It's a year today since our lives changed overnight and that experience is no doubt being felt all over the country as several hundred local councillors (mostly LibDems it has to be said) lose their seats. For some of them it will not be too much of a wrench since outside of the metropolitan areas, few people choose to devote themselves to it full time (perhaps wisely some might say).
However there are many who have devoted themselves to full-time local politics, delivering the services that matter most to people's everyday lives ie clean streets, planning and urban regeneration, policing and education. Most of them will not receive any redundancy package and this weekend won't be much fun as they try to work out what to do next. I'm not sure that our experience would bring them much comfort (in that it has taken a year for life to start to look a bit brighter) but there is no denying for BM at least, the upside of losing that election which I would list as follows:-
- freedom, as in no longer feeling responsible for everything that goes wrong;
- more family time - invaluable despite the tricky 'getting to know you again' phase
- the sense that once again, we are in charge of our own destinies and are no longer at the mercy of the electorate and/or media
- rediscovering friends and being able to spend weekends as we please
- for BM personally pressing restart on a dormant career.
So many ironies over the past week that I have lost track. Not least that the electorate, in what must be a mass example of cutting off their nose to spite their face, have almost certainly gifted the next century in power to the Conservative party.
In terms of dishonest and hateful politics, surely the worst must be those diehard Labourites who went in with the Tory led No to AV campaign, and for what? In the foolish, utopian belief that they will ever have a majority again (without Scotland) under FPTP and more poisonously, to destroy the LibDems and wipe their noses in it? They may appear to get their wish insofar as the Libdems are concerned but at what cost - almost certainly the SNP will go ahead with a referendum on independence and not many would bet against Alex Salmond succeeding on current form. England has not turned red over the past week and is unlikely to in the future either.
And even if the LibDems tough out this Parliament in Coalition and reap some reward in 2015 for doing so, have the past few weeks so poisoned the relationship between LibDems and Labour that the prospect of any future Lib-Lab Coalition is out of the question? If so, the left is split and the Tories romp home to a (probably handsome) majority.
Interesting times but it seems to me now, from a safe distance, that the levels of dishonesty are worse than ever. It may be a while but there will be another MPs scandal and at the root of it will be the complacency of rock-solid safe seats, earned by a FPTP system which the electorate voted to retain. Why? Because it was another way of poking Nick Clegg in the eye. And yet, the Politics Show last weekend (1 May) commissioned research from academics which showed that so far in Coalition, the LibDems have delivered 75% of their manifesto promises...wonder how that ranks alongside Labour majority administrations 1 year in...
Also curious that that research got no replay. Like I say, there's a lot of dishonesty about, not least in the media which is either red or blue, so no obvious champion out there for the LibDems. Still, despair is not really an option and like any news story, this one will change when the media tires of it and the shine (almost visible, don't you think?) wears off Mr Cameron. I wonder how long that will take?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Friday, 19 November 2010
Romantic Ireland's dead and gone...
Robert Peston may not be a poet so much as the herald of bad news but he invariably gets it right. Not just in the blog post yesterday but also earlier on the Today programme when he explained that Ireland's government bailout of the banks 2 years ago, meant a whopping £110bn loan from the ECB, an amount greater than the total value of the Irish economy. Since then, the economic slowdown, reduced government tax receipts and increased welfare payments has led to the current crisis.
Trouble is, for ex-pats like me it has long been a mystery how Ireland could sustain in the best of times, not to mention the past 2 years, a welfare benefit system which saw Jobseekers Allowance paid at a rate of £196 Euros per week, + £130 with a dependent spouse + £29 per each dependent child - by UK standards these amounts are astonishing. In the good times, those rates as well as those for Child Benefit and Pensions were admirable, signs of a society willing to share success with those less fortunate. Except that the 'success' was an illusion or more accurately, a mass delusion which saw ordinary homes in relatively rural areas valued at London prices and middle income families, investing in second homes to rent (to whom, I often wondered). Top that with the low tax rates which everyone enjoyed particularly those who decided it was more prudent to be self-employed on an incorporated basis and pay only 12% corporation tax and it becomes clear how badly things can go wrong when the easy money dried up.
Well, someone a couple of years back shouted out that the Emperor had no clothes and suddenly everyone woke up. Ireland like many post-industrial countries does not produce enough and unlike say, Britain is relatively low in the natural resources which matter, like oil and gas.
Some will say it was good while it lasted; others blame the politicians (always a safe bet, although isn't the electorate responsible for the politicians they elect? ) but the truth is that most people over 30 when this 'boom' started over 10 years ago, were wary and couldn't quite figure out where the wealth had come from and what was sustaining it.
In many ways, BM suspects that the situation in the UK is worse; the tax threshold is already high, the level of welfare benefits paid relatively modest so there is little room for manoeuvre...at least Ireland has scope to cut further and raise taxes if necessary. On the other hand Ireland did not enjoy anything like the investment in health and education that the UK has seen over the past 10 years or so.
Personally, I never liked the brash 'loadsamoney' Ireland but that's not to say that I enjoy seeing it humbled in this way either. And as the Irish Times (not previously known for its republican stance) put it today, to think that Ireland's struggle for independence over 200 years has led to this day. All's changed.
