TAXPAYERS' ALLIANCE ATTACKS SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL'S TAX DECISION

First Published by: The Taxpayers Alliance

The Taxpayers’ Alliance has criticised Surrey County Council for ploughing ahead with a Council Tax increase.

Councillors voted through the decision to increase its portion of the Council Tax by 2.99 per cent at a meeting on Tuesday. All the Conservatives present voted for the increase, while all the Liberal Democrats voted against. Resident Association members and independent councillors voted no to a rise or abstained. The Taxpayers’ Alliance hit back at the authority after the vote and suggested areas where savings could be made in order to keep Council Tax down, which has increased by 72 per cent over the past 10 years. 

They included looking at pay based on the fact Surrey’s chief executive received a total remuneration of £253,133 in 2010/11 – more than the Prime Minister – and councillor allowances for the same time period cost taxpayers £1,582,000.

Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “The council have let people in Surrey down by imposing a big hike in Council Tax on residents, so many of who already struggle to pay. “Over the past 10 years there has already been a drastic increase in Council Tax bills and, with so many other pressures on their finances, this is the last thing families in the county need.  “Surrey needs to follow the example of other local authorities who have shown it is possible to combine quality services with lower bills, and deliver much better value for money.”

The Government offered all councils a one-off grant of 2.5 per cent for 2012/13 if they froze Council Tax for another year. But Surrey declined the grant on the grounds it was a short-term gain for long-term pain and accepting it would lead to a financial black hole – a £70m shortfall over five years Leader of the council Councillor David Hodge said: “For many other councils in the country, the Government offer is a good one. 

“But after exhaustive analysis, my cabinet and I believe that this one-off Council Tax grant is not in the medium to long-term interest of Surrey residents. “We must do what is right for the residents of Surrey over the long-term and not accept short-term assistance that will imperil our financial stability in years to come. “While the rest of the country may suffer hard times in the coming years if the economy continues to stagnate, I can assure everyone that the whole team at Surrey County Council is working to achieve the best of times for the residents of Surrey.”

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

MORE THAN £4 MILLION UNPAID TAX OWED IN PETERBOROUGH

First Published by The Evening Telegraph

Peterborough City Council in the red for more that £4 million pounds

Figures released by Peterborough City Council show tax-avoiders still owe more than £4 million in unpaid business rates and Council Tax from the 2011/12 financial year, which ended in April. But council bosses have vowed not to give up and to continue to claw back every penny. A council spokesman said: “In the last month alone we have collected £300,000 in Council Tax and more than £1 million in business rates. “We do not stop here. 

We will carry on collecting what is owed, even resorting to court action if we have to. “But clearly we urge people to contact us if they are struggling to pay their bills.” At the beginning of March, the figure was up at £9 million for uncollected business rates and Council Tax in 2011/12. By the end of the month it had dropped to a total of £5.9 million and since then it has fallen another £1.3 million. Everyone is sent an initial Council Tax and business rate bill at the start of the financial year, followed by a reminder for those who do not keep up with payments.

A final notice is sent to anyone who has not paid for at least 14 days, before a summons is issued warning that unless payment is made within two weeks a liability order will be made. Each month hundreds of people are taken to court for falling behind with payments. In one day in March alone, 467 people were summoned to court many of whom paid up before any further action was taken.

Finance chiefs at the town hall insist the figures are no more or less than previous years and are not concerned. Their actions have also drawn praise from MP for Peterborough Stewart Jackson. He said: “Credit where it is due, I think the city council was mindful of the fact that people were seeing a Council Tax rise and has upped its collection rates accordingly. They were obviously concerned that other people were not paying their bills.

“I think the council is going in the right direction. It is a good sign and I hope they keep up the pressure.” But Robert Oxley, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, was critical of the council particularly after it raised Council Tax for this financial year. He said: “With budgets tight, local authorities can’t afford to leave millions of pounds in tax uncollected. The council has to be clear about why there’s such a difference between what’s owed and what’s been paid. Council chiefs’ decision to increase Council Tax at a time when many residents are already struggling with rising bills will only make this problem worse.”

