New Headteacher for Elliott

I very much welcome the appointment of Mark Phillips as the new head of Elliott, and of the wider plans to provide Elliott with much more support from a range of partners including Roehampton University and Burntwood School.

Elliott has already begun to turn around since the difficult Ofsted report last year and the discontent there was among staff with the school's former leadership. And while it's great that Elliott is now part of the Labour Government's Building Schools for the Future programme, which will provide modernised classrooms and buildings alongside the "modernised" school leadership team, it's still a crying shame that the Conservative council waited for so long to apply for this rennovation funding and then made sure it was in the very last tranche of awards for this set of bids.

One thing is clear from my visit to Elliott's Sixth Form Society last Autumn - Elliott's students are a very impressive bunch and I have no doubt that with the right leadership and, in due course, a modernised school building, once again Elliott will be a beacon school for comprehensive education in Putney.

Pseudocyesis

...That's the technical name for the medical condition known as false pregnancy.

I thought it an appropriate term to use given the Conservatives claims earlier this week that "In the most deprived areas, 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19% in the least deprived areas."

In case you haven't heard, the actual figure is 5.4%, not 54%. And when confronted with their amateur mistake, did the Conservatives admit it and apologise? No - they said that a decimal point does not change the basic message they were trying to make, whatever that was.

Well, actually, a decimal place that overstates the teenage pregnancy rate tenfold DOES change the message. And it prompted me to find out what the figures are in our area.

Here they are - in the decade since Labour was first elected, pregnanices among 15 to 17 year olds in Wandsworth fell 14% - in real numbers that's 64 fewer girls becoming pregnant. Nationally, the fall is 10%.

In fact, in every single Inner London borough bar one there are fewer teenage pregnancies now than there were when the Tories left office.

But the fact is that there were still 166 pregnancies in Wandsworth among 15-17s in 2007 and that number is still too high. It's another reason why we need to keep SureStart centres operating, not close 1 in 5 of them as the Conservatives plan to do.

But in their determination to talk Britain down, the Tories won't let the facts get in the way of a headline. We've seen it in the way they manipulated violent crime statistics last week. We've seen it in the way Putney Conservatives have repeatedly lied about burglaries and Police numbers in our area. Now they?re doing the same thing on teenage pregnancies.

I simply don't believe this is the way politics should be done. If the Tories want to debate these issues sensibly, I'm up for that discussion - but to just lie and then, when found out, deny there's anything wrong with what they've done is just contemptible.

The change we see

These are some of the hundreds of new and revamped facilities around the country completed by Labour since we were elected. They're from right around the country, but here in Putney we:

• Rebuilt Queen Mary's Hospital in Roehampton
• Upgraded doctors and dentists' surgeries like the one in Augustus Road
• Are currently upgrading the pool at Southfields Community College;
• Built the Brandlehow Nursery extension
• Are about to fund a major refit of Elliott School and the expansion of Hotham Primary School
• Funded the expansion of South Thames College on their central Wandsworth campus
• Expanded Roehampton University

..Among other important local investments in our community. Continuing investment in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields depends on who wins the general election - and that depends on who you vote for locally. The Tories will cut these building schemes substantially. Labour has a track record of delivering for our area.

GCSE success has doubled with Labour

In 1998, the first full year after the Conservatives were voted out, less than 35% of Wandsworth pupils gained 5 or more A-C grade GCSEs. In 2009, that number was 71.3% - a 36.6 point jump in performance in eleven years.

Is that transformation - and transformation is the correct term - due to osmosis? Is it because in 2009 that one year of students was so abnormally brilliant that ten years of failure were suddenly swept away?

Or might, just might it have something to do with a decade in which schools were finally funded to the extent they deserve?

In which dilapidated classrooms and portacabins were swept away and replaced with an educational environment fit for learning?

In which class sizes have been cut - just as we pledged we would do?

In which teachers, for the first time since the 1970s felt valued - and were recognised by government as among the most important professionals Britain employs?

Might it be that targets - apparently so disliked by the Conservatives - focussed attention on the really important aspects of the national curriculum like reading, writing and arithmetic?

And that testing throughout a child's development gave parents and teachers alike empirical evidence of where shortcomings were arising - so they could be sorted out before they became career-blighting problems?

Even those cynics who believe exams have become easier will struggle to dismiss a more than doubling of attainment since the Conservatives failed entire generations of pupils as so-called "dumbing down".

When I'm asked why Labour deserves four more years, it's because we haven't just spent the last twelve doing nothing: we've been transforming education. We've been transforming the NHS. I showed in a recent post how SureStart has been transforming the lives of young families, eradicating the deprivation gap that was so stark when the Tories were ejected.

But that's not why Labour deserves four more years - that's just the foundation upon which we ask for them. The reason is that 71% still isn't good enough: it means 29% aren't reaching their potential. And I want four more Labour years because we've proved we're serious about getting there - and the Conservatives proved when they were last in power that they are not.

Here's an excel spreadsheet showing how all Britain's education authorities have improved with Labour.

Roehampton SureStart has closed the gap

This is one of those really important stories that the media simply won't report - but Roehampton SureStart, the Labour Government initiative to help children and young families in our least affluent areas has succeeded in eradicating the gap between how children in its catchment area develop educationally compared to affluent areas.

This straightforward chart shows the impact SureStart's had in Roehampton:



Let me just explain what the jargon means. There are two key measures for assessing how children are "developing": PSE stands for Personal, Social and Emotional development - in other words how children interact with each other, cope spending time on their own, and their relationships with their parents. CLL is Communications, Language and Literacy - ie how a child is developing educationally.

And this chart, which looks at just personal, social and emotional development shows even more starkly the difference SureStart is making - the columns are almost equal after ten years of Labour government SureStart:



There are two questions that need to be answered now. First, isn't this more Labour-generated propaganda?

The answer to that is no - I took these tables from a report written by the Conservative-run council last week; which is available here. In fact, Councillor Kathy Tracey, the Conservative Cabinet member for Children's Services in Wandsworth attended the Roehampton Partnership on Friday endorsing the successes the report highlights.

Second, the cynics will question whether this has anything to do with SureStart rather than general factors. In response to that, it's really interesting that there are two other "big" SureStart schemes in the borough: one in Battersea and one in Tooting. Both started after Roehampton's - Battersea came next and Tooting was much more recent.

The same charts for each show lags in children's development - more in Tooting than Battersea and both behind Roehampton. The principal difference between them is the length of time Roehampton SureStart's been running - and it certainly isn't comparative deprivation: Roehampton is far more disadvantaged than Tooting, for example (Which is why Roehampton's SureStart got set up first).

Actually, there's a third question - and it's one that Putney's Conservative MP has to answer. It's simply this: SureStart works and here's the proof - so why is your party, the Conservative Party, planning to abolish SureStart if you get into power?

Poverty and the Conservatives

The Conservatives have recently been trying to present themselves as the champions of the poor. You may be someone who's been a bit surprised by this Damascean interest in poverty by the Conservatives, but in case you're thinking "That David Cameron bloke seems sincere on this issue, so let's give him a whirl", here's what he's also on the record as saying on the subject...


