Toby Perkins MP

At the General Committee meeting of Chesterfield Constituency Labour Party on Saturday 5th June, I announced that I would be supporting David Miliband for leader of the Labour Party , and indeed after the hustings event for the Parliamentary Labour Party that took place on Monday 7th June, I added my name to those that have nominated David.

If I am honest, I didn’t start out expecting to support David so let me tell you why I ultimately chose to.

My support for David is entirely positive. It is not a reflection on characteristics that the other candidates are lacking but more a recognition that he was the best candidate of those on offer to lead the Labour Party and to place in front of the country as a future Prime Minister.

Having spoken to all of the candidates, it was David that seemed to have the calm assurance that you expect in a Leader, his analysis on the reasons Labour lost is unquestionably the most thoughtful and his performance in the debate showed a man comfortable in his own skin, with the confidence to defend Labour’s record, coupled with the vision to identify the ways in which the leadership of the party has been too top down and autocratic in it’s consultation and dealings with both the party and the public.

David’s influence in assisting Diane Abbott to be on the ballot paper was typical of his desire to have a debate about the future direction of the party in an open way without trashing the record of the party in government.

The performance of the Coalition government so far show that they are clearly embarking on a huge programme of public sector cuts, apparently without any pretence about cutting waste, (Future Jobs Fund, University places, Working Neighbourhoods Fund). 

The cuts will directly affect the poorest in our communities and require a robust response that reflects the best of Labour, our values yes, but allied to our pragmatic ability to deliver change that really impacts on people’s lives. 

David is the candidate that will best hold the Tories to account. He is by far the most accomplished Commons debater, the most experienced in Government and the one that the Tories fear most. In David, the Tories realise that we have a candidate that can restore Labour’s appeal across the class divide and rebuild the broad coalition needed to form a government again.

This is a time of great opportunity but also great danger. The coalition will not fall apart by itself. After thirteen years out of power the Tories are desperate to return to their position as the natural party of government, and the Lib Dems are clearly willing to ditch many of their principles in order to sit at the top table. But a Liberal influence on a Tory government could deliver a gentler face to the Tory cuts agenda and if the Tories’ attempt to attribute every cut to the previous Labour government is met by an unconvincing response from the Labour leadership, or worse, if we concede our role as the voice of progressive aspiration and retreat to the language of envy and tribalism, the potential dangers to our position as the major force in progressive politics are huge.

Simultaneously, get our response to the cuts right, put pressure on the Lib Dems to define what they stand for, and articulate a positive message about our alternative plan for government and our role as THE voice of progressive opinion can be hugely strengthened.

And whilst the public may not be listening to Labour, they are certainly watching us. David is the man that opinion polls consistently show is most likely to deliver a win for Labour. He is the candidate who has stayed solid on what he believes in, and is engaging in this debate with an open mind but resolute in defending the strengths of our party that has delivered a better, fairer and safer Britain over the last thirteen years.

Far from being a narrow race, I think the differences between the candidates will become clear as the race develops. Ed Balls has a strong background as a fighter for working people, and his history in the Treasury and as DCSF Secretary of State show him to be a serious politician; whilst Ed Miliband’s speeches are passionate and moving, and his appeal for the trade union and youth vote will keep him in the race. Andy Burnham has a strong history running one of the key offices of state at Health and Diane Abbott will provide a valuable voice for the left of the party.

But notwithstanding the attributes that are apparent in all of our candidates, David is the one who can couple the ability to devolve power to the party and the wider trade union movement with an ability to form a winning coalition.

That’s why I will be supporting David, and I hope that you will too.

It was a great honour and a privilege to stand in the House of Commons on Tuesday 8th June to speak during the Queens speech debate on Work and Pensions. Maiden speeches cover a specific format, namely a word or two or about your predeccesor, some words about your constituency, and then moving on to talking about the subject to be debated.

The full text of my maiden speech is featured below:   

I congratulate hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches, particularly Joseph Johnson, who should not be so self-deprecating. If it is in fact true that he has no sense of humour, someone has written him a great speech.

It is a great privilege to be only the fifth person to represent the Chesterfield constituency in Parliament in the past 80 years. The most recent of my predecessors was Paul Holmes, and I should like to start my maiden speech by reflecting on some of the strengths that he brought to the House in the nine years during which he served it. He was a diligent constituency Member of Parliament and a determined fighter for council housing, particularly through his membership of the Defend Council Housing group. As a former secondary school teacher, he was also an outspoken advocate of comprehensive schools and the teaching profession. As MP for an area that suffered a great deal from firms that went into liquidation with failed pension schemes, he consistently added his voice to those calling for a fair deal for those pensioners.

As a guide to the history of Chesterfield and as a commentary on the times, I also want to reflect on the maiden speeches of some of my other predecessors. Sir George Benson was a stalwart member of the Government who is still remembered fondly by some of Chesterfield’s most experienced citizens. His first major address to the House was in 1931, when he controversially called for the end of flogging with the cat o’ nine tails. I am pleased to inform the House that on the basis of an informal survey that I conducted during the recent election campaign, Sir George’s stance against corporal punishment still enjoys some support.

In Eric Varley, a local miner’s son who rose to the Cabinet and was posthumously given the freedom of the borough of Chesterfield, my constituency had a famous son who is fondly remembered across the borough. There is also, of course, Tony Benn, one of the greatest political figures of the 20th century, a man who bestrode the politics of his time as few can. I am mindful of those who have trodden this path before me in Chesterfield’s name.