THE total Council Tax bill to be collected by Peterborough City Council for 2011/12 was £63,108,000. Of that figure, by April 30, it had collected £60,716,000 or 96.21 per cent of the total. The figure is marginally better than this time last year when 96.11 per cent was collected. Meanwhile, business rates due in the city for 2011/12 was £89,444,000. So far, £87,810,000 has been collected, or 97.59 per cent. Again this is an increase on the same period last year when 96.44 per cent was collected. But businesses pay national non-domestic rates which is set by central Government.

The city council collects it on behalf of Government which then divvies it up in the form of grants to local authorities. There are several ways to pay Council Tax including

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here? 

DO WE CARE ABOUT 300,000 MORE CHILDREN IN POVERTY?

First Published by: The Guardian

It's too easy for Cameron to stamp on good impulses

Much of my childhood was spent in south London's Battersea park, and a lot of my adulthood too, first with my four children in Battersea's adventure playground, and now with my grandchildren. The place inhabits the memories of generations, both the well-heeled and those from the surrounding tower blocks, clambering, sliding, swooping on ropes and tyres, a bit rough, a bit risky, cool enough for older ones with nowhere else to go. The wickedness of Wandsworth council now charging £2.50 per child to play there defies belief. What next, pay for the air we breathe? 

But Wandsworth, boasting the lowest Council Taxes, has always pioneered Conservative thinking. What Wandsworth does now other Tory councils are sure to follow? Charging children to use the playground, it says, delivers "best value for money for local taxpayers" – or for Tory voters finding the playground more congenial with the riff-raff barred. These Wandsworth zealots give the game away. Cameron's genius has been to disguise the social injustice of his government's policies with the soothing unction of caring words that Margaret Thatcher could never bring herself to utter: she was no dissembler. So far, pious talk from David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Iain Duncan Smith about social mobility, fairness, cutting poverty and helping the lowest paid has beguiled the public. 

But truth will out – and the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the great truth-teller. As the OECD warned last month, the IFS estimates that government policies will push another 300,000 children into poverty – and this despite Clegg's tiny help of lifting some low-paid people out of tax. Economists at the Department of Work and Pensions must have told Duncan Smith the effect his plans would have but he still affects that curious air of injured saintliness when confronted with the facts. Meanwhile this week's annual Office for National Statistics income data give the final verdict on the Labour era. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown may have missed their target, but they did cut child poverty by a quarter to the lowest rate in 25 years. Labour did even better for the old, with fewer poor pensioners than for 50 years. 

The IFS predictions are no surprise. Unemployment will cause most poverty; then consider the effect of cuts falling on the same families over and over again, with inflation at 5%, child tax credits cut and child benefit frozen. Council Tax credit is devolved and no longer ring-fenced; so too is the social fund for emergency help, which councils like Wandsworth can set at any level. Housing benefit caps will force families to move away from family support. The Children's Society estimates universal credit will cut childcare credits not by 10% but by 20%, forcing mothers out of work. The education maintenance allowance means families lose £30 a week for teenagers. Switching benefits, up-rating from RPI to CPI, means a loss of 10%, every decade, forever. 

Duncan Smith naturally ignored ONS figures showing Labour's success with poverty, focusing instead on widening inequality on Labour's watch – but his effrontery takes some beating: "This gap between the richest and poorest has accelerated over the last five years despite an astonishing £150bn injected into tax credits alone. The end result has been to make benefit dependency and worklessness inherent to the UK way of life, with the middle- and low-income earners picking up the bill." In fact the IFS said Labour had succeeded in slowing the growth in inequality with those derided tax credits. The IFS graphs show the great difference between a Labour and a Tory government: Thatcher turbo-charged inequality, Labour pulled it back; but now expect another hyper-rise. 

Do enough people care? That is Labour's dilemma, never sure if the 70% who are doing OK or very well are concerned about the 30% non-home owners left behind. Day after day, the government and its supportive press pump out the nonsense that money doesn't matter: poverty is due to lack of aspiration, "immobility" or bad parenting. In the same breath it cuts support for those remedies: youth work, careers advice, teen pregnancy and Sure Start. Polls show voters are conflicted, depending on what question is asked. They are torn between anger at scroungers, pity for the deserving, fear of being ripped off and a desire to live in a society that treats the less fortunate kindly. 