Trouble is, for ex-pats like me it has long been a mystery how Ireland could sustain in the best of times, not to mention the past 2 years, a welfare benefit system which saw Jobseekers Allowance paid at a rate of £196 Euros per week, + £130 with a dependent spouse + £29 per each dependent child - by UK standards these amounts are astonishing. In the good times, those rates as well as those for Child Benefit and Pensions were admirable, signs of a society willing to share success with those less fortunate. Except that the 'success' was an illusion or more accurately, a mass delusion which saw ordinary homes in relatively rural areas valued at London prices and middle income families, investing in second homes to rent (to whom, I often wondered). Top that with the low tax rates which everyone enjoyed particularly those who decided it was more prudent to be self-employed on an incorporated basis and pay only 12% corporation tax and it becomes clear how badly things can go wrong when the easy money dried up.
Well, someone a couple of years back shouted out that the Emperor had no clothes and suddenly everyone woke up. Ireland like many post-industrial countries does not produce enough and unlike say, Britain is relatively low in the natural resources which matter, like oil and gas.
Some will say it was good while it lasted; others blame the politicians (always a safe bet, although isn't the electorate responsible for the politicians they elect? ) but the truth is that most people over 30 when this 'boom' started over 10 years ago, were wary and couldn't quite figure out where the wealth had come from and what was sustaining it.
In many ways, BM suspects that the situation in the UK is worse; the tax threshold is already high, the level of welfare benefits paid relatively modest so there is little room for manoeuvre...at least Ireland has scope to cut further and raise taxes if necessary. On the other hand Ireland did not enjoy anything like the investment in health and education that the UK has seen over the past 10 years or so.
Personally, I never liked the brash 'loadsamoney' Ireland but that's not to say that I enjoy seeing it humbled in this way either. And as the Irish Times (not previously known for its republican stance) put it today, to think that Ireland's struggle for independence over 200 years has led to this day. All's changed.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Our generation's Dennis Healey moment?
B Husband predicted back in May that Ed would win. The growing strength of the Unions as seen in the London local elections in May, with Labour re-gaining control of Southwark and several other inner London boroughs as well as strengthening their grip in places where they had a dismal record in public office such as Doncaster, were all portents of what was to come. Then Ken Livingstone, (surely Banquo's ghost made flesh) wins the nomination for London and now Ed M wins - well, it's a clean sweep.
As ever it's in the detail that the real story lies; for instance I had not understood that a Trades Union endorsement such as Ed M received from the Big Three (Unite, Unison & GMB) meant that only he and his team got the membership lists in order to canvas their support. The other candidates were effectively denied access to a significant part of their constituency but this is perfectly legitimate and is where the real power of the Union bosses lies.
Of course the Unions and indeed senior Labour figures now say, that individual trade union members vote however they like but if you only receive literature or contact from one candidate...well you can see what that would mean. Same thing happened with the London nomination, where the Unions backed Ken over Oona King.
But back to The Brothers Miliband - one rather poignant detail which has been widely covered by the media was how upset David's wife was said to be about what has happened. She, or sources close to her have also let it be known that on those occasions over the past 2 years or so, when he could have mounted a coup against Gordon Brown but didn't, it was Ed pleading with him on Brown's behalf and urging him to maintain party unity that stopped David from taking those opportunities. Small wonder there is a profound sense of bitterness and betrayal in the David camp.
Given that he was the heir apparent and could have chosen to court the Union bosses, in my view it is to his enormous credit as a man (although perhaps not as a cynical politician) that David chose not to but instead appealed to the wider Labour constituency (and probably the country).
So what are we to make of Ed then? I suspect that he feels no small sense of achievement in finally bettering his older brother, and emerging certainly with no one in any doubt about his ruthlessness or cynicism as a politician. Given all of that, personally I thought it patronising in the extreme for him to say in his acceptance speech that he had never in his wildest imaginations, thought he would one day be leader of the Labour Party.
Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure that he realises what he has done; what sort of Faustian pact the Unions believe has been made - even if he doesn't. He is said to be keen to moderate his message and people who know him tell me that he is a social democrat but that's clearly not what the Unions think they have got. How long before they test him ?
As ever it's in the detail that the real story lies; for instance I had not understood that a Trades Union endorsement such as Ed M received from the Big Three (Unite, Unison & GMB) meant that only he and his team got the membership lists in order to canvas their support. The other candidates were effectively denied access to a significant part of their constituency but this is perfectly legitimate and is where the real power of the Union bosses lies.
Of course the Unions and indeed senior Labour figures now say, that individual trade union members vote however they like but if you only receive literature or contact from one candidate...well you can see what that would mean. Same thing happened with the London nomination, where the Unions backed Ken over Oona King.
But back to The Brothers Miliband - one rather poignant detail which has been widely covered by the media was how upset David's wife was said to be about what has happened. She, or sources close to her have also let it be known that on those occasions over the past 2 years or so, when he could have mounted a coup against Gordon Brown but didn't, it was Ed pleading with him on Brown's behalf and urging him to maintain party unity that stopped David from taking those opportunities. Small wonder there is a profound sense of bitterness and betrayal in the David camp.
