The growing price of Tory failure
Posted by Kate Green, MP for Stretford and Urmston, at 14:12, Fri 14 December 2012:
As often happens in parliament, I had an annoying diary clash this week.
A debate on funding for the NHS and a debate on food poverty happened at the same time.
Both subjects are of huge importance to people in Stretford and Urmston. Sometimes I think I ought to clone myself.
In the NHS debate, Andy Burnham was in great form, highlighting the broken Tory promise to increase funding for the NHS in real terms each year. He specifically referred to the situation in Trafford. No one is against change in the NHS. But changes that mean longer waiting times, ambulances queuing up at A&Es, rationing of treatments, and fewer nurses to take care of patients aren't making the NHS more efficient and effective, they're plain and simple cuts.
Over in the food poverty debate, the minister was trying to pretend that families struggling to afford the basics, forced to rely on foodbanks and handouts, were nothing to do with the government. This is a tremendous cheek when it's this government that has slashed support for families.
Last week, the chancellor announced gleefully that benefits and tax credits would rise at a rate of just 1%, well below inflation. He said this would hit the skivers.
This means that as prices rise, family incomes won't keep up. In Stretford and Urmston, thousands of families will be hit by this policy. How dare the chancellor call these families skivers. For a start, three quarters of them are working.
And many others are living on the breadline. I met a constituent who's unable to work following a stroke, and is relying on employment and support allowance. After he has paid his bills, he's got just £12 a week left to spend on food.
That's less than £2 a day. I know I couldn't manage on that. And now the value of his benefit's to be even further reduced.
It makes my blood boil when people like the chancellor say benefits are too generous.
I've also been busy with a couple of other matters this week, in my role as shadow spokesperson for equality. On Tuesday, the government made a long awaited announcement about equal marriage. The next day, there was a debate on women bishops.
It was unusual to have two discussions in two days in which the position of the Church of England was central to the debate. I'm pleased the government has decided to legislate for same-sex marriage, and that religious organisations that want to offer same sex marriages will be able to do so (if they don't want to, they won't be compelled to). Labour has been calling for the law to allow this to happen, and I'm glad the government appears to have listened.
But I don't understand why the Church of England is to be specifically prohibited from opting into conducting same sex marriages if it wishes to. The church itself didn't ask for this - and it seems it wasn't even consulted.
There was however pretty well total agreement between government ministers and Labour the following day in the debate on women bishops. Most MPs, and most churchgoers, want to see the introduction of women bishops in the Church of England, and were dismayed when the church failed to get a majority last month to agree the necessary changes.
The incoming Archbishop of Canterbury told MPs he was determined to see the situation resolved. MPs speaking in the debate this week said that had to happen as soon as possible. If the church doesn't take speedy action, I am in no doubt that parliament will.
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.