People are disgusted by soaring wealth at the top that's so well-disguised the IFS says it's impossible to measure the true incomes of the top 1%. Anger and compassion vie with each other in most people. The art of left of centre politics is to arouse that natural generosity of spirit and indignation at injustice while reassuring people that their good nature is not abused by idlers or cheats. Most people never have been Conservative, being unwilling to connect with the nastiness exemplified by Wandsworth. But Conservatism can use its media dominance to spread cynicism. Meanwhile the progressive majority with strong social justice instincts is increasingly and disastrously dispersed among Labour, Lib Dem, nationalist or green parties – partly because Labour seemed to lack authentic, infectious social conviction. Just enough waverers were persuaded by Cameron's display of emotional intelligence to believe he cares about the downtrodden. But this week's figures show the public will soon be confronted with just how bogus he is. 

There are no mysteries about poverty, neither its causes nor its cures – which are more jobs, more money, more education and more Sure Start. What works has been studied by researchers for a hundred years. We know it all, and yet we grow closer in inequality to America and further from the rest of Europe. The government's astonishing trajectory of cuts means that, according to Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker, by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. The only great mystery is how to construct a politics where people trust that remedies will work and that wealth can be more fairly shared to the benefit of all. That requires a Labour party that itself believes it wholeheartedly, before it can start persuading others. 

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

BORIS JOHNSON UNVEILS SENIOR TEAM FOR SECOND TERM AS LONDON MAYOR

First Published by: The Guardian

Business and enterprise promises to create 200,000 jobs (in London)

Boris Johnson announced the appointment of five deputy London mayors with briefs reflecting his priorities. Boris Johnson has appointed Kit Malthouse as his deputy mayor for business and enterprise as part of a pledge to create jobs and growth in the capital during his second term as London mayor. Johnson announced his decision to move Malthouse from his role as deputy mayor for policing as he unveiled the first tranche of appointments in his senior team, which includes five deputies with portfolios that reflect his key priorities.

The mayor has promised to deliver 200,000 jobs over the next four years – many of which he wants filled by young Londoners. Malthouse will spearhead plans "to boost jobs in the capital, help create 250,000 new apprenticeships and continue to attract investment to the city". Johnson believes 104,000 jobs will be created through housing programmes alone. The mayor said he intended to use his clout to lobby the Treasury and Brussels to reduce regulation which he said was "strangling" businesses as part of his battle to help the capital recover from the recession. Johnson said: "It has never been more vital to do everything we can to boost growth and get people into work. 

That is why I'm putting jobs and growth at the heart of my mayoralty – focusing our efforts on driving London's economy forwards, out of the recession, investing in our infrastructure and securing Londoners' futures. "Kit Malthouse has an outstanding business pedigree, knows how to get results and has proved he can do so in the toughest economic conditions with policing in London. He will drive forward my plans to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the capital over the next four years, help create 250,000 new apprenticeships and ensure our capital's small businesses, the engine room of our economy, are given the support they need to succeed as we invest £221m in our local high streets." Malthouse said he was "honoured" to be offered the new role. "With my experience as a small business owner, including through difficult economic times, I understand the pressures and frustrations involved in trying to create jobs and I am looking forward to bringing my first-hand knowledge to bear." Malthouse headed the now abolished Metropolitan Police Authority from January 2010 on Johnson's behalf and in effect became the first elected police commissioner in the country when Johnson's mayoralty assumed the role of head of the office for policing and crime in January.

Johnson has handed over the role of deputy mayor for policing to Stephen Greenhalgh, the Tory former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham borough council, who is well-known in local government and Conservative circles but represents a new face in the city hall administration and will be seen as a further sign that Johnson intends to tilt to the right in his second term. Greenhalgh is seen as a town-hall trailblazer committed to a belief in giving people a "hand up, not a handout", who has championed achieving value for money for local residents. Greenhalgh announced his decision to quit as borough leader of Hammersmith at the end of last year, and is due to hand over the reins to his successor at the end of the month. Greenhalgh had said he intended to return to being a backbench councillor to focus on steering a community pilot scheme in White City, a deprived area of the borough. Greenhalgh takes on the policing role in the runup to the Olympic and Paralympic Games and also faces a struggle to keep up police numbers in the longer term in the face of budget pressures.