Given that he was the heir apparent and could have chosen to court the Union bosses, in my view it is to his enormous credit as a man (although perhaps not as a cynical politician) that David chose not to but instead appealed to the wider Labour constituency (and probably the country).
So what are we to make of Ed then? I suspect that he feels no small sense of achievement in finally bettering his older brother, and emerging certainly with no one in any doubt about his ruthlessness or cynicism as a politician. Given all of that, personally I thought it patronising in the extreme for him to say in his acceptance speech that he had never in his wildest imaginations, thought he would one day be leader of the Labour Party.
Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure that he realises what he has done; what sort of Faustian pact the Unions believe has been made - even if he doesn't. He is said to be keen to moderate his message and people who know him tell me that he is a social democrat but that's clearly not what the Unions think they have got. How long before they test him ?
Sunday, 12 September 2010
In which...reality bites
Apologies for the radio silence over the past week; life has caught up with BM a bit and the job search took precedence over pretty much everything else. Anyway, happy to say that it looks as if it paid off and things might be looking up for the BM exchequer very soon.
These past few months have been a strange mixture of anxious 'in-between jobs' time and re-charging the batteries, after what's been a fairly tumultuous 10 years or so. Back then BM and BH were both young professionals about town, me expecting a baby, he starting a political career. Like everything in life maybe, we could have had no idea how those 10 years would pan out.
Flash forward to 2010, both pushing mid-forties, when even the most clear-headed tend to take stock, and what does the balance sheet look like? Well I suppose it depends on how you measure these things. In pure financial terms, it's pretty bad, particularly if you compare us with our contemporaries from 2000 who continued to pursue a legal career. In non-monetary terms we have packed a lot into those 10 years, met people we would not otherwise have met including the famous and not so famous and experienced another way of living beyond a concentration on the self. And we have a lovely family, which I treasure above anything else.
The way I see it, I have another 20 years or so of useful working life left ahead of me and (and yes I am aware of just how cliched this sort of mid-life assessment is) so it's important, within the constraints of family finances, to make them count by ensuring that the work is meaningful and life-enhancing, instead of soul destroying. At the moment that might just be possible. That's the plan anyway, and I have to have a plan, however flaky.
But if the last 10 years have taught me anything, it's that things don't always go according to plan - or at least plan A. I've not worked out a plan B yet but I'll keep you posted.
These past few months have been a strange mixture of anxious 'in-between jobs' time and re-charging the batteries, after what's been a fairly tumultuous 10 years or so. Back then BM and BH were both young professionals about town, me expecting a baby, he starting a political career. Like everything in life maybe, we could have had no idea how those 10 years would pan out.
Flash forward to 2010, both pushing mid-forties, when even the most clear-headed tend to take stock, and what does the balance sheet look like? Well I suppose it depends on how you measure these things. In pure financial terms, it's pretty bad, particularly if you compare us with our contemporaries from 2000 who continued to pursue a legal career. In non-monetary terms we have packed a lot into those 10 years, met people we would not otherwise have met including the famous and not so famous and experienced another way of living beyond a concentration on the self. And we have a lovely family, which I treasure above anything else.
The way I see it, I have another 20 years or so of useful working life left ahead of me and (and yes I am aware of just how cliched this sort of mid-life assessment is) so it's important, within the constraints of family finances, to make them count by ensuring that the work is meaningful and life-enhancing, instead of soul destroying. At the moment that might just be possible. That's the plan anyway, and I have to have a plan, however flaky.
But if the last 10 years have taught me anything, it's that things don't always go according to plan - or at least plan A. I've not worked out a plan B yet but I'll keep you posted.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Early intervention
Yesterday Sarah Teather, Children's Minister at DfE and Ian Duncan Smith Work & Pension Secretary announced the setting up of a new independent commission into early intervention, which aims to ensure that children at greatest risk of multiple disadvantage get the best start in life. This will be chaired by the Labour MP Graham Allen (who has previously worked with IDS on a a similar joint review entitled "Early Intervention: Good parents, great kids, better citizens" in 1998).
The earlier report is well worth reading. Essentially, they suggested that 'early' intervention means within the first 3 years of a child's life. The earlier report was of course written when IDS was in opposition, but for this Commission to do a further review now interests me for 2 reasons.
Firstly, and I have to declare an interest here, Surestart. The Surestart programme has been running since 1998 but NESS (National Evaluation of SureStart) found that there was little evidence of positive impact from the first part of the programme (and this was after a great deal of public money had been spent). It was not until the programme switched to Children's Centre provision after 'Every Child Matters' in 2006, that impact was measurable although the evidence is still patchy and the evaluation is ongoing. It's also worth bearing in mind that Surestart covers children aged 0-5. ( http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/).
The future of the Surestart programme via Children's Centres has of course been the subject of heated debate over the part few weeks with Ed Balls in particular, suggesting that the Coalition government intends to cut and even abolish it. But if 'Early Intervention' means anything it means Surestart.
