Poor figures show we're not all in this together

Statistics are always throwing up anomalies, especially when precise definitions have been attempted.  Such an anomaly was pointed out by a report into child poverty on this morning’s Today programme.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9661000/9661128.stm
Let me explain.

The definition of a child living in poverty is someone under the age of 16 who lives in a household where the income is under 60% of the median wage.  Not the average, but the median.  This means that if all the wages in the country were set out in a line, we would find out which one is in the middle and measure 60% of it.  Anything under that would count.  For instance, take the following eleven families earnings as a snapshot:

100 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20

60 would be the median.  60% of 60 is 36.  Any child living below that line would be in poverty.

All relatively simple.  However, in a recession, we expect the figure to alter.  If the top earning families lose 10% of their income, the line suddenly looks like this:

90 86 81 72 63 54 45 36 35 30 20

Now the middle number is 54.  60% of that is 32.4.  This usually means that fewer children are counted as being in poverty, as the amount which counts has reduced.  Previously, the bottom three families would have counted.  Now only the bottom two count.  This is the anomaly.  Due to our way of counting it, the number of children in poverty reduces when times are bad.

With me so far?  Good.  Because something strange has happened.  The number of children defined as living in poverty has risen.  These are difficult economic times.  As I have pointed out, the number should have reduced.  How has this happened?  How could this happen?

Easy.  Our second example reduces the wages of the highest earners.  Let’s try reducing the earnings of the lower income families:

100 95 90 80 70 60 10 10 10 10 10

The median wage is still 60.  The 60% line still kicks in at 36.  How many families in our new line are under that level?  Five.  The top and middle earners are still as well off as they were.  The lowest half of earners has been decimated.  So the median wage remains the same, but everyone, yes EVERYONE under that has seen their income fall below the official poverty line.

Is this the explanation for the rise in the numbers of children living in poverty?  There is no other logical reason.  In good times, the numbers rise but these are not good times.  Unemployment is sky rocketing, inflation is high and public sector pay is frozen.  These are bad times, by anyone’s calculations.

We’re left with the reality that the poorest in our society are paying for the country's dire economic situation.  The cuts are hitting the poorest harder, part time workers are losing their jobs at a disproportionate rate and now we have proof of this.  We’re not all in this together.  David Cameron is willing to put our European future in jeopardy to protect City millionaires.  Poor people are left to carry the can.

If the Government is serious about reducing child poverty, this situation would be reversed.  The results suggest that they are not.  Iain Duncan Smith’s warm words have as much chance of succeeding as anything he did when leading the Conservative Party.  Things are still tough.  And the poor are continuing to pay most.

Praise and rewards for those who deserve it

It’s around three years since David Cameron first used the phrase ‘Big Society’.  Indeed, Conservative M.P. Jesse Norman had earlier written a book on the subject.  It was mentioned in the last Tory election manifesto, has been heralded in various speeches and has been talked about almost as often as the economy or spending cuts.  Amazing, then, that we still have no idea what the Tories mean when they mention it.

Most people, when questioned, feel that it is a vague notion about volunteers running public services and for that reason, it’s a phrase and an idea that puts people off.  In short, the public feel as though using your free time to help others has been politicised.  David Cameron spent a large part of his first six months in office being photographed with any group of volunteers he could get anywhere near.  This hobby seems to have tailed off in recent times – could that be because private polling tells him what he doesn’t want to hear?  Perhaps he is getting the message that people are put off by this grandstanding, this taking advantage of people, this cynical attempt to manufacture party political kudos from people’s good will?  There’s an irony here.  As unemployment rises and people have more time on their hands, the number of volunteer hours clocked seems to be falling.  Rather than stepping into the breach to run closing services, people are angry at this attempt by the Government to get something for nothing.  Society is treating me as though I am worthless, the feeling goes, so why should I put anything back?  As one who has run an organisation which depended upon volunteers for its success, I can also vouch for the notion that people volunteer when they feel good about themselves.  If you’re made to feel undervalued in the labour market, you’re hardly going to feel as though you have huge amounts of skills to offer the ‘Third Sector’.

This, of course, is where Government should be stepping in.  Rather than expecting volunteers to do more in our society, why are we not doing more to reward those who already give their skills and time?  Of course central Government won’t lift a finger to help – there are no votes in recognising things that people already do.  But communities, led by Local Government could make a massive difference.