Johnson's new team also sees a promotion for Munira Mirza, formerly adviser on culture and youth, who becomes deputy mayor for education and culture – reflecting the fact that Johnson is keen to have strategic oversight of schools in his second term. Mirza will be responsible for delivering Johnson's pledge to boost literacy as part of a range of projects to boost young people's education and attainment, as well as focusing on plans for a supplementary schools programme and his Education Inquiry Panel, launched last November. 

The mayor used his Daily Telegraph column on Monday to spell out his intention to investigate why young Londoners are "losing out" to foreign nationals in the jobs market. Johnson has also pumped up the role of his former housing adviser, Richard Blakeway, by creating the new brief of deputy mayor for housing, land and property. Announcing the decision, Johnson said the release of surplus public land inherited from the London Development Agency and Homes and Communities Agency to create "thousands of homes and jobs" would be key to his growth programme. Blakeway will chair Homes for London – formerly the London Housing Board – to drive forward investment in housing and regeneration. Sir Edward Lister, the former leader of Westminster council who has served as chief of staff and deputy mayor for planning, has also had his contract renewed, with a mission to cut Council Tax by at least 10% over four years. As Johnson listed the first set of names in his top team, he waved goodbye to his director of external affairs, Guto Harri, who left to consider his future amid rumours that he has been approached by News International to take the job of director of communications.

Sam Lyon, a journalist who was press chief for Johnson's re-election campaign, will cover the role in the interim. Salary levels for the new appointees have yet to be revealed. Johnson still needs to appoint a statutory deputy mayor – a post previously filled by the Conservative assembly member Richard Barnes, who was ousted from city hall alongside his fellow Tory member Brian Coleman in the London assembly elections last Thursday, which saw Labour become the biggest group in the assembly. Johnson is also expected to keep on board his deputy mayor for transport, Isabel Dedring, which would bring the tally of deputy mayors to seven. However, Dedring's future in Johnson's administration has yet to be confirmed.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

TORY COUNCIL TO CHARGE CHILDREN £2.50 FOR USING PLAYGROUND

 First published by: The Guardian

plan will turn playground into a no-go area for the poor

Wandsworth council said its playground in Battersea Park was 'more than just swings and roundabouts'. For the children of Wandsworth, the age of innocence ends this autumn when their council puts a price tag on playtime. 

To help fund £55m worth of budget cuts, councillors in the south London borough have decided to charge children £2.50 to use the local playground. The Tory-run council will pilot the charge at weekends from October at an adventure playground in Battersea Park. 

Labour politicians have described the charges as "unbelievably mean-spirited" and an attempt to turn play areas into no-go areas for the poor. An e-petition lodged on the council's website had gathered 154 signatories by Thursday. The council said the park was "more than just swings and roundabouts" and that because the adventure area contained zip wires and 40ft structures, there were added health and safety staffing costs that needed to be recouped in difficult economic circumstances. The council also said the charge was being introduced to provide the "best value for money" for local taxpayers.

A survey carried out at the playground by the council revealed that half of the children came from neighbouring boroughs. "Why should Wandsworth taxpayers subsidise children from other boroughs?" a council spokesperson said. The borough admits it is not expecting to make much money from the scheme and has no income target in mind but says the playground would have to close if it did not introduce the charge. "The difficult economic situation we face means we have to consider every aspect of the work we do and the services we provide. The adventure playground is a very popular but also very expensive facility to run.

"Introducing a pilot charging scheme at weekends will allow us to carry on investing in the playground, recoup some of those costs and allow us to continue providing the best value for money we can for our Council Taxpayers. At around half the price of a child's cinema ticket we do not believe the fee is excessive." In Wandsworth, band D Council Tax bills are £687 a year, about half the London average. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice minister and Labour MP for Tooting, which is part of Wandsworth, said: "This is unbelievably mean-spirited, even for Wandsworth council. It will be children from the poorest families who lose out. "As families are squeezed by the Tory-led government's cuts, Wandsworth should be promoting low cost healthy activities, like those on offer at Battersea Park, not driving poorer children and families away."

