
presentation; it is the reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Edward Miliband: I will give way later.
Yes, the Government have a communication problem,
as the Prime Minister said this morning: the problem is
that the electorate have spoken, and they are not listening.
But to solve his communication problem, the Prime
Minister has a new way of explaining his policy. To the
policeman or woman being fired, to the young people
looking for work, to the small business going under,
what was his message yesterday? He said:
“You call it austerity, I call it efficiency.”
Here it is from the Prime Minister, Cameron Direct, to
hundreds of thousands of people being made redundant:
“The bad news is you’ve lost your job. The good news is
you’re a key part of our efficiency drive.” In two years,
he has gone from David Cameron to David Brent. That
is the reality.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): If
the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of hard-working
people, why does he oppose the benefit cap equivalent
to a salary of £35,000 a year?
Edward Miliband: This is very interesting. I will tell
the hon. Gentleman why we wanted it done a different
way—[HON.MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I will tell him. It is because
the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government said, in a letter to his colleagues, that the
way in which the benefit cap was done would cost more
money, put more people into temporary accommodation
and fail to solve the problem. The Government did not
listen to advice because they wanted to grab a political
headline—typical of this Prime Minister.
If the Government did not have the courage to reverse
their Budget, they should have put an economy that
works for working people at the centre of this Queen’s