Here in Monmouth, we have a number of organisations which rely on help from unpaid sources.  Two examples are the Guides and the local football club.  It would seem logical to me that by rewarding the work people already do, we could not only make people realise that they are held in high esteem, but also encourage more people to help out.  What rewards could we offer?  Well, I doubt very much whether our local Leisure Centre is full to capacity all the time.  Why can’t we give the Guides and the football club vouchers for off-peak periods to be given as rewards for those who help out?  Log, perhaps, 10 volunteer hours and you could have a free swimming session as a thank you from the community.  If you’ve been helping out with Guides, you and a partner could have a badminton court for free.  It may not sound much, but it sends a definite signal – we appreciate you and value the commitment you give to the community.

Once this is established, it can be built upon.  The idea that helping out can have its rewards doesn’t have to stop with organised groups.  How many people could do with a helping hand somewhere along the line?  Whether it’s help with the garden or taking something to the tip, picking children up from school or a few logs chopped for the fire, people need help all the time.  Normally, the reward comes with a similar favour returned, but not everyone can do that.  A system of Community Credits would assist those who need help and encourage those who are able to provide it.  Local businesses could be involved too, without any great loss – a free cake at the café for anyone who has 10 Community Credits, or a half price hour in the Playbarn if you’re looking after someone else’s children.

Such a scheme would be bound to attract criticism, on the basis of cost, administration and abuse.  None of these issues is insurmountable. 

Many supermarkets run loyalty schemes which can be adapted for this use.  Tesco and Sainsbury are not renowned for doing things which are prohibitively costly and they would not run their schemes if they cost too much money. 

There is also no reason why schemes need to be centrally run.  If communities ran them, through a local shop or pub or Community Centre, they would be far more effective.

Thirdly, anyone suggesting that those who currently give their time freely might be corrupted by the idea of a free hour at a swimming pool doesn’t understand why people do these things in the first place.

Let’s stop playing politics with people’s good nature and do what elected representatives should be doing – rewarding people who do the right thing, and encouraging those who do not.

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - #liamstubbs

Future jobs? Current despair.

During an episode of Blackadder the Third, it became clear that the bumbling staff of the Prince Regent’s household had burnt the manuscript of the dictionary written by Samuel Johnson.  In the midst of the shock and horror that greeted the news, Baldrick announced that he had a cunning plan.  “Hoorah,” said Prince George.  “Well that’s that, then.”  Of course, the plan had more holes than Swiss cheese, but George’s response to it was similar in many ways to public reaction to Government announcements.  There’s a problem, but the Government has a plan, so that’s okay.  We can forget about it.

The current Government’s own version of Baldrick, Nick Clegg, attempted to solve youth unemployment on the Today Programme this morning by announcing a series of measures which amounted to nothing more than scraping the soot off and sticking the pages back in.  In response to a 20-year old from Middlesbrough who had been unemployed for five months, he announced that she will now be able to go to the job centre every week, instead of every fortnight, and sit down with her adviser.  To look for a job.  That isn’t there.  Well done, Nick.  He also told her that if she was unemployed for another four months, she would qualify for a new work placement programme.  Great.  Kick your heels for another 120 days and we’ll then let you work for someone for free.  I’m not sure whether Clegg expected to be thanked for these announcements, but I doubt whether the good folk of Middlesbrough are currently raising the rafters from Coulby Newham to St Hilda’s.  Clegg also announced subsidies for jobs which sounded spectacularly like the Future Jobs Fund – which was scrapped by this Government and has been rubbished by them ever since.

Leaving aside the issue of why the BBC only ever ventures to Teesside to cover stories of poverty and despair, I’m not sure what Clegg hopes to achieve with these new initiatives.  Perhaps he is hoping that creating enough sound and fury will convince people that he is ‘doing something’ about the problem and therefore the problem is going away.

The first parts of his plan will barely scratch the surface.  It may be the case that one or two young people may, through luck or timing, obtain a job by focussing more often, though Clegg’s assumptions seem to be based on the notion that, at the moment, young people are simply not looking hard enough.  This smacks of the idea of the ‘feckless’ unemployed which we heard so much about in the 1980’s.  Perhaps Clegg’s next suggestion is that they should purchase a bike.  However, in the case of most people looking for work, visiting the Job Centre more often will only improve their chances of finding a job if the jobs are there to find.  Employment advisers do not possess magic wands and can only work with what they have, no matter how many times you see them.  You could move in with them, but if a job is not there, they cannot help you find one.  I'm reminded of Margaret Thatcher's only visit to Middlesbrough, when she was approached by a man holding 200 unsuccessful application forms.  Her answer to him (as she sped away as quickly as she could) was that he should retrain.  "Retrain as what?" he asked.  "I'm thick."