So I 'm wondering whether we are not seeing, with the setting up of this commission, a first step towards a re-organisation of Surestart, possibly narrowing the age criteria and also I suspect the number and type of programmes offered by Children's Centres. Speaking both as a parent user and Chair of Govs of a Children's Centre, I have to say I would have no problem with this. When the money was flush, it was perhaps not a problem that the majority of mums accessing services when I attended as a parent, were just like me ie over 30, middle-class. But let's be honest - it was not set up for people like us.
Secondly and this is simply an observation, made elsewhere too, that Ian Duncan Smith looks and sounds very different to how he did when he led the Conservative Party. It renews my faith in human nature to observe how his views seem so entirely different now and that, no longer having any ambition to lead the party or the country, he is freed up to actually make a difference worth making, using research-based evidence and not simply ideology.
My question I suppose is, was he always like this and was our view of him simply distorted by the prism of media coverage OR following his departure as Leader, did he undergo his own Damascene coversion on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow? Either way, he seems an altogether more human politician now and that is surely a positive thing and leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the future of Surestart.
The earlier report is well worth reading. Essentially, they suggested that 'early' intervention means within the first 3 years of a child's life. The earlier report was of course written when IDS was in opposition, but for this Commission to do a further review now interests me for 2 reasons.
Firstly, and I have to declare an interest here, Surestart. The Surestart programme has been running since 1998 but NESS (National Evaluation of SureStart) found that there was little evidence of positive impact from the first part of the programme (and this was after a great deal of public money had been spent). It was not until the programme switched to Children's Centre provision after 'Every Child Matters' in 2006, that impact was measurable although the evidence is still patchy and the evaluation is ongoing. It's also worth bearing in mind that Surestart covers children aged 0-5. ( http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/).
The future of the Surestart programme via Children's Centres has of course been the subject of heated debate over the part few weeks with Ed Balls in particular, suggesting that the Coalition government intends to cut and even abolish it. But if 'Early Intervention' means anything it means Surestart.
So I 'm wondering whether we are not seeing, with the setting up of this commission, a first step towards a re-organisation of Surestart, possibly narrowing the age criteria and also I suspect the number and type of programmes offered by Children's Centres. Speaking both as a parent user and Chair of Govs of a Children's Centre, I have to say I would have no problem with this. When the money was flush, it was perhaps not a problem that the majority of mums accessing services when I attended as a parent, were just like me ie over 30, middle-class. But let's be honest - it was not set up for people like us.
Secondly and this is simply an observation, made elsewhere too, that Ian Duncan Smith looks and sounds very different to how he did when he led the Conservative Party. It renews my faith in human nature to observe how his views seem so entirely different now and that, no longer having any ambition to lead the party or the country, he is freed up to actually make a difference worth making, using research-based evidence and not simply ideology.
My question I suppose is, was he always like this and was our view of him simply distorted by the prism of media coverage OR following his departure as Leader, did he undergo his own Damascene coversion on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow? Either way, he seems an altogether more human politician now and that is surely a positive thing and leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the future of Surestart.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Dave or Ed Milibandwagon?
Not sure either of them have managed to jump-start it yet which is why it's not exactly electrifying.
Except several people seem to believe that the future destiny of the Lib Dems may well depend on who wins the most boring contest in electoral history, this September. John Rentoul is not alone in hoping for a David win believing that surely Labour would not be so dim as to elect Ed. Or would they? UNITE is a big, powerful union with quite deep pockets. That buys a lot of direct mailing to members reminding them, many of whom work in local authorities delivering the public services about to be cut and live in the council housing which will not now be improved because 'there is no money' - the modern mantra - who fights their corner. Note how they are also backing Ken for the London Mayoral nomination....
David would be the smart choice for Labour but these are unpredictable times. People are worried and cannot be relied upon to do the sensible thing, preferring perhaps instead to invest in a Leader who has a track record of street-fighting (in the political sense). Athough he has managed to avoid too close scrutiny over it, it's worth remembering that Ed M. presided over the worst of the Blair/Brown war years with his close allies, Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride in the Brown bunker at No.11.
Current thinking appears to be that Clegg and Cameron will strike some sort of electoral pact before the next parliamentary elections, assuming the coalition survives that long. Sandra Gidleigh, on the Week in Westminster on Saturday, probably speaks for many in the party when she said that unless there was evidence the Lib Dems were having a serious impact on policy and law-making they would be 'toast' at the next election, as referred to by Matthew Norman today. Which is where the debate over Dave/Ed comes in. David M would be closer to Clegg than Ed although Ed has appeal to many on the left of the party. Backed by the Unions who are squaring up for the fight of their generation however, would Ed even be interested in finding common ground wth the LibDems?
Why do I care? Hard to explain really, except that politics gets under your skin so that even now, when we are no longer affected by it day to day, it's impossible to ignore...or maybe it's like a scab that you can't help but pick...either way, it is compulsive.
Except several people seem to believe that the future destiny of the Lib Dems may well depend on who wins the most boring contest in electoral history, this September. John Rentoul is not alone in hoping for a David win believing that surely Labour would not be so dim as to elect Ed. Or would they? UNITE is a big, powerful union with quite deep pockets. That buys a lot of direct mailing to members reminding them, many of whom work in local authorities delivering the public services about to be cut and live in the council housing which will not now be improved because 'there is no money' - the modern mantra - who fights their corner. Note how they are also backing Ken for the London Mayoral nomination....