"Labour?s plans for minimum wages, the Social Chapter and large increases in spending and taxes would send unemployment straight back up."

David Cameron, The Chronicle (Stafford), 21 February 1996

"I long for a chancellor who stands up and introduces a Budget which abolishes all of Brown's endless reliefs and credits - and uses the money to cut tax rates at the same time. 'My Budget has no title', the peroration would go, 'it's your money, spend it as you choose.' Am I alone?"

David Cameron, GuardianUnlimited, 18 April 2002

"Unravelling Labour?s tax credit system will be a complex and long-term task."

David Cameron, Speech in Devon, 1 September 2005. He now wants to scrap the Child Trust Fund for those earning over £16,000 and tax credits for couples who each earn over £25,000.

"The Government should stop new spending on Child Trust Funds for better off families? [Tax credits would be kept for families] in receipt of Child Tax Credit and have a household income in 2009/10 (as calculated for CTC purposes of £16,040 or less)"

Conservative Party Press Release, 6 October 2009

"The Government should stop paying tax credits to households with incomes over £50,000 by starting to means-test the Family Element of Child Tax Credit at a lower threshold." Conservative Party Press Release, 6 October 2009

You see, it's really easy to say "poverty is bad and I'm against it" - but it's action that counts. And David Cameron - and his Conservatives - have a track record of voting against Labour action that has helped the least affluent the most: the minimum wage; tax credits; child trust funds; initiatives like SureStart that provide the support that enable parents to return to work.

Labour's record stands - proudly - in stark contrast:

• 900,000 pensioners lifted out of relative poverty since 1998 - pensioners now less likely to be living in poverty than the population as a whole.
• Since 1997 we have spent around £100 billion more in total on pensioners (in current price terms) than if we had maintained the policies of the last Tory Government.
• On average the poorest third of pensioner households are around £2,100 a year (or £41 a week) better off on average as a result of our tax and benefit changes they would have been if the Tory system had continued.
• In 1997 the poorest pensioners lived on what would be the equivalent of £98 a week (in today's prices). Today Pension Credit means no-one aged 60 or over has to live on less than £130 a week.
• We have lifted 500, 000 children out of relative poverty since 1997
• We have enshrined in law a duty to eradicate child poverty by 2020

I still come across people who say that the political parties are just the same. Even today, when the Conservatives would wreck the economy by taking us down a path no other major international power has chosen. And even today, when the Conservatives claim to care about the poor but vote against their interests every chance they get.

Send me to Parliament and I'll be a genuine voice who not only speaks up for but acts to help the least affluent in our community.

Playpond to be drained

The council has got back to me to explain that the reason the play area-come-swimming pool on the Lower Ashburton estate off Westleigh Avenue has flooded is because tree roots have broken into and clogged the underground drainage pipes.

Work to unblock them, which should take a week, started yesterday - Wednesday. So even though the colder weather, and an item of unsafe play equipment, will still mean this play area won't be as well used as it should be, at least it won't be rotting under a foot of water any more.

Good news for the residents - and even for the Conservative councillors for the area who I understand discovered the problem by reading about it here on my website. They're more than welcome visitors to find out what's going on - but residents might actually prefer them doing the job I'm doing for them instead of sitting with their feet up reading about it.

Those of us who can, do. Those who can't become Conservative councillors.

Q. What do you get if you cross a pond with a playground?

A. Something like this: the one and only young kids' play area on the Lower Ashburton estate, off Westleigh Avenue.







This was originally a pond, which the Conservative council turned into a nice, secure play area. But in their latest Homer Simpson "Doh" moment, the Tories appear to have forgotten to pull the plug out.

It's such a shame that a really nice play area is currently unusable because it's flooded. One thing's clear: with winter approaching, I suspect the Ashburton's "playpond" is going to fill with more water, not less. Still, if we get some really cold weather, Putney might get its first kids' ice-rink.

I've asked the council to drain this play area and fix the defective equipment.

Childcare vouchers

Last week I attended a meeting with Yvette Cooper MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in part because I wanted to raise my opposition to the abolition of tax relief on Childcare Vouchers in five years' time.

Labour has done a huge amount for working families:

• Extending maternity leave to twelve months
• Introducing a statutory right to paternity leave
• Guaranteeing a nursery place for every 3 year old whose parent wants it
• Creating SureStart Children's Centres which help young families with childcare and support

...and much much more. It's a great record and Childcare Vouchers are part of that.

The Government's argument is that by removing the tax relief they can extend childcare to fund 10 hours free childcare per week to 250,000 two-year olds from lower income families. That's a laudable aim, but it shouldn't be at the expense of denying already hardpressed working families help with childcare costs.

Since maternity leave only lasts until the child's first birthday and nursery education doesn't start until they're three, there will still be a year's gap even if the government is able to fully fund their 10 hours a week plan - and that's where Childcare vouchers really help.

Without them, working families will either have to find extra money for childcare, rely on relatives, or stop work for a year.

The Conservative view, at least here in Putney is that a two-year-old's mother's place is in the home, not at work - as expressed by local Tory councillor Kathy Tracey. No ifs, no buts.

If like me you don't believe a one-dogma-fits-all approach is a good idea then we need to find another way. And for those of us in London, the problem is more acute because childcare costs around here are so much higher than elsewhere in the country.

So while it may be true that further north and west childcare vouchers are a tax perk for the very richest families, here in South West London they make a real difference to modest and middle income working families. That's why I don't think they should be scrapped - or at least if they are to be, they need to be replaced with a more equitable scheme that doesn't discriminate against London families who need help paying expensive childcare costs.

Castlecombe Drive paving

This photo of a cave-in pavement in Castlecombe Drive was taken on Saturday. Castlecombe Drive has a number of sheltered homes for pensioners - there are a set of bungalows just to the left of this picture; and across the road is Ronald Ross primary school. In other words, such poor quality pavements are especially dangerous given the number of pensioners and young children who use this road.

Remarkably, a Conservative Councillor lives less than fifty metres from this potholed pavement: yet it's clearly either beyond or beneath her to bother to get this fixed. I have to wonder what it is that the Conservatives do for their £10,000 a year allowances - because clearly looking after the area - even one they live in - isn't it.

I've reported this and will let you know when it's fixed.

Britain: second in world for innovation and entrepreneurship

Despite the continual talking down of Britain by the Conservatives and Putney Tory MP Justine Greening in particular, a new report by the free-market Legatum Institute finds that, surprise surprise, the UK is remarkably strong and robust.

Overall Britain comes twelth (out of 104) in the rankings which analyse a range of the factors that make countries competitive and successful: that's ahead of Germany, France, Italy and Japan to name but a few; and of our major competitors only just behind the US. And here's what they say about key aspects of our country:

Economic Fundamentals: "British inflation and unemployment rates are better than the global average, indicating a fairly stable economy...Foreign direct investment stands at 7% of GDP, showing the British economy to be an attractive investment opportunity to foreign investors.

So much for Conservative claims that we are, as a nation, over-extended, our (excellent) credit rating at risk and on the brink of being shunned by international investors.