As for work programmes, I suspect another cunning plan.  Will those undertaking this free labour be counted among the unemployment statistics?  I bet they won’t.  The message is: sign off for a month and we will pay you benefits plus travel costs.  With any luck, that should bring unemployment down by a quarter of a million and make us look good.  Then, when your placement comes to an end, you sign on again and some other poor sap can take your place.  With any luck, people will forget all about you.

Which means we are left with the Future Jobs Fund.  David Cameron has said many times that the fund is unaffordable.  All eyes will be on George Osborne to spot his next move.  I would wager a young person’s Job Seeker’s Allowance that there will either be a cut in Tax Credits or a freeze on benefits.  That should secure enough money to pay for their erroneous ways.  In other news, the Chief Executives of 75 companies whose profits went down last year saw their average pay rise for the same period.  We’re all in this together, didn’t you know?

liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter #liamstubbs

Attitudes to young people hit the wrong notes

The aftermath of the summer’s disturbances is still reverberating.  The sentencing authorities have released demographic figures which show the ages of the people involved, again shining a light on society’s attitude towards anyone younger.  Here are a couple of quotes about young people:

"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves."

"When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful."

Pretty damning.  In addition, The Times reported "organised terrorism in the streets." 

You could be forgiven for thinking that society has gone to hell in a handcart.  Indeed, a recent survey showed that a huge percentage of adults think that is the case, and the reason they point to is the behaviour of young people.  Around a quarter of people think that children can be ‘written off’ at the age of 10, no hope of transforming themselves into anything meaningful.

But are young people any different today?  The short answer is no.  My mother used to regale me with tales of the mischief the Land Girls used to get up to at the tail end of the Second World War.  Apparently this now revered group of women were seen as feral upstarts by the local farmers, who wanted them to be packed back off to the towns as soon as possible, air raids or not.  My uncle also pointed out that my Dad in his teenage years was not adverse to using his boxing skills to sort out problems, whether he was inside a ring or not.

We need to pause for a moment and consider our attitudes towards young people.  We regularly pave over their green spaces to build car parks.  When they continue to pass exams in ever increasing numbers, we tell them it must because exams are getting easier.  We tell them what they are and are not allowed to wear when they are spending their money in shopping centres, contributing to the economy.  We criticise their music, their dress sense, their beliefs.  When we see more than two of them together, we refer to them as a ‘gang’, a word we would never dream of attributing to a collection of men standing outside the British Legion, or ladies gathered outside a Bingo hall.  In short, we behave appallingly towards young people, then have the barefaced cheek to complain that they show us no respect.

Most worryingly of all is the fact that in law, the only group of people against whom physical violence is permitted is young people.  The Welsh Assembly is promising a free vote on outlawing the smacking of children, something I wholeheartedly support.  What possible justification could there be for using physical violence against somebody half your size and a third of your strength?  None whatsoever in my opinion.  In any other sphere of life, this kind of behaviour would be greeted with outrage.  Imagine it in the workplace.  Someone further up the hierarchy comes over to you, tells you that you have done something wrong and strikes you for it.  90% of people would hit their superior back and almost all would issue some kind of complaint, many pursuing a legal path.  Physical violence simply breeds more physical violence and a desire for retribution.  When used against children, it teaches them that people who are bigger in size than them have the ultimate say, without any need for explanation or justification.  I am bigger than you.  I can hit you.  you do as I say.  When it happens on street corners we call it mugging, bullying, assault.  When it happens in the home it’s called chastisement.  There are a million ways to discipline children and it is often necessary.  The use of physical violence is an admission that the parent does not have the ability to parent in any other way.

Shamefully, the cowardly M.P. for Monmouth, David Davies, feels that violence against children is not only justified, but also wishes to prevent the Assembly from attempting to outlaw it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15353564

A typically underhand way of preventing something you don’t agree with.  Perhaps Mr Davies wants to protect people like him who feel that hitting children is justified.  I'm sure he would have been perfectly happy had the Whips beaten him up after voting in favour of an EU referendum recently.