Ken Livingstone, the Labour candidate for London mayor, said that parks and playgrounds should always remain free. "Only the Conservative party could consider charging kids to play. I believe London's parks and playgrounds should be free for London's families and I am deeply concerned at this attempt to turn publicly funded playgrounds into areas which only the rich and privileged can enjoy." The council says it will review the charges in the summer of 2012.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

THE POLITICS OF PENSIONS SCHEMES

First Published by: Local Government

If Council Taxpayers find out how much of their money goes on Council pension schemes their could be a backlash

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has found a £54 billion deficit in UK local authority pension funds. Defenders of council pensions say these schemes are fully funded. Both are correct. You, the Council Taxpayer, are required to honour promises made to pension scheme members. If Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) funds deliver insufficient returns to meet promises to LGPS members’ councils have to make up the difference. 

The £54 billion deficit means that pension fund returns are not matching promises made to scheme members. Eliminating this deficit will mean higher Council Tax bills or bigger cuts to local public services. Merton Council explain the situation very well in their annual pension fund disclosure 2010/11. “The LGPS provides defined pension benefits determined by national regulations. The benefits are mandatory, and not subject to local amendment or Pension Fund performance and they are adjusted for inflation. The liability to pay these benefits, both currently and in future years is financed by employee and employer contributions and income from investment of the Pension Fund. The scheme has to be fully funded (i.e. employer contributions must be set to meet 100% of existing and prospective pension liabilities including pension increases) or have a plan to become so.

"Employee contribution rates are set by statutory regulations. They are fixed. Employer’s contribution is determined by an actuarial review that takes into account both the amount of employee contribution and the value and investment return of the Pension Fund. Thus the amount and performance of Pension Fund investment is significant to the level of the employer’s contribution, and determines the need for effective management of the Fund.” The LGPS scheme does not allow for councils to increase employee contributions if the performance of pension fund investments does not meet the promises to current and future retirees. Consequently councils are making up the difference by increasing employer contributions.

The average employer contribution to local government public sector pensions has reached eighteen per cent of salary. The TPA reveals that £1 for every £5 raised in Council Tax is going to fund council pension funds. Employers contributed just over £5 billion in 2010-11 and Council Tax raised £25.7 billion that year. This will increase over time. Council pension scheme deficits vary significantly. This issue could play out differently depending on the size of the local deficit and the local taxpayer contribution. Chichester is 100 per cent funded with assets exactly matching obligations to current members and future retirees. Brent is 42 per cent funded; pension liabilities massively outweigh the schemes assets. The politics of council pensions could be very different in Brent and Chichester.

Council Taxpayers in areas with significant pension fund deficits could face substantial tax increases or cuts in public services over time. The TPA has produced a calculator which allows private sector workers to see what they need to earn to match the total compensation package provided to public sector workers. UNISON has produced two calculators showing how current government proposals will reduce benefits and increase member contributions. These tools show how council pension schemes could become a significant issue in local campaigns.

How long before Council Taxpayers can see how much of their individual tax bills go to fund council pension funds? Eric Pickles could require councils to put this information on Council Tax bills. Local authorities with significant pension deficits might then lobby government to reduce members future benefit levels or allow councils to increase employee contributions. DCLG could allow councils to increase employee contributions further where pension deficits are excessive. The local taxpayer should not have to meet the whole cost of these deficits.

Trade unions would fiercely resist these changes but they would serve to moderate trade union demands over time. Trade unions could change from defending the unsustainable current pension fund schemes to policing pension scheme affordability. Councils seeking to take a payment holiday and contribute less to pension schemes (as some were encouraged to in the nineties) would face the wrath of their local trade union representatives. Few trade unions would seek unaffordable pensions if they knew their members would have to pay higher contributions to meet the additional costs. The LGPS might become more sustainable and fair.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?

WINNER BORIS VOWS TO CUT COUNCIL TAXES AND SLASH WASTE

First Published by: The Telegraph

Boris Johnson emphasised his Council Tax cutting.

The agenda today as he vowed a "huge effort" to help Londoners through tough times over the next four years. Mayor of London Boris Johnson leaves his home the morning after being re-elected. The re-elected Mayor said his programme was "avowedly Conservative with a big 'c' or a small 'c' and admitted he was "distinct" from the rest of his party. Mr Johnson's narrow victory over Labour's Ken Livingstone, declared just before midnight on Friday, was the only ray of sunshine in a dismal set of local election results for David Cameron's party. 

The Tories lost more than 400 council seats and polled 31 per cent of the national vote, leading to fresh criticism of the Prime Minister from the Tory right. Mr Johnson said the battle in London had been between two candidates "who are distinct from their parties to some extent." He added: "You saw that with both Ken Livingstone and to a certain extent with me." The Mayor defeated Mr Livingstone by 3 per cent, or 62,538 votes, once second preference ballots had been taken into account. 