Entrepreneurship and innovation: "Barriers to entry, in terms of number of procedures required to start a business, are very low in the UK. This is reflected in the fourth highest number of new businesses registering in the country in 2007...ICT goods account for a high percentage of total exports, ranking the country 12th, internationally, and 34% of exported manufactured goods are high-tech exports. The country devotes 2.3% of its GDP on R&D expenditure, placing it in the top 10 on both variables. The UK receives the third highest amount of royalties, reflecting successful capitalisation on the country?s intellectual property.

Social capital: "...Instances of charitable giving also ranked second highest, internationally. Over a quarter of respondents had volunteered time to an organisation the previous month, and 59% had helped a stranger, ranking the country in the top 30 on both variables."

Education: "British workers benefit from high levels of tertiary schooling, boosting labour productivity"

Health: "High life expectancy, low infant mortality, and a strong health infrastructure characterise the health care system in the UK"

Personal Freedom: "British society is characterised by a high degree of personal freedom and perceived tolerance of minority groups"

It's incredibly easy to forget in the drip-drip world of sensationalist tabloid news just what a fantastic country the United Kingdom is, especially when we have HM Official Opposition doing everything in their power to destroy our reputation at home and abroad and threatening to take us down an economic path not a single G20 country is heading.

This report hasn't been compiled by Labour, the trade unions or by Government, but by a global investment firm: hardly a firm likely to sugar-coat its findings because it's politically sympathetic to the Labour Party. But don't take my word for it: download the full report here.

Hat-tip to blogger Don Pasinski for drawing this story to wider attention.

Student Loans Company response

Below is a bland reply from the Deputy Chief Executive of the Student Loans Company in response to my letter of a few weeks ago. I wrote to highlight the plight of Roehampton University students who have been as badly affected by their incompetent failure to pay financial packages on time.

One of the ridiculous things the SLC is claiming is that students will get their money once their registration has been confirmed. But many institutions don't allow their students to register unless they can prove they can pay fees and, where applicable, rent for their room in halls of residence.

We really need better from the SLC. It's only purpose is to provide students with funds during their studies. If it can't even do that one thing, there really isn't much point to its existence.

This is what the SLC had to say for themselves:

Southmead SureStart coming soon

A brand new SureStart children's centre is opening on Monday 9th November at Southmead School in Princes Way. The Southmead SureStart will be the seventh in Putney opened since Labour came to power. And it exceeds Labour's general election promise at the last general election to make sure that each constituency has at least six SureStart centres.

SureStart childrens centres will, I believe, come to be seen as one of the great Labour achievements in the same way that setting up the Open University was in the 1960s. And one reason we can be fairly sure of that is the fact that, while the Conservatives would dearly love to axe SureStarts because they cost money they've been forced to U-turn on their pledge to close them because they work and they're increasingly cherished by the communities that benefit from them.

SureStart offers real, practical help and support for families after their children have been born: support that often makes a difference between giving those kids the very best start in life or getting off at a disadvantage. Our first SureStart centre in Roehampton Lane opened getting on for eight years ago, and now we have centres right across the constituency, from Buckhold Road and Merton Road in Southfields to Fontley Way in the middle of the Alton estate.

Our seven SureStart Centres in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields are:

Fontley Way 1 O?clock Centre

Granard Primary School and Children's Centre

King George 1'o clock Centre

Southmead Primary School and Centre for Children & Families

Southfields Community College and Children's Centre

Sure Start Roehampton Centre

West Hill Primary School and Children's Centre

Putney School of Art progress

I wrote yesterday about the Labour Government funds being used to provide a playground at The Pleasance in the Dover House estate.

I predicted in that report that the Conservatives would seek to claim credit where none was due them - and one of the reasons I'm confident about that prediction is that it's exactly what they've tried to do over Putney School of Art.

Putney School of Art in Oxford Road is currently undergoing a major expansion costing £818,000. 73% of that cost is being met by the Labour Government, and a further 7% from fundraising carried out by the excellent, courageous and persistent Friends of Putney School of Art. This work will increase capacity at the school by almost a quarter - or, in the way the Conservatives view things, increase potential income for them of £78,000.

Yet the Conservatives make out that the prospect of a thriving Putney School of Art is down to them. I'd tolerate that outrageous spin were it not for the fact that it was this Conservative council that tried to close the school down only a few years ago because their "cost of everything, value of nothing" attitude only sees benefit to the community when it comes with financial benefits too. That's why I pay tribute to the hard work of the Friends of Putney School of Art, whose campaign was almost single-handedly responsible for keeping the school open.

Now we have the prospect of Putney School of Art going from strength to strength with Labour, on a stronger financial footing and offering a wider variety of courses. That's something the whole community will welcome. But let's just give credit where credit is due, and certainly not to Putney's shameless Conservative opportunists, whose commitment to the arts runs about as deep as their pockets - shallow, in other words.

Click here to read more about the progress being made on improving Putney School of Art.

Labour: the best start in life for our children

Labour: creating jobs and improving your skills

Making more of Roehampton Fields

When I was out and about talking to residents of the Dover House estate recently, one of the things that kept coming up from families with small kids was the lack of play facilities in the area.

They've got a point: there is not a single children's play area anywhere on the Dover House estate. And this despite there being plenty of open space in the local area.

The largest of these open spaces happens to be the huge Roehampton Playing Fields at the top of Dover House Road just before you reach Putney Heath. "Why can't a small section of this space be turned into a children's play area?" I was asked.

And so in turn, I asked the council. This is the response I got:

"The site has not at any time, neither during the Council?s tenure nor during the previous ILEA tenure, been a publicly accessible open space. That being so there are no plans to extend use of the facility by local residents, however we are aware of local concerns at the lack of play facilities for younger children and officers are considering the potential to provide some appropriate form of play facility on the Pleasance open space."

Well, secure play facilities for young children and families on the Pleasance, at the other end of the Dover House estate near St Margaret's Church is something that should be looked at. But that doesn't really explain why they can't look at providing something at Roehampton Fields - in fact the only reason the council has come up with is that they've never been used for this purpose.

I don't think that's good enough. With some imagination, young families' play facilities could be incorporated into the playing fields without impinging one foot onto the games pitches and without compromising the overall security of the fields.

If you agree, please sign my petition. Click here.

What a difference eight months make

The google search above encapsulates why you can't trust the Liberal Democrats. Back on 9th February, the Lib Dem leader was promising in The Guardian that he would scrap tuition fees for university students.

As recently as July of this year, one of his most senior MPs, Evan Harris, who represents the University half of Oxford was continuing to spin this line, claiming: ??the media are wrong if they think that tuition fee abolition with student debt reduction will not be one of our key proposals to put before the British public."

Back in 2005 the Lib Dems saw students as a key target group - and so came up with their "abolish tuition fees" line. It won them a handful of university seats and 41% of the student vote.

Now they've calculated that this week it's more important to out-Tory the Tories on slashing public services, so the students can be forgotten about. Remember that this follows the jettisoning of their promise to raise income tax by 1p to fund education; the jettisoning of their pledge to stop post office closures and the jettisoning of a pledge to lift thousands of the poorest from paying income tax.