Just in case you are wondering where the comments at the top came from, I’ll tell you.  The Times report wasn’t from this summer, but from 1898, that golden Victorian age that many would like us to return to.  The first quote was attributed to Peter the Hermit in 1274.  But attitudes like this aren’t simply a recent phenomena (i.e. the last millennium).  The second quote is from Hesiod, in the 8^th Century BC.  Yes, folks, the world is going to hell in a handcart, and it’s young people’s fault.  Just as it has been for the last 2,800 years.

aa

Poor thought has to be challenged.

Whenever Governments change, there is always a slow but discernible change in political culture.  Some things that had been taken for granted subsequently become questioned and new 'truths' are developed.  Many people reading today's headlines concerning an increase in the number of people living in poverty:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15242103

will naturally be appalled by story and will automatically make the link between the removal of Government support and the drop in quality of people's lives.  A growing number, however, will do their best to blame anyone but those responsible.

When this story broke on the BBC, I noticed that there was a debate about it on a message board that I occasionally contribute to.  One person was falling over themselves to absolve the Government from any blame, stating that "poverty doesn't happen in one year".  Well, yes it does.  It can happen very quickly.  There are countless stories of people suffering job loss, illness, accidents or other personal tragedies which have signalled a startlingly accelerated descent into poverty and misery.  Taking away someones livelihood is akin to taking away their liberty.  Governments are effectively treating people in the same way that prisoners are treated and the knock on effects are awful.  Children are often the ones who suffer most, from the simple if sad reality that their parents cannot afford the same treats and presents that others get, right up to having to wear clothes that are long past their use-by date, making them and their situation an obvious target for their mean spirited contemporaries.

Reading more of the message board, I was struck by one comment which denied the very existence of poverty on the basis that "they've all got plasma tv's and playstations".  Now unless someone has visited every household in the country, that sort of remark is ignorant at best and just plain stupid at worst.  However, we live in a time when this kind of comment can be passed off as accurate.  The only people who benefit from this kind of stupidity are those who stand to gain from poverty.  There are employers who gleefully welcome high unemployment as it means they can drive wages further and further down; the increase in the number of people needing Housing Benefit is sometimes a green light to unscrupulous landlords to increase rent;  some Tory M.P.'s delight in compounding the situation by blaming the poor themselves, making out that, despite having the worst possible start in life, they can miraculously transform their situation by working harder.  To paraphrase Ed Miliband, it's a mistake to suggest that you make the rich work harder by making them richer and the poor work harder by making them poorer.

This change in the political culture has had other effects, too, with institutions that have been cherished for years suddenly becoming battlegrounds.  A theme that was in vogue earlier this year concerned libraries.  As Local Government budgets were slashed, libraries found themselves on the receiving end, with all kinds of right wing nuts coming out of the woodwork to wield the axe.  One debate on Radio 4 centred around whether we need libraries at all.  They could all be closed, said one guest, as Charity Shops sell books.  Leaving aside his stunning ignorance about the type of books available in your local Cancer Research (and the fact that there are more books available in wealthier areas compared to poorer areas), he built on this idiocy by then suggesting that books themselves were no longer necessary.  A Kindle for all was his solution.  When it was suggested that these items can be very expensive, his idiotic response was that "poor people can be given a Kindle".

Yes, we now live in a society where stupid right wing ideas can be brought out into the open.  After keeping them under wraps for a decade, we're now subjected to anti-social ideas on a daily basis.  Of course the Daily Mail and Daily Express have been hammering away at such themes for years.  The problem for them is that no-one ever took them seriously.  Now, however, there is a danger that when extreme views are put forward, they act as a Trojan Horse for something equally obscene.  Okay, we won't close your library - we'll just sell off half the books.

It's up to those of us who value our social institutions and who sympathise with those in terrible situations to speak out.  It's no good crossing our fingers and hoping that everything works out for the best.  The sort of offensive ideas that this Government floats - changes to Employment Law, scrapping the Human Rights Act, changing planning laws unfairly - need to be challenged at every opportunity.  If not, today's nutty idea becomes tomorrow's palatable truth and next week's Government policy.

It's not constructive - just unfair

Political Parties like to play to their own crowds.  Pre-conference tasters excite the media, party members and those of us who follow the political world on a regular basis.  Some snippets, though, creep below the radar and deserve more comment or analysis – or perhaps downright suspicion.