David would be the smart choice for Labour but these are unpredictable times. People are worried and cannot be relied upon to do the sensible thing, preferring perhaps instead to invest in a Leader who has a track record of street-fighting (in the political sense). Athough he has managed to avoid too close scrutiny over it, it's worth remembering that Ed M. presided over the worst of the Blair/Brown war years with his close allies, Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride in the Brown bunker at No.11.
Current thinking appears to be that Clegg and Cameron will strike some sort of electoral pact before the next parliamentary elections, assuming the coalition survives that long. Sandra Gidleigh, on the Week in Westminster on Saturday, probably speaks for many in the party when she said that unless there was evidence the Lib Dems were having a serious impact on policy and law-making they would be 'toast' at the next election, as referred to by Matthew Norman today. Which is where the debate over Dave/Ed comes in. David M would be closer to Clegg than Ed although Ed has appeal to many on the left of the party. Backed by the Unions who are squaring up for the fight of their generation however, would Ed even be interested in finding common ground wth the LibDems?
Why do I care? Hard to explain really, except that politics gets under your skin so that even now, when we are no longer affected by it day to day, it's impossible to ignore...or maybe it's like a scab that you can't help but pick...either way, it is compulsive.
Friday, 2 July 2010
Making politics work
In my Normblog profile last week, I mentioned that the single change I would effect in government would be to the electoral system, because I think it would/will change everything else. It looks as though the referendum on AV will take place first Thursday in May 2011. AV is not perfect and there are many critics but as James Graham sets out today in Comment is free, it's AV or nothing and for that reason, campaigners for electoral and political reform should support it.
There has been a lot of blogging/comment about the LibDem 'obsession' with electoral reform, much of it dismissive as not addressing the real, more pressing issues people have to face every day. It's certainly the case that it's a complex subject but then so are many others such as public sector reform, how to stimulate a private sector recovery etc. I suppose it's harder to find emotive ways of explaining it in simple terms which would resonate and make ordinary people care.
But I suspect that's the whole point. So often it seems to me in a system which favours a 2 party duopoly, politicians don't have to really try very hard to explain complex issues, instead relying on old emotive slogans to bolster support. Then see what happens when they are not forced to 'work harder' to explain for instance, why membership of Europe is important (UKIP emerges) or welfare reform and immigration issues (BNP emerges). They then use examples of these, more extreme parties who nevertheless represent the concerns however misguided of real people, to warn of the dangers of electoral reform since it might allow those parties access to real power.
The current system is a mess - electorally and politically, since it allows our currently elected politicians to dodge the tough issues. It always worries me that mainstream politicians appear horrified by the emergence of the BNP as happened for instance in Barking & Dagenham , ignoring the fact that however despicable these parties may be, they have gained legitimacy because of a monumental failure of leadership by those self-same, mainstream parties.
AV will not make an enormous difference, it's true. But it's a start and that has to be a good thing. I believe that in certain areas (not all I accept), it will force incumbents to address and explain uncomfortable issues and debate with and defeat extremist parties legitimately, in order to win.
As James Graham mentions in the article linked to earlier, AV is essentially a Labour policy. It will be interesting to see whether they campaign for a Yes vote, especially since Toby Young suggests in the Telegraph that David Cameron may be forced to, to save the Coalition.
You see, already electoral reform is up-ending the way politics is done!
There has been a lot of blogging/comment about the LibDem 'obsession' with electoral reform, much of it dismissive as not addressing the real, more pressing issues people have to face every day. It's certainly the case that it's a complex subject but then so are many others such as public sector reform, how to stimulate a private sector recovery etc. I suppose it's harder to find emotive ways of explaining it in simple terms which would resonate and make ordinary people care.
But I suspect that's the whole point. So often it seems to me in a system which favours a 2 party duopoly, politicians don't have to really try very hard to explain complex issues, instead relying on old emotive slogans to bolster support. Then see what happens when they are not forced to 'work harder' to explain for instance, why membership of Europe is important (UKIP emerges) or welfare reform and immigration issues (BNP emerges). They then use examples of these, more extreme parties who nevertheless represent the concerns however misguided of real people, to warn of the dangers of electoral reform since it might allow those parties access to real power.
The current system is a mess - electorally and politically, since it allows our currently elected politicians to dodge the tough issues. It always worries me that mainstream politicians appear horrified by the emergence of the BNP as happened for instance in Barking & Dagenham , ignoring the fact that however despicable these parties may be, they have gained legitimacy because of a monumental failure of leadership by those self-same, mainstream parties.
AV will not make an enormous difference, it's true. But it's a start and that has to be a good thing. I believe that in certain areas (not all I accept), it will force incumbents to address and explain uncomfortable issues and debate with and defeat extremist parties legitimately, in order to win.
As James Graham mentions in the article linked to earlier, AV is essentially a Labour policy. It will be interesting to see whether they campaign for a Yes vote, especially since Toby Young suggests in the Telegraph that David Cameron may be forced to, to save the Coalition.