As someone passionate about politics, I by and large don't subscribe to the view that politicians say anything to win a vote. But I tend to find that it is the Liberal Democrats who are the exception to that rule. In a by-election not that long ago, they campaigned for a motorway bypass to relieve congestion in the town of Newbury. There's nothing wrong with that, except that in the rural parts of that same constituency which the bypass would have run through, the Lib Dems were campaigning against it! This would be funny if it weren't so cynical.

Some of us still believe in honour in politics. The way too many Liberal Democrats behave is not honourable. Supporting one policy in one general election, and the diametric opposite of it - as with tuition fees - at the next is not honourable.

You just can't trust the Lib Dems, I'm afraid.

Why we need Labour's September Guarantee

The chart above shows - in quite shocking terms - how the global recession has particulary damaged employment opportunities for 16-18 year olds in the UK.

The knowledge that this was how this particular recession was playing out was one of the reasons why Labour made the September Guarantee that I wrote about a few weeks ago.

In summary, we've guaranteed a place in Sixth Form, college or training/modern apprenticeships for every single 16 year-old school leaver for the coming two years. That's 55,000 more places - and it's the first time in our history that any government has guaranteed further education to every single 16 year old.

The entire basis of the political divide between Labour and the Conservatives on the recession is whether we should take the sort of action like the September Guarantee, or instead just shrug our shoulders and, to quote former Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont, just accept that this youth desolation is "a price well worth paying."

It isn't. It never was. It never will be. And it's beyond me how anyone in politics can think it could be.

Student Loans debacle

There have been some quite spectacular examples of incompetence from quangos over the past twenty years - starting with the Child Support Agency under the Torie, but also the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority (QCA) failing to correctly mark exam papers.

But the ineptitude of the Student Loans Company takes some beating. To leave over 300,000 students without any finance in place at the start of the month, when its sole purpose is to ensure that it is, is gross incompetence.

And I've just written on behalf of Roehampton University students who have been affected, to the Chief Executive of the SLC to tell him just that. What compounds their failure is their inability to provide a phone helpline that students can actually get through on, a website that couldn't be less informative if it tried, and an abject refusal to say sorry for failing to justify its existence.

Of course, while it may be therapeutic to tell the SLC what we all think of them, that won't get students their finance any quicker. Nor will it ensure that universities - which normally require students to be able to prove they have the funds to pay for their tuition and board, where applicable, before they can register for courses - allow those affected to commence their studies.

That's why I've also written to the Vice Chancellor of Roehampton University, Paul O'Prey, to ask for some assurances on behalf of those affected by this debacle so that they can be housed and registered for day one of the new academic year.

You can read both my letters below - as usual, click on the image for a larger version.

Government takes an interest in Roehampton early voting

Below is a reply my campaign has received about my efforts to increase participation in elections of Roehampton University students from the Minister for Justice, Michael Wills MP.

I think the reply is really positive because even though he says it won't be possible to run an early voting trial for the general election, it is possible - if the Conservative council applies to do so - for there to be an early voting trial at next year's council elections.

We've forwarded this letter onto the Council's Chief Executive, Gerald Jones to urge the council to pursue this idea because if between us we can find the funds, what on earth can they have against increasing student engagement?

The Tory scrapheap

Staying on at school

I've written recently about some of the ways the Labour government is investing to keep the economy growing, to keep people in jobs, and to get young people who may have been unemployed for a while back into work. But there's another critical part of our strategy as we approach GCSE results day.

A couple of years ago, we set out our intention to raise the school leaving age to 18, up from 16, meaning every pupil at secondary school gets the chance to study A and AS levels, a modern apprenticeship or gain other qualifications.

We've made it possible for many pupils to stay on voluntarily by introducing educational maintenance grants so that the main reason many leave at 16: that they need to get work because their family couldn't afford to keep them in school for an extra two years, was removed.

As a result, this year 85% of 16 and 17 year-olds in inner London decided to stay on in full-time education or training - the highest ever level. And the number not in education, employment or training (the so-called "NEETS) fell to just 5.2% of 16 year-olds: still far too high, but a far cry from the levels during the last two Conservative recessions. That number is far higher among 18 year olds: the last group not to benefit from Labour's extra investment - which underlines why we need to invest to keep our kids in further education or training.

And it's why, earlier this month, the government announced Labour's September Guarantee: an extra 55,000 places in Sixth Forms, colleges and training facilities, so that every single 16 year-old school leaver from July has the option of staying on if they so wish for these two important years.

Here in Wandsworth, that means an extra 159 places and £1.876 million for 16-18 year olds. We'll offer over 5,600 places in total.

So, here's another clear choice on the way to tackle the recession and unemployment. We're doing something real, practical and now to help teenagers stay off the dole-queue scrapheap. The Conservatives don't support this funding and left an entire generation to unemployment despair - twice - when they were in power.

I'm proud to be on the side of action.

Recent Ofsted reports: Elliott and John Paul II

I know how much interest there is from parents for details of school performance - some of my most read posts have been those on school league tables and Ofsted reports. I also know how time consuming it can be to search for all these different reports, so I'm adding today two of the recent Ofsted reports into local secondary schools, Elliott and John Paul II.

Here are the reports:

Elliott Secondary School - 18 March 2009

John Paul II School - 10 June 2009

The neglect of Elliott

Building Schools for the Future is the Labour Government programme for - as it says on the label - renovating and equipping run-down schools.

The most run-down school in Wandsworth is Elliott, Putney's main secondary school located in the midst of the Ashburton Estate. Although its 1950s building has been listed because of its architectural distinction, it has never provided a fantastic physical learning environment.

With almost entirely glass frontages, the building is blindingly hot in the summer and incredibly cold in winter (so says my campaign manager who was a pupil there in the 1980s). It underwent a huge asbestos removal programme about 25 years ago. But in the past decade a huge backlog of major capital works has built up - largely I should add due to the indifference of the Conservative Council, which is the local education authority.

I have deliberately chosen to avoid comment on the serious problems Elliott is experiencing because the future of this school is too important to become a party-political issue, and a degree of "breathing space" has been useful for the relevant authorities to decide a future course for the school. But I am a strong believer that the physical environment at Elliott must surely have an adverse impact on the ability of pupils to learn and teachers to teach.

That's why I am troubled by the fact that you will not find Elliott in the list of schools about to benefit from the new round of Building Schools for the Future funding. You won't find any Wandsworth school on the list. And you won't find Elliott in the second round of funding either. It's because Wandsworth's Conservative Council has chosen not to bid for it.

As has been noted by the Wandsworth Guardian, that's £3 million in funding Wandsworth schools have missed out on because of the Tory decision not to bid for it.

The Conservatives are trying to argue that if they claim this money they'd waste it. It's an odd and, I suppose, remarkably candid admission - but it's not a good enough reason to stand aside while other schools benefit.