Chesterfield has made its mark in other ways than through political history. Despite the comments of my hon. Friend Chi Onwurah, George Stephenson was actually from Chesterfield. Thanks to the vision of Bill Flanagan, the council leader for 27 years, an innovation centre now stands on the Stephenson’s family’s former estate; new firms grow in new industries, overlooked by the grandfather of innovation.

Football fans will know of the town as the home of goalkeepers, with legends such as Gordon Banks, the England World cup-winning goalkeeper, before him, Samuel Hardy, the England goalkeeper for 14 years at the end of the 19th century, and Bob Wilson, who served Arsenal, Scotland and sports broadcasting with tremendous distinction, all learning their trade in the town. Chesterfield football club, the Spireites, is a useful metaphor for the town, having had its moments in the hearts of the nation, as it did in 1997-a great year-when, as a third division club, it was cruelly denied a place in the FA cup final by a combination of the Old Trafford crossbar and a short-sighted football referee. Now, after a quiet period, the club gets ready to welcome the new season at the sparkling new B2net stadium-a brand new home on the north entrance to the town, and a symbol of the regeneration of Chesterfield.

The campaign that brought me here to represent the people of Chesterfield focused most strongly on jobs. With Junction 29A, or Skinner’s Junction, a huge site open for business as a result of the tireless work of my hon. Friend Mr Skinner, working with Labour party councillors who have fought for the area for so long, such as John Williams, Walter Burrows and John Burrows, Chesterfield and north Derbyshire finally get the investment in jobs that we needed-indeed the biggest investment in the area since the pits were sunk.

As Chesterfield rebuilds its economic prosperity, tourism also plays an increasingly important part, our world-famous crooked spire being just the highlight. While it is true that the number of people drawing the dole is less than a quarter of those who did so at its peak in the ’80s, thanks to the Labour Government‘s steps to save jobs during the recession, the need for skilled work for those who do not go to university, or for graduate and apprenticeship opportunities, is still keenly felt.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stated that his purpose is to improve the quality of life for the worst-off in society so that they can play a part and, one hopes, pay tax themselves one day. No one on the Labour Benches would oppose that aspiration; indeed, it was that aspiration that led Labour, in the face of Conservative opposition, to introduce the national minimum wage and the tax credits system. The starting point in reducing benefit dependency is not an increase in the rhetoric against the unemployed, but an increase in work opportunities. It is therefore depressing that the coalition should choose the future jobs fund as one of the first examples of waste to be cut.

The Secretary of State is right to say that benefit recipients should be free to try to work their way off sickness-related benefits while retaining some security, as previewed by the previous Labour Government in the pathways to work pilot. No one could object to his intention to make benefits simpler and fairer, but surely one of the key reasons benefits are complicated is that so are the circumstances of people’s lives. The current system at least attempted to reflect logically the complexities of ordinary people’s lives, and the Secretary of State has not yet demonstrated how he can simplify the system without increasing unfairness; until he does, I will remain a sceptic. From my perspective, however, I will provide any support that I can to help him to convince his own party of the need to invest more in jobs, not in cutting them, and to understand that benefit recipients are more often the victims than the architects of their circumstances. Alongside a call for personal responsibility must come governmental responsibility to put job creation before the benefit cuts and to ensure that the most needy are not the victims of the simplification of benefit payments.

Chesterfield has a great deal going for it; under Labour, it improved so much. I came into politics to fight for the next generation of working opportunities for Chesterfield and Staveley-to fight inequality and to protect the public services that our people rely on. As I stand here in this magnificent place, bearing a dual responsibility, sent here to represent the people of Chesterfield and the Labour party, there is not a prouder man alive.

The first Prime Minister’s questions of the new ‘Con Dem’ government and I was picked out to ask question number seven on the order paper. The full exchanges can be seen by clicking here http://bit.ly/d3wxW6 My question is at around 18 minutes 50 seconds.

After the solemn early exchanges on the subject of the Israeli attack on the aid convoy and the terrible tragedy in Cumbria, the fiirst clashes were on the subject of Tory plans to allow rape defendants (uniquely) anonymity. Three times Harriet Harman pressed the Prime Minister to justify his position which would give men accused of rape a unique status in criminal justive terms, yet the PM insisted that this was his way of preventing the disgracefully low level of convictions on rape. Continue Reading

What a time to enter parliament! After just ten days as the Member of Parliament for Chesterfield it feels like I’ve had a lifetime’s worth of experiences crammed into a week and a half.

When I wrote last week’s journal Gordon Brown had just resigned and negotiations between the parties were still ongoing and I was still getting my bearings in Westminster with that dazed look. Continue Reading

Sitting up here in my Chesterfield home, I can hardly believe the way that things have happened for me over the last few days.

The full national impact of the general election that took place on Thursday 6th May 2010 may not be known for many years. But however historians view it, it started for me delivering leaflets with my wife (who was in remarkable good spirits for the time of morning) at 545am on Winster Road in Middlecroft. At 6.55, when I saw a gentleman on Middlecroft Road leave his house to go and queue up outside the polling station, I figured that this might be an election that had captured the public imagination a little more than in recent years. Continue Reading