You see, already electoral reform is up-ending the way politics is done!
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
A mood for change
Reading Steve Richards in today's Independent, I am struck by however legitimate his argument, he rather misses the point - which as I see it, is this: people, and I mean the electorate, were broadly voting for change. Not outright, 'there you go, have a majority' sort of change but change nevertheless. I suppose his most valid argument is whether people realised that this, ie. a deficit cutting government, is what they were voting for. He's right to say that none of the main parties spelled out in any detail how they would tackle the deficit, although all talked about tough times ahead etc but then manifestos are only ever aspirational, not promises.
I suspect although I have no evidence for this, simply a hunch, that most people read between the lines and had some sense of what was coming. The IFS suggested pre-Election that Labour plans would mean an effective 20% or thereabouts cut to public services if Health and DFID were to be ring-fenced.
Overriding all of this of course, is the issue of our democracy. It's not a true democracy in that everyone has a say in the decisions made - instead we have a form of representative democracy, whereby we elect representatives to make those decisions on our behalf. We do not expect to be consulted about every decision - that's their job (which always bothers me when politicians talk about increasing the number of referendums. Unless it's a constitutional issue, my feeling is that we elected them to make the decisions so get on with it! ).
So although I believe that Steve Richards is right to raise the issue of whether the Coalition has a mandate for the measures they are about to introduce, I disagree with his final analysis. I doubt that any sentient adult who voted at on May 6th could have been unaware that cuts were coming, whoever emerged as the winning party. Furthermore, the general cynicism which greets most pronouncements from politicians of all stripes, leads me to believe that people made up their own minds about what was needed and voted accordingly.
Democracy, eh ? The least worst option when compared with all the others. Someone famous said that once.
I suspect although I have no evidence for this, simply a hunch, that most people read between the lines and had some sense of what was coming. The IFS suggested pre-Election that Labour plans would mean an effective 20% or thereabouts cut to public services if Health and DFID were to be ring-fenced.
Overriding all of this of course, is the issue of our democracy. It's not a true democracy in that everyone has a say in the decisions made - instead we have a form of representative democracy, whereby we elect representatives to make those decisions on our behalf. We do not expect to be consulted about every decision - that's their job (which always bothers me when politicians talk about increasing the number of referendums. Unless it's a constitutional issue, my feeling is that we elected them to make the decisions so get on with it! ).
So although I believe that Steve Richards is right to raise the issue of whether the Coalition has a mandate for the measures they are about to introduce, I disagree with his final analysis. I doubt that any sentient adult who voted at on May 6th could have been unaware that cuts were coming, whoever emerged as the winning party. Furthermore, the general cynicism which greets most pronouncements from politicians of all stripes, leads me to believe that people made up their own minds about what was needed and voted accordingly.
Democracy, eh ? The least worst option when compared with all the others. Someone famous said that once.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Scurrilous gossip!
via Iain Dale
"Wayne David MP (Labour) found himself last week in a lift in Portcullis House with Diane Abbott. There was a short silence until...
Wayne: So aren't you going to lobby me, then?
Diane: How long have you been an MP?
Wayne: Nine years.
Diane: And have I ever spoken to you in that time?
Wayne: No.
Diane: So why would I start now?
And she wondered why she had difficulty in getting 33 nominations..."
"Wayne David MP (Labour) found himself last week in a lift in Portcullis House with Diane Abbott. There was a short silence until...
Wayne: So aren't you going to lobby me, then?
Diane: How long have you been an MP?
Wayne: Nine years.
Diane: And have I ever spoken to you in that time?
Wayne: No.
Diane: So why would I start now?
And she wondered why she had difficulty in getting 33 nominations..."
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Doncaster disaster
So in spite of the fact that 7 (yes, that's right, 7) children have died in the past 5 years whilst under the supervision or direct care of social services, and the fact that the Audit Commission which inspected the Council announced in April that it was deeply dysfunctional with Councillors (majority Labour) putting their own interests above those of their community, Labour which had been in a position of no overall control, gained a majority on May 6th! Democracy strikes again.
Today, in an effort to save the people of Doncaster from themselves, the government has imposed a new Chief Executive as well as several Commissioners. They have in effect, taken it over, lock stock and barrel.
Let's see who has been MP for Doncaster for the past 5 years or more - why it's Ed Milliband, Labour Leadership contender and oddly, although I may be mistaken, silent throughout the entire slow disaster that has unfolded in his city over the same period.
What are we to make of all this ? I admit to being baffled by the hold which Labour has over areas where they have manifestly failed to deliver anything worth voting for. And yet, people vote both in the Council and General elections for Labour candidates again and again. In Haringey (you may recall Baby Peter tragedy), same result, Labour increases their hold on the Council.
There is a belief widely peddled in the print media, that the LibDems fight dirty in their local election battles but I suspect that they are merely novices in the dark arts, as nothing else comes close to explaining these results.
Today, in an effort to save the people of Doncaster from themselves, the government has imposed a new Chief Executive as well as several Commissioners. They have in effect, taken it over, lock stock and barrel.