The council has known about the shortcomings of Elliott's built environment since they inherited responsibility for education from ILEA way back in 1990. The Building Schools for the Future programme has been around since 2004. The Council itself will not find the money needed from its own budgets to renovate Elliott. Hence the only way Elliott gets work done is through BSF funding, and the only way it gets BSF funding is if the council bids for it.

Elliott's wider, deeper problems suggest to me that the school needs a complete makeover, which ought to include - at the least - a new building in which its fortunes can be turned around. I want Putney's main secondary school to once again be a beacon for comprehensive education.

Tackling homophobic bullying in schools

Last month marked the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots - the demonstrations against US government sanctioned persecution of the homosexual community in New York. The stonewall riots are widely regarded as the beginning of the civil rights movement for gays and lesbians that has transformed how they are perceived around the world.

Forty years on, India has just repealed its anti-homosexual laws; in the US, state after state is recognising and allowing gay marriage; and in this country civil partnerships offer legal rights and recognition to same-sex couples.

One of the first things Labour did in government was to introduce a law recognising civil partnerships; but arguably more important than that, we abolished section 28 of the Local Government Act. Section 28 was introduced by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, supposedly to prevent the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools. The Conservatives believed that there was some sort of conspiracy among teachers and "loony left" councils to turn children gay, as if that could ever be possible.

The problem with section 28 was that it was incredibly unclear to teachers what "promoting" homosexuality meant. So, for fear of prosecution, schools pretty much banned all discussion or explanation of homosexuality. Many children who needed help with these issues were unable to turn to teachers for advice and support - or even a listening ear. Most damagingly though, it gave a green light to homophobic bullying in schools: there is plenty of evidence that teachers failed to intervene in such cases because of section 28, and the legacy of that is still with us today.

Gay teenagers are between three and four times more likely than heterosexual teenagers to attempt suicide. It's an appalling statistic that should alarm us all. As well as all the "normal" difficulties gay teenagers grow up with, there is a whole extra weight of accepting they are gay.

Homophobic bullying has been described as the last acceptable form of bullying in schools. A pupil caught racially abusing someone, bullying a disabled student or harassing a member of the opposite sex is easily and confidently dealt with by school authorities. Tackling homophobic bullying is often considered a much trickier issue to deal with.

So I want to see the Government to set out in clear terms for schools, governors, teachers and education authorities that homophobic bullying is as unacceptable as racist bullying. We need unequivocal guidance that sets out how to support children who think they might be gay; every secondary school should have a policy on this and a confidential, effective and safe means for pupils to access help. We need to make it clear to all students that there is nothing intrinsically different between having a friend who is gay and one who is not.

Safeguarding children means even authors need to be vetted

As a society do we accept the need to undertake some basic vetting on those who work closely with our children in schools (and other vulnerable people) to make sure that they are not a known sex offender?

I do. So does the government. I suspect so do the opposition parties. It's why teachers, classroom assistants, administrators, cleaners and dinner ladies are vetted. The check doesn't hurt. It doesn't require any more than completing a form and paying a small administrative fee. And it provides reassurance to parents.

I struggle to see why authors should be immune from this very basic check?

The authors argue this is a terrible reflection on society: that we shouldn't need to be reassured that everyone who works with our kids isn't an abuser. And they are right, of course. But sadly, we do not live in an ideal world, and child abuse and paedophilia are a part of it. It is for that reason that the minor inconveniences created by the vetting system should be accepted as necessary and here to stay.

The choice on SureStart

A new website for new families

Wandsworth NHS has set up a website to help new families get as much information on services available and offer help, support and advice. It's called http://www.wandsworthlittlefeet.nhs.uk/.

Often, government-run websites aren't exactly easy to use and look terrible. But this one is pretty well designed and easy to navigate. if you are pregnant, have given birth, or even if you are just thinking about having a baby, this site could be of use.

3,000 SureStart Children's Centres opened

Yesterday the 3,000th SureStart Children's Centre was opened. When Labour was first elected there were zero. In our area, Roehampton's SureStart, in Roehampton Lane, was one of the first centres opened and has been going from strength to strength; but it's since been joined by over twenty extra Children's Centres in the vicinity - as can be found here.

By providing universal services for 2.4 million children under five and their families, these centres are a living embodiment of Labour's commitment to making sure that all children - not just some - get the best start in life, regardless of their background.

This investment in every child's formative years is absolutely critical to success later in life. But it's threatened by the Conservatives, who are already committed to cutting £200m each year from the Sure Start budget.

That's the equivalent of closing one in every five Children's Centres across the country. We can't go back to the 1990s when more than a million children than today lived in poverty; where failing schools were tolerated by the government as long as they were in less affluent areas; and where children were not given every chance in life to succeed.

That's the difference between Labour and Conservative when it comes to SureStart.

When is free swimming not free? When it costs £2

At the end of March, the Labour Government introduced free swimming for under 16s and over 60s.

Right from the outset, the Conservative Council tried to shirk the scheme: the only reason under-16s swim free in Wandsworth is because the local health service stumped up the funding because the Conservatives wouldn't. They also cranked up leisure centre charges for everyone else at the same time as they agreed to opt-into the Labour free swimming scheme.

But it gets worse. Yesterday, I discovered that free swimming in Wandsworth isn't free at all. Because the Conservatives have levied a "membership fee" of £2 for any pensioner wanting to take it up.

I asked the Council to confirm this - and their response was that they had been allowed to. Well, just because someone's allowed to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. Neighbouring Lambeth doesn't, for instance. I've asked the Tory Council to explain, as a matter of urgency:

1) Why does Wandsworth Council feel the need to levy this charge?

2) Which other local authorities in London are levying a similar charge?

3) Does the charge apply to under-16s "free" swimming as well?

4) Why does there need to be a "membership" scheme as eligibility for the scheme is clear and can be verified using other existing means of identification?

5) Is this a one-off membership fee or will those being charged be asked to re-register each year?

6) What are the actual costs of administering this "membership" scheme, and what is the expected income this will generate?

Wandsworth is among the highest-charging councils in the country for almost everything except council tax. Free swimming should mean free swimming.

David Cameron's "Age of Austerity"

Alton School improves

I was delighted to read the Ofsted report on Roehampton's Alton School, which noted the satisfactory improvement teachers, parents and pupils are making.

In last year's SAT scores the Alton, at the end of Danebury Avenue, made massive improvements, and the importance of the Ofsted report is that it shows that these strides forward were not a one-off fluke; the product of an unusually strong year, but because the school is building on strong foundations.

The key sentence in the Ofsted letter for me is "Given pupils? well below average starting points in Nursery, there is evidence of stronger achievement levels as a consequence of more consistently good teaching."

The importance of measuring not simply how pupils do when they come out of a school, but where they were when they went in - what is officially called "value added" is really important, because while schools that serve a challenging area like the Alton Estate will probably never get perfect academic results, they often stretch pupils far further than schools that select on academic ability do.

No pupil left behind has been a key belief for Labour in Government - which is why school standards have been transformed for the better in the past decade. And it's why schools like the Alton are getting better and better.

Here is the Ofsted letter about Alton School.