One such piece was smuggled out into the news in recent days.  Under the guise of creating a more ‘business friendly’ culture, George Osborne has suggested a change to the law governing constructive unfair dismissal.  This, it’s argued, would make it easier for businesses to hire and fire people and get the economy moving again.  This seems like a minor change to a small piece of legislation which won’t have much effect on anyone.  But wait.  Let’s look at the details.  It may surprise you to know that Mr Osborne is not giving us the whole story.

The legislation in question relates to people being sacked.  At the moment, an employee has to have been at a company for twelve months before they can take the company to court if they feel they have been unfairly treated.  In short, if someone has been working for you for 11 months, you can get rid of them without justification and that employee has no legal rights to sue you.  The Conservatives want to extend this.  They want the time an employee has to have worked for a company before full legal rights kick in to two years.

What we are NOT talking about here is people being fired for wrong doing; nor are we discussing people who are incompetent; nor are we discussing those who are negligent.  We are talking about people who have done everything asked of them and whom companies have chosen to fire without reason.  Companies can and should be able to fire those who have broken the rules, seriously messed up or damage the organisation in some other way, no matter how long the person has worked there.  But to fire someone for no reason?  That is and always should be grossly unfair.

Osborne thinks this will make it easier to hire people.  Really?  Well, I suppose you can hire someone different every 23 and a half months, presumably at a starting salary, thus scrimping on a few pounds.  That is, if you want to be thought of as a rotten employer who does the dirty on their hard working staff.  Those who welcome the proposed change should exercise caution – do they really want to be thought of in those terms?

Is this seriously what the Conservatives think of business?  That they want legislation to allow them to throw scruples, along with good people’s livelihoods, out of the window?  If so, they have a very poor view of those in commerce.  After all, there are plenty of encouragements the Government could give to business – a national Insurance holiday for those employing new staff; a months benefit paid to firms taking on long-term unemployed; an export credit guarantee similar to that it provides to the arms trade.  Allowing firms to sack people with no good reason and without any comeback is a return to the nasty party Theresa May once described – if, that is, it ever went away.

Something different - and it might just work.

Leader's speeches to political conferences are always difficult to gauge.  The the crowd is sympathetic, the atmosphere supportive and the applause is almost mandatory.  Sometimes, though, there is the occasional gem which shines though.  Neil Kinnock's hammering of Militant, John Major's call to "wake up" and Tony Blair's "three priorities" are recent examples that spring to mind.  Ed Miliband, while not being in the Kinnock or Blair class as an orator, signified something quite different on Tuesday - the possibility of a sea change in British politics, the like of which we have not seen for a generation.

Clement Attlee's corporate state marked a huge departure from the pre-war years.  Margaret Thatcher's devotion to Monetarism marked the end of that era and the start of something new.  Now there is the chance that a different approach might be on the horizon.  Ed Miliband signalled his intentions to reward those he feels behave properly, something which many believe in but don't have the courage to say out loud.  The opportunity to reward ethical firms, individuals who serve and families who are the mainstays of their communities is long overdue.  Giving Government contracts to those who take on apprentices is an excellent idea - but maybe one that needs to be tweaked to include Small Businesses which do not have such a capacity.  Taking work done in the community into account when allocating social housing is another brave plan.  I would like to see this go further - I would like to see a series of Community Credits given to those whose commitment to others goes unrewarded right now.  This could take the form of Council Tax discounts, the opportunity to lead a community forum or be consulted on major issues.  But the crucial point is that these people's efforts need to be recognised.

While we are at it, how about a new rule giving options to those who head up large companies and organisations.  They would have a choice:  take the bonuses on offer for the next five years or take the knighthood.  Given that there would then be a lot of spare honours to give out, why not give them to people who promote local co-operatives, those who found small business forums and community champions?  Rather than having a reliance on large organisations - multi-national corporations, centralised government and monolithic structures, give localism a chance.  SME's should have first call when it comes to land and planning laws, local authorities should have more freedom to direct policy and make decisions based on what local people think, rather than on what Whitehall thinks is best.

Of course, the speech was just one interesting feature of the week.  Maybe even more interesting was the reaction.  Digby Jones called it "a kick in the teeth for business", which says more about his attitude to business than anything else.  If calling for rewards for those who behave ethically is a kick in the teeth, how does he think businesses normally behave?  Should we reward those who act unethically?  Then again, this is the man who said he wanted schools to simply teach children to read, write and use a computer.  As if that is going to help us compete with the rest of the world.  Conservative Central Office were obviously taken aback by the content of the speech, but too late for vacant spokespeople like Baroness Warsi not to utter the obviously pre-prepared line.  All the Tories could say was that Ed Miliband was a "weak leader", not something the polls taken after the speech agree with.