Let's see who has been MP for Doncaster for the past 5 years or more - why it's Ed Milliband, Labour Leadership contender and oddly, although I may be mistaken, silent throughout the entire slow disaster that has unfolded in his city over the same period.
What are we to make of all this ? I admit to being baffled by the hold which Labour has over areas where they have manifestly failed to deliver anything worth voting for. And yet, people vote both in the Council and General elections for Labour candidates again and again. In Haringey (you may recall Baby Peter tragedy), same result, Labour increases their hold on the Council.
There is a belief widely peddled in the print media, that the LibDems fight dirty in their local election battles but I suspect that they are merely novices in the dark arts, as nothing else comes close to explaining these results.
Saturday, 29 May 2010
What just happened ?
Let's unpick the David Laws story which has unfolded over the past 36 hours or so. Bear in mind the following:-
So what was the real purpose of re-publishing the expenses claims now ? There can only have been one - to out him to his family (in particular his elderly parents, who are Catholic). Virtually everyone in the Westminster village and in the LibDems knew he was gay.
It's a salacious story - nothing more and nothing less. But the Press has been swift to change their emphasis, now they have got their scalp: now it's all sanctimonious claptrap about how talented he is, what a tragedy this is for him personally etc. I do not wish to condone the claims for rent which he acknowledged were wrong but...in 2010, when we smugly tell ourselves what an open society we now live in, how can it be in the national interest either economically, politically or morally to hound someone out of office like this ?
As Iain Dale noted, he is a broken man.
I have rarely felt so much despair about politics and the hypocrisies of our fourth estate.
- The Telegraph conducted its expose of MP's expenses over the course of last Summer up to the end of September
- David Laws appears to have claimed monies inappropriately for the period June 2006-August 2009.
- That amounts to £15,000 approximately
- The Telegraph knew this and published his claims last year
- The story which ran today was broken on the basis that he was 'claiming' (note the present tense) monies for rent to re-imburse his live-in 'friend'
- He is a millionaire and it was self-evidently not done for personal financial gain
So what was the real purpose of re-publishing the expenses claims now ? There can only have been one - to out him to his family (in particular his elderly parents, who are Catholic). Virtually everyone in the Westminster village and in the LibDems knew he was gay.
It's a salacious story - nothing more and nothing less. But the Press has been swift to change their emphasis, now they have got their scalp: now it's all sanctimonious claptrap about how talented he is, what a tragedy this is for him personally etc. I do not wish to condone the claims for rent which he acknowledged were wrong but...in 2010, when we smugly tell ourselves what an open society we now live in, how can it be in the national interest either economically, politically or morally to hound someone out of office like this ?
As Iain Dale noted, he is a broken man.
I have rarely felt so much despair about politics and the hypocrisies of our fourth estate.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Mayor of London
Yawn...it seems like Boris has only just started but no, already the Labour Party at least is going to decide at their Autumn conference, who their candidate for the next Mayoral election in 2012 will be. Ken, who has never really accepted that he is no longer the current incumbent, is the leading candidate but it seems that other people are interested and "Uh Oh", the nomination may not be the shoe-in Ken expects.
Oona King, former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow has formally declared her interest and has some interesting backers (see Hopi Sen). No question she would be an interesting candidate who would probably win the inner London boroughs without too much difficulty but Boris' cunning was to remember that London comprises 32 boroughs, which is how he won and I can't see Ms King's appeal extending to those suburban heartlands so easily.
Oona King, former MP for Bethnal Green and Bow has formally declared her interest and has some interesting backers (see Hopi Sen). No question she would be an interesting candidate who would probably win the inner London boroughs without too much difficulty but Boris' cunning was to remember that London comprises 32 boroughs, which is how he won and I can't see Ms King's appeal extending to those suburban heartlands so easily.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Tristram Hunt on Today
Here is someone BM has admired on TV and occasionally on the radio for his balanced views and ability to put into context the historical era he describes. So it was rather dispiriting to hear him on the Today programme earlier, when interviewed as a 'newbie' MP, use the opportunity to launch an all-out attack on the new government for its, as yet unpublished, planned spending cuts. Describing the idea of a Big Society as giving 'yummy mummies in West London and under-employed professionals' something to do with their time.
Whilst I have expressed my own reservations about the idea of volunteers running essential services, I have to admit that I was a little disappointed in Mr Hunt this morning. For a start he appears to have dropped the rather lovely plummy tones he usually employs when broadcasting (could this be a nod to his new constituents in Stoke on Trent ?) and where was his usual academic rigour in describing the challenges facing the country? Answer - sadly absent. After all, one would expect the historian to be curious as to why, after 13 years of record investment in schools parents would feel the need to set up schools of their own and to give some contextual analysis of that phenomenon.
BM was left with the impression of just another Party hack now trying to make an early name for himself as a politician. Judge for yourself here.
p.s Does this also mark the first use of 'yummy mummy' as a pejorative term?