He said in an interview: "My programme is absolutely, avowedly Conservative - with a big 'c' or a small 'c'. It's about cutting taxes, getting rid of useless government expenditure and focusing on the things that matter." He has vowed to cut Council Tax in the capital by 10 per cent over the next four years. By contrast, Mr Livingstone put forward a "champagne-socialist, Cuban cigar-rolling" agenda, Mr Johnson said. He declared he would "absolutely" not stand for parliament in the general election of 2015, pledging to serve a full four-year term as mayor. His victory has made him a stronger favourite to take over from Mr Cameron as Conservative leader. 

"There is no doubt that Londoners are going through tough times and it's going to take a huge amount of effort. I think the recession is going to start to end by the end of the year. I think things are going to start to turn round. But there's a massive amount of work to do. "I want to dedicate myself, consecrate myself, whatever verb you choose, entirely to that." Mr Livingstone said he was “truly sorry” to his supporters and Londoners who needed a Labour mayor. He announced that this election would be his last. Mr Johnson had won 971,931 first preference votes to Mr Livingstone’s 889,918, but with neither reaching the 50% mark, second preference votes were taken into account. 

The Labour candidate won 102,355 to his rival’s 82,880, but it was not enough to put him in front. In a poor result for the Liberal Democrats, which was replicated elsewhere in Britain, the party’s candidate Brian Paddick was beaten into third place by Jenny Jones of the Greens. Paddick won 91,774 votes to Jones’s 98,913. Independent Siobhan Benita was fifth with 83,914. Overall, Labour gained more than 800 council seats and seized control of 30 additional local authorities.  

The Liberal Democrats lost more than 330 council seats, taking their local representation to a historic low. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said he was “really sad” about the result. Lord Oakeshott, the Lib Dem peer, claimed that the party may not be able to fight the 2015 general election as a “nationwide, powerful, independent force”. Experts said that if the voting was replicated in a general election, Mr Miliband would secure a healthy Commons majority. However, Nationally, the Tories polled 31 per cent of the vote, compared with about 38 per cent for Labour. The Liberal Democrats polled 16 per cent. Senior Conservatives blamed the results on “midterm blues” and pointed out that Tony Blair lost more than 1,000 council seats in the late 1990s but still won a landslide majority in the 2001 general election. 

Mr Cameron said: “I’m sorry for the hard-working Conservative councillors who have lost their seats, obviously against a difficult national backdrop. “These are difficult times, and there aren’t easy answers. What we have to do is to take difficult decisions to deal with the debt, the deficit and the broken economy that we inherited. We’ll go on making those decisions because we’ve got to do the right thing for our country.” Mr Miliband embarked on a brisk national tour, visiting Birmingham, Worcester and Southampton. “The most important thing is that we’ve had people right across Britain putting their faith in Labour,” he said. “The process of change in Labour has just begun. We’ve got more to do and I know that.” 

Aides hailed the result as a turning point in his leadership, while there were calls in the Tory party for its leaders to adopt more Right-wing policies to appeal to the party’s grassroots. Gerald Howarth, a defence minister who served in Margaret Thatcher’s government, said policies such as gay marriage should be rethought. “A lot of Conservatives have written to me saying, 'I am a lifelong Conservative, there is no mandate for this, why is this being proceeded with?’ ” 

Mark Pritchard, a senior member of the backbench 1922 Committee, said it would be “misguided” to blame the losses purely on “midterm blues”. “No.10 need to listen to their Conservative backbenchers and the Conservative Party grass roots more often, and to their minority and junior Coalition partners less often.” Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron will attempt to shore up support for the Coalition with a rare joint appearance on Tuesday to stress the importance of a united policy to cut Britain’s deficit.

On Wednesday, the Queen’s Speech will disclose details of the Government’s policy agenda for the next year. There will be new plans for a higher, simpler flat-rate state pension and tougher sanctions for criminals.

READ WHAT: ERIC PICKLES ‘SECRETARY OF STATE’ SAYS ABOUT OVER-CHARGED COUNCIL TAX.

Are you paying too much Council Tax - check here?