The Budget in summary

Why we're Labour

Labour MP Nick Palmer represents Broxtowe in Nottinghamshire, and today wrote an article for the Political Betting website explaining why he - and so many others around the country - remain passionate about getting Labour re-elected at the next General Election.

Although I don't agree with every single point he makes below, I thought this was an excellent piece and so I'm reproducing it. If you're a Labour supporter I hope it inspires you; and if you're not, well, I hope the way he sets out the case gives you some pause for thought:


What do we expect of governments? We expect that they give us protection at time of crisis (military, economic or social) and pursue a coherent long-term agenda to make the country better.

First, then, is the Government offering protection at time of crisis? We certainly have an economic crisis on our hands, and I?d contend that it?s being dealt with more competently and with more attention to protection of the vulnerable than people originally expected when it first blew up.

We?ve seen predictions here that companies would fall like ninepins, unemployment would head straight for four million, the FTSE would plunge to 2500, the recession would last for years, mass repossessions would devastate the housing market, full recovery could take a generation. All those predictions are starting to look exaggerated.

Can we be sure? No. But it?s noticeable that the main Conservative critique has not been ?Why are you doing X and not Y?? but ?You shouldn?t have got us here in the first place?. And as for that, I wouldn?t try to maintain the claim that we?re uniquely well-placed to withstand the crisis, but it?s also obviously not true that it?s peculiar to us. Internationally, we?re all very much in the same boat.

That brings us to the second aspect: internationalism. Labour has usually been an internationalist party (with atavistic exceptions such as our anti-EEC stance in 1983, which I supported at the time and was wrong to support), and it comes naturally to a Labour government to seek international agreements without obsessing about national sovereignty: global problems need global solutions.

Gordon Brown has surprised his critics on this: after an apparently frustrating series of visits to the US, the EU and developing countries, he was able to get the G20 agreement which even the harshest critics struggled to call a flop. We are actively keen on international financial regulation, to an extent that makes the nationalist and City-linked wings of the Tories queasy. A Brown-led Labour government is clearly going to pursue this agenda, making life harder for tax havens (which many Tories half-think should be left alone as healthy competition) and limiting the wild speculation which triggered the current crisis. If we had an inward-looking government, preoccupied with tinkering with the domestic levers and arguing peevishly with the EU, we would be part of the global problem and not the solution.

Third, we are midway through five projects that are central to most Labour supporters? hearts:

? reducing both absolute and relative child poverty
? increasing overseas aid to the UN target of 0.7% of GDP
? tackling climate change seriously
? making the education system competitive with the private sector
? making the NHS genuinely comparable to best European practice

All have made considerable headway under this government. The Child Poverty Action Group acknowledges the rapid progress until the current crisis on poverty; third world charities are enthusiastic about the progress on overseas aid (including the quiet delinking from trade conditions like the Pergau-arms linkage that disgraced the Tory government), we are the first country in the world to impose binding carbon reduction targets on ourselves, and although there?s no shortage of Daily Mail readers who?ll claim that we have a Third World school and hospital system, you won?t find many head teachers or consultants who don?t acknowledge the progress. There?s a reasonable argument about whether the extra money could have been used even more effectively, but there isn?t one state school or medical facility in my area which hasn?t improved very noticeably.

Would a Tory government abandon all these efforts? No ? they?re obviously desirable (pace the fringe of climate change sceptics), and any conceivable government would think them a jolly good thing to pursue. But they are Labour priorities and they don?t seem to be the Tory priorities. Mr Cameron hastens to reassure us that he?d work towards the aid target, that he wants the best for the NHS (albeit without specific targets), and so on, but what was it that really got the Conservative backbenches restless? The suggestion by Ken Clarke that reducing inheritance tax for estates worth £2 million might not be a top priority.

I want a government that sees the five objectives above as the central long-term priorities, not a government harried by its backbenchers into being preoccupied with reducing Inheritance Tax, reshaping the group within which Conservative Euro-MPs affiliate at Stasbourg and other things that seem to me at best peripheral and at worst undesirable. It may well be that the Tories will in due course unveil a more compelling agenda, and I absolutely accept that there are plenty of decent Tories who want the best for Britain. As a party, though, they are so far relying very heavily on the ?time for change? argument, and if Mr Cameron has any particular priorities of his own, he?s kept them under wraps so far.

But what about freedom ? the libertarian-Conservative/David Davis agenda? Well, leaving aside the puzzling worry about CCTV (if I go into a public place I may be observed by real humans, never mind just cameras), I do think that all governments tend to lean on the side of authority, and it?s an ever-present danger that needs to be watched whoever is in power.

But the strongest defence against an encroaching state is legally-entrenched powers for the individual, and Labour has introduced two of them, the Freedom of Information Act and the Human Rights Act. Both have repeatedly been a nuisance to ministers, but despite wriggling on specific issues, there?s been no move to water down either of them. What would the freedom-loving Conservatives do with the Human Rights Act? Abolish it, and replace it by a British Rights Act which would say?er?what? We don?t know, as it?s seemingly not a priority for them to tell us.

Finally, what about specific things that go wrong? The McBride/Draper disgrace, the various resigning Ministers over the years, the slowness to tighten MPs? allowances? Sure. I?m not arguing that the Government is perfect. But party loyalty comes down to a shared sense of priorities.

I want a government that is internationalist, handles the current crisis competently, and sets poverty (at home and abroad) and public services as its priorities. I?m horrified when a Labour MP or party official does something disgraceful, but at root I think the party is the same noble cause that I joined 38 years ago. I?m proud to be part of it, and I?ll work to get it re-elected with the same energy and enthusiasm that I had in 1997.

Dr Nick Palmer MP

Volunteering

The Prime Minister's announcement that everyone by the age of 19 will be asked to volunteer for at least 50 hours of community service if Labour is re-elected is a move I strongly support.

Back in the 2006 council elections one of the features of the manifesto I wrote as Labour Leader in Wandsworth featured a plan to set up a volunteer scheme for students and sixth formers which I called WandCorps.



In return for their help on projects they are particularly interested in: environmental work like keeping Beverley Brook and the River Wandle free of rubbish; helping with care support in sheltered housing or residential homes; assisting in schools teaching computer skills or helping with Games, and so on. In return, the participants would gain experience and be able to add to their CV.

At the time, the Conservatives were very critical of the idea, even though the borough would have got out of the scheme far more than it invested. But community service is clearly an idea whose time has come - it's all part of Labour's commitment to making full-time education compulsory until 18; another achievement that I suspect future generations will recognise as very significant in the development of our country.

I think we need to instil a sense of communitarianism - the idea that we're not just in it for ourselves - in the citizens of tomorrow; and if we can link that into additional accreditation so that the students themselves benefit.

22 million people £440 better off - from today

Today, 6th April, is the day most of the tax changes introduced in last year's Labour Budget and Autumn Statement kick in.

The headline figure is the increase in personal tax allowance which benefits every single basic-rate Income Tax payer (22 million of us), which instantly has put £440 back in our pockets.

But there are other major increases too: pensions go up £4.55 and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners rises to more than £124 a week.