Whilst I have expressed my own reservations about the idea of volunteers running essential services, I have to admit that I was a little disappointed in Mr Hunt this morning. For a start he appears to have dropped the rather lovely plummy tones he usually employs when broadcasting (could this be a nod to his new constituents in Stoke on Trent ?) and where was his usual academic rigour in describing the challenges facing the country? Answer - sadly absent. After all, one would expect the historian to be curious as to why, after 13 years of record investment in schools parents would feel the need to set up schools of their own and to give some contextual analysis of that phenomenon.
BM was left with the impression of just another Party hack now trying to make an early name for himself as a politician. Judge for yourself here.
p.s Does this also mark the first use of 'yummy mummy' as a pejorative term?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
A terrible beauty ?
So the political landscape has changed in a matter of hours. Although one could say that an objective analysis of the general election result meant that this was the only likely option to emerge, it's still rather astonishing...and however exciting, carries risks for both parties. The taunt flung at LibDems was always that their policy agenda was fantasy, that a vote for them and and their policies was wasted because the reality was they would never have a chance to implement them - and now they have!
For an area like Southwark, the benefits could be substantial; a pupil premium for our schools will mean more teachers and smaller class sizes, raising the tax threshold to £10,000 will make a significant difference to the levels of deprivation endured by a section of our society often overlooked, (the working poor) and if the constitutional policies are as we think they are, well it looks like a good start.
BM can't pretend to like David Cameron or George Osborne but I do like the idea of their policies being tempered by Lib Dems such as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. And in the end people go into politics to have an opportunity to govern and make a difference and they would not have been forgiven for failing to make a decision to govern.
Meanwhile, the cuts which have to be made, however tempered or softened by LibDems, will be done through local authorities up and down the country stuffed full of newly elected Labour councillors, backed by the Trades Unions. It would have happened anyway even with a Labour government but now the lines have been clearly drawn. Those Labour councils owe the unions their election so how are they going to implement the cuts to their budgets ? However it's done whether by losing public sector jobs or jacking up Council Tax or both, they will take every opportunity to blame the Tory/LibDem government for their own incompetence, dishonesty and failures of leadership.
We live in interesting times. Alls changed, changed utterly...
For an area like Southwark, the benefits could be substantial; a pupil premium for our schools will mean more teachers and smaller class sizes, raising the tax threshold to £10,000 will make a significant difference to the levels of deprivation endured by a section of our society often overlooked, (the working poor) and if the constitutional policies are as we think they are, well it looks like a good start.
BM can't pretend to like David Cameron or George Osborne but I do like the idea of their policies being tempered by Lib Dems such as Nick Clegg and Vince Cable. And in the end people go into politics to have an opportunity to govern and make a difference and they would not have been forgiven for failing to make a decision to govern.
Meanwhile, the cuts which have to be made, however tempered or softened by LibDems, will be done through local authorities up and down the country stuffed full of newly elected Labour councillors, backed by the Trades Unions. It would have happened anyway even with a Labour government but now the lines have been clearly drawn. Those Labour councils owe the unions their election so how are they going to implement the cuts to their budgets ? However it's done whether by losing public sector jobs or jacking up Council Tax or both, they will take every opportunity to blame the Tory/LibDem government for their own incompetence, dishonesty and failures of leadership.
We live in interesting times. Alls changed, changed utterly...
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Changing the world
The American anthrolopogist, Margaret Mead famously said:-
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
It's a quote that Bermondsey Dad is fond of using to inspire and motivate, largely to good effect. Sometimes however, it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae of everyday life and and since effecting real change can take time, it's difficult to get a sense of how a project is going. We think of our projects as merely local, but of course everything that was ever worthwhile is local. There's also a strangely English (and Irish) reticence about broadcasting our ambitions for fear of derision.
Aaanyway...Bermondsey Mum has been acting as landlady to one of the campaign volunteers who happens to be American and BM loves Americans - loves them! Have a look at his website and marvel at the sheer optimism and the conviction running through it like Brighton rock, that it is possible to change the world! And Go LibDems!
http://www.kyletaylor.com/
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
It's a quote that Bermondsey Dad is fond of using to inspire and motivate, largely to good effect. Sometimes however, it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae of everyday life and and since effecting real change can take time, it's difficult to get a sense of how a project is going. We think of our projects as merely local, but of course everything that was ever worthwhile is local. There's also a strangely English (and Irish) reticence about broadcasting our ambitions for fear of derision.
Aaanyway...Bermondsey Mum has been acting as landlady to one of the campaign volunteers who happens to be American and BM loves Americans - loves them! Have a look at his website and marvel at the sheer optimism and the conviction running through it like Brighton rock, that it is possible to change the world! And Go LibDems!
http://www.kyletaylor.com/
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Geek the vote
Times are tough for geeks...so says the website http://www.geekthevote.org.uk/ Not a subject Bermondsey Mum can claim to know anything about, but having met Ed (the founder-geek) last night, I am happy to spread the word. So, geeks everywhere unite!
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Polly Toynbee and those nosepegs again...
Polly says " Your heart might say Clegg. But vote with your head".
To which the best short response I've seen so far has been:-
" I'd rather vote hand on heart than hand on nose, thanks".
To which the best short response I've seen so far has been:-
" I'd rather vote hand on heart than hand on nose, thanks".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