For families the changes are significant too. As well as introducing a new grant of £190 for expectant mothers to help them eat more healthily during their pregnancy, Child Benefit has already risen to £20 a week for the first child. Child Benefit has almost doubled since Labour was elected. And Child Tax Credits now benefit families by £2,235 a year.

The table above - which if you click on it enlarges - shows just how many of us benefit from these changes.

The Conservatives derided these changes - along with the £5 a week VAT cut - as not providing the slightest bit of help for our country. I don't see how anyone can begin to argue that £440 back in people's pockets means nothing; but then I don't really understand how the Conservatives opposed giving basic rate taxpayers £440 back while calling for Inheritance Tax cuts for just the richest 8% of families.

If you don't think there's a difference between Labour and Conservative politicians, then do look again at the stark contrast between what Labour is delivering and what the Tories would take away.

Primary school success

Many Putney residents will have seen that one of our local primary schools, Our Lady of Victories in Clarendon Drive, came fourth in the entire country in the just-published league tables of 11-year olds' Standard Aptitute Test scores.

And another less-heralded but arguably more impressive achievement was that of the Alton School in Roehampton, where the average SAT score more than doubled from just 40% in 2007 to 87% in 2008.

Beyond that local success, however, from the coverage these results generated in the media, you'd think we had an illiterate, innumerate and generally failing school population.

Let's be clear from the outset: one single child leaving primary school not having mastered reading, writing and arithmetic is one child too many - and 25% shows how far we still have to go in creating the education system our children deserve.

But here's the thing. In 1997 when Labour was elected, just 53% of pupils were leaving primary school with sufficient mastery of the key subjects. Today it's 73%. And because statistics are meaningless let me convert that difference into a real number: 120,000 more pupils left primary school last year having attained or surpassed the required level for 11 years olds than did so in 1997.

The other key figure from yesterday's figures is that the gap between kids who qualify for free school meals (a key indicator of deprivation), and those who do not, narrowed again. In 1997 those who did not qualify for free school meals did 26% better in English than those who did. Today, that gap is 19% - again, still too high but on the right track.

The Conservatives have come out with plans to force any child who doesn't reach the required SAT score at 11 to repeat that year at primary school rather than progress to secondary level with their mates. Aside from being cruel and stigmatising, I genuinely prefer Labour's approach of targeting extra resources towards pupils struggling to achieve while they're still at primary through schemes like Every Child's A Reader.

Building our childrens' confidence in learning up seems to me to be a far better way than holding them back in the hope they can be shamed into learning the skills they need to progress to secondary school. My aspiration is that in due course many other Putney, Roehampton and Southfields primary schools will be challenging Our Lady of Victories for a top spot in the school league tables.

Free swimming from 1st April

From Wednesday swimming will be free in Putney Leisure Centre for over 60s and under 16s thanks to Labour.

Free swimming is available everyday, at all times, to over 60s. Those aged 16 and under can also swim for free daily, outside school hours.

Over £600 million has been made available by the Government to fund this scheme: Wandsworth Tories decided that they wouldn't let it happen unless they didn't have to put in a penny, and the Conservatives nationally have failed to commit to free swimming if they're ever elected.

I learnt to swim in Putney Swimming Pool when I was growing up and it's great that from the start of the month every Wandsworth family will be able to enjoy free swimming thanks to Labour.

Real help to give everyone a fair chance in life

Click on the image for a larger version.

Record numbers of Putney undergraduates

The number of students going on to higher education in Putney has increased by one of the highest amounts in the country under Labour.

In the 1997/8 academic year - the last under the Conservative Government, 250 Putney young people became undergraduates. A decade on, in 2007/8, after ten years of Labour, that number was 410: that's a 67% increase. And that is the 67th biggest increase anywhere in the UK - out of over 650. In perspective, the average increase is 27%.

But what happens if the Conservatives get in? They've pledged to cut £610million from the learning and skills budget - just at the time when getting a good qualification can make the difference between getting on the career ladder or struggling to find work. Under the last Tory government, higher education funding fell by 37%.

This is what Chris Patten, the former Tory Government Minister who went on to become Vice Chancellor of Oxford University said about his own party's failure on higher education, writing in the Guardian on 14th October last year:

?What is true is we expanded higher education hugely by reducing the investment in each student. In just over a decade we doubled the number of students and halved the investment in each. The Treasury calls that higher productivity - it's a euphemism for poorer pay, degraded facilities, less money to support the teaching of each student.?

Labour has halted and reversed that trend, without reducing the numbers of students entering higher education. We've had to take tough and unpopular decisions to get to where we are today, but given the choice between the record numbers of Putney teenagers becoming undergraduates and the miserable times students faced when I was at University in the 1980s and 1990s I think the progress we've made is significant. Don't let the Tories wreck it.

Click here to download the table of undergraduates by constituency, in excel format

Tough questions David Cameron needs to answer #5

Tough questions David Cameron needs to answer #2

Child Trust Fund investments

Like all investments, my colleague John Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw, has been highlighting the drop in value of Child Trust Funds since the global banking crisis began.

I've been campaigning since 2007 to encourage local families to claim their children's trust funds - around three quarters do. On top of the lump sum the Government invests for all babies born since 2002, relatives and friends can add up to £1,200 a year to the accounts.

For me, Child Trust Funds are among the government's most significant achievements and, used wisely, could provide a major help to anyone going to university, starting in work, buying a first car or putting down a deposit on a flat - even reinvesting for a rainy day.

But as investment portfolios have lost value so to have the CTF investments - by as much as 32%. John Mann is calling for all investments to the funds made before the child is ten (which as the scheme is only seven years' old means all investments to date) to be guaranteed. The problem is not so much about whether the funds - which can't be touched until the age of 18 - will recover their value, but more that the losses and instability are giving pause for thought to those who might otherwise have invested.

So much of the current global financial crisis is down to confidence - or the lack thereof. Banks won't lend to each other because of this lack of confidence, and that's driven those with less cashflow to the wall; in turn starving businesses of much needed financing and sparking a chain reaction. John Mann's principal concern is restoring confidence to the Child Trust Fund idea - because this is one of the most significant ways a family can invest in their future.

Live blogging the Pre Budget Report

4.35pm Same old Tories: Osborne believes he knows more than John Maynard Keynes about economic stimulus. Tories would send UK industry to the wall, make the recession deeper and longer lasting. And they've also announced their opposition to an increase in National Insurance for the very wealthiest. This speech could have been delivered by John Major or Norman Lamont during the last Tory recession of 1990-1994.

4.33pm Osborne is just absurd. He's now comparing the UK with Japan - which borrowed more than 100% of GDP in the last decade. Even with our increased short-term borrowing, our borrowing as a proportion of GDP is massively lower than neighbouring economies including France and Germany.

4.29pm Osborne is now attacking the VAT reduction which his own, far more experienced former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke supported on Newsnight a few days ago. As I wrote earlier today, watching a Conservative oppose tax cuts is a truly bizarre phenomenon.

4.28pm George Osborne is reading a script that doesn't fit with today's announcement. It suits the Tory Party to pretend that the global recession is only hitting the UK but it just isn't true and it just won't wash. If they don't understand this basic fact, they can't possibly have the ideas to fix the problems. It's why the Prime Minister is leading the world's major economies while the Tories want to re-run the failed Thatcherite policies of the 1980s and 1990s.

4.26pm OK, that's the Statement over, and while George Osborne is squeeking away in response, let's summarise what's happening: VAT will be cut from 17.5% to 15% from Monday; except for alcohol, petrol and tobacco. National Insurance rates will increase by 0.5% and a new 45% Income Tax rate for the top 1% if Labour is re-elected at the next election but not before.

And there will be much more help for pensioners, families, children, and small businesses.

4.24pm One-off payments for Pensioners and children with difficulties on top of the Christmas Bonus of £70 for individuals and £120 for couples.

4.22pm Announcements coming thick and fast: big increases in Child Tax Credit, Pension Credits, the Pension, Child Benefit - and the changes will come in from January, not the start of the next financial year in January.

4.20pm Help for savers: a new Savings Gateway where the Government will add 50p for every £1 saved - scheme will run with major banks and the Post Office.

4.19pm Vehicle Excise Duty bands will still be introduced. In 2009, rates will increase by a maximum of £5. In 2010, we will increase the duty by a maximum of £30, while less polluting cars will see NO INCREASE or a reduction of up to £30.

4.17pm Helping people back to work: careers advice in the workplace before people are made redundant will be expanded to every single worker - not just the largest employers. Extra help to prevent those experiencing a temporary job loss becoming long-term unemployed will be worth £1.2billion.

4.15pm More affordable homes: investment in new affordable homes to rent will be more than doubled, adding £775million to the existing £700million budget announced in the Spring. Absolutely critical announcement.

4.11pm Help for home owners. Last month we recapitalised the banks; this month we will guarantee - ie underwrite - certain new mortgages for a temporary period. New council to monitor lending and borrowing by major lenders. Repossession must be the last resort: there will be a three month period between the last repayment made and any repossession action is commenced. Much more free legal and debt advice announced.

4.10pm £100 million extra for extra home insulation. Labour tripled cold weather payments in the Budget this Spring. Government will force energy companies to put households on cheaper tariffs if the companies have not done so voluntarily by the end of the year.

4.09pm Economic slowdown should not jeopardise efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Reform of Air Passenger Duty: new 4- band APD system with those who travel further will pay more. Seems sensible to me.

4.06pm Total package for small business equates to £7billion

4.05pm Two more measures to help Businesses: increase in Corporation Tax deferred and change to accounting rules to allow business to offset losses of up to £50,000 against previous five years' profits.

4.02pm Help for small businesses: exemption from business rates for businesses with empty properties. Change to tax payment schedules on all taxes, not just Business Rates to enable businesses to spread their repayments as they can afford. Businesses also need help with loans as Banks have tightened their lending: £4bn deal with the European Investment Bank to pass onto businesses. £1bn small business credit scheme announced.

4.00pm With Labour, the UK Budget will be back in balance by 2015.

3.59pm Duty on Petrol, Alcohol and Tobacco will be increased to offset the VAT reduction.

3.58pm National Insurance will increase by 0.5%, but no-one earning less than £22,000 will pay any NI contributions. New 45% higher Income Tax rate will be introduced for those on £150,000 or more - 1% of all UK households.

3.57pm Temporary tax cut from May for basic rate taxpayers who were hurt by the abolition of the 10p tax rate will be made permanent - and increased to £145 per year.

3.56pm VAT to be cut to 15% for a year, coming into force next Monday. Retailers urged to pass this £12billion tax cut on immediately.

3.55pm £3billion of capital spending brought forward to improve motorways, affordable housing, energy efficiency and modernising primary and secondary schools. This is investment brought forward.

3.52pm Government will find £5billion of efficiency savings from public services, on top of over £30 billion in the past five years. We will increase spending on public services to £286 billion.

3.47pm Borrowing will increase this year to £78 billion and then £118 billion next year, but then fall to £105 billion in 2010, then £87b, £70b, and £54 billion in 2014. This represents a rise in debt to 57% next year, before rapidly falling back. Borrowing is backed by the CBI, IoD and the IMF, among others.

3.46pm Debt will be repaid by 2015/2016, which will enable us to continue investing in public services.

3.44pm Chancellor now setting out the framework how the borrowing is fully costed and will be repaid. Labour has cut borrowing down to 36%. The extra borrowing be proposed will amount to between 0.5% and 1% of Britain's GDP.

3.43pm Here's the choice between Labour and Conservative: the Tories will let families go to the wall; Labour will borrow to make this downturn as short and shallow as possible.

3.41pm IMF forecasts first slow down among all industrialised nations since 1945. Output will fall in the first two quarters of next year by between 0.75 and 1.25% but then begin growing again because of the action to be outlined today; Inflation will be just 0.5% by the end of next year.

3.38pm The UK has the highest employment leves ever. Benefit claimant counts are 2 million below the last Conservative Government's double-recession. Government Debt among the lowest of the industrialised world. And we have doubled investment in public services. The Chancellor says this shows Labour DID fix the roof while the sun was shining - we fixed the roofs of schools, hospitals and council homes.

3.37pm No British investor has lost any money from the banking crisis thanks to Labour government action. What would have happened had we followed the Conservative plan of not stepping in to rescue Northern Rock?

3.33pm Labour Government will continue to lead the global community next year when we chair the G20 group of leading industrial nations, building on Gordon Brown's international leadership. Highlights issue of Crown Territories, which offer lower tax rates but the Bank of England cannot be the lender of last resort for such territories.

3.32pm The Chanceller is setting out the global economic context - "an unprecedented global crisis". Conservative MPs don't seem to have realised that the whole global economic crisis was triggered by massive US Housing problems back in the Summer - where have they been?

3.30pm Here we go!

The Chancellor is going to move his Pre Budget Report - which always used to be called the Autumn Statement - at 3.30pm this afternoon.

I'll be live-blogging the speech, highlighting the key points and what they mean for Putney, London and the country.

By the way, the live blog will be added to this particular post, rather than lots of separate posts, so keep refreshing your browser to keep up to date.

More Putney Child Trust Funds claimed

A little over a year ago I ran a campaign with local schools to encourage parents to claim Child Trust Funds for their kids.

Child Trust Funds (CTFs) are a Labour Government initiative that creates a saving account for every child born since September 2002, then invests a lump sum of between £250 and £500 in it. There are further government top-ups to the fund at 7 and in their teenage years. Families and friends can add to it and it can't be touched until their 18th birthday.

At the time I launched my "Claim your CTF" campaign, just over 71% of Putney families had claimed their Child Trust Fund voucher to set up the account. One year on that figure has climbed to almost 76%.

That still means that almost 1 in 4 local families are letting thier kids miss out on a serious dollop of cash when they reach adulthood - to spend on tuition fees, a deposit on a first home, or to help buy a first car, for instance.

If you think you're children may be missing out call the Child Trust Fund helpline: 0845 302 1470