Finally, the BBC thought the Labour Leader would have difficulty defining those families who are getting something for nothing.  He won't.  They are defined every day, up and down the land.  Ask anyone to tell you if there are families in their neighbourhood who fit the bill and they won't just tell you that they exist, they will name them for you.  Presenters of the Today programme only think they would be difficult to define simply because they live in enclaves dominated by their own kind.  They don't know these people.  But the rest of us do.

So finally, we may be on the verge of something different.  Those of us whose hopes were dashed by the Blair/Brown years might have something to cheer.  An alternative to 'slash and burn'.  A different set of rules which doesn't simply rebuild a creaking old system only for it to collapse again.  After the speech, the BBC coverage cut to the studio to get the reaction from ex-Tory spin doctor and Times columnist Danny Finkelstein.  Clearly flustered and going a strange puce colour, he delivered his pre-rehearsed line.  So one of Ed Miliband's biggest victories on the day may have been to infuriate and confuse those who are indebted to Murdoch for a living.  What a fine start!

Plan A leads us on the road to nowhere

Over the last few days, many of us could be forgiven for gloating just a little.  There are those, me included (see previous blogs) who say that the Government have been wholly wrong in the economic strategy they have undertaken and recent days have seen us proved right.  Of course, being proved right is great, and under some circumstances, a little gloat would not go amiss.  However, when people's jobs and livelihoods disappear and the resulting misery casts a gloomy pall over our communities, gloating is that last thing on many people's minds.

The IMF, an organisation that usually adores Governments who slash public spending and keep taxation low, have issued dire warnings about the British economy.  In their eyes, Britain is not heading for growth, and their forecasts have been lowered accordingly.  The Government's own figures have added to the gloom, showing a steep rise in borrowing for August - from a Government which claims it will cut Britain's deficit, which you can't really do by increasing borrowing.  So the strategy of eradicating the deficit has led us to need to borrow more, creating, yes you guessed it, a larger deficit.

Despite this, we have had to endure both Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander on consecutive editions of the Today Programme, burying their heads in the sand and singing the Government's praises.  According to Alexander, Britain has one important asset when it comes to economic renewal.  I assumed he was going to praise Britain's technological advances, our manufacturing innovation or at least the hard working people.  But no, according to Alexander, the one asset Britain has is the Government.  Even for a man like him who has never held a proper job in the real world, that was a remarkably stupid and naive thing to say.  If he and his government are the only asset we have got, we may as well all move to Greece.

Speaking of Greece, Nick Clegg had a sneaky little attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes on Tuesday.  "Britain had a worse deficit than Greece," he claimed.  Oh, really?  Yes it was larger - but so is the British economy.  If you earn £10,000 a year and owe £20,000, you're in trouble.  If you earn £900,000 and owe £40,000, that is manageable.  The debt is bigger, but the wherewithal to pay it off is more readily available.  Nice try, Nick, but stop treating voters like idiots.  And while we are at it, do you think Liberal Democrats could actually take a breath while they are being interviewed?  After all, talking over the person asking the questions just makes you look like the 14 year old with his fingers in his ears singing "la,la, not listening...."

Dodgy claims are very fashionable at the moment.  During last week's Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron claimed that an extra 500,000 jobs had been created in the private sector since the last election.  the true figure is nowhere near that amount.

But finally, came yesterday's rumours that the Government were considering an extra £5 billion stimulus package for the economy.  Initially my hopes were high until I read further.  The money could be spent on  better broadband access and road projects, finite projects which will not see money being recycled.  Where money needs to be spent is in supporting manufacturers, distributors and retailers.  Giving incentives to local co-operatives to compete, allowing Local Authorities to inject cash into businesses and economic projects in their areas.  Concreting over more greenbelt will only have short term benefits and long term hardships.

Of course, the stimulus package is only a rumour.  The hard facts are that the economy is not growing, we are having to borrow more and Plan A is driving the economy into the dust.  Still, we are assured that David Cameron and George Osborne would like to get rid of the 50p tax rate.  Presumably to prove that we are all in this together.

All Of Society Should Feel Disturbed

There's been an awful lot of rubbish spouted about the disturbances in English cities over the last week.  It appears that, if you want to make your voice heard, you simply add the word 'riot' to the views you have been espousing in order to reinforce your point and make it contemporary.

For what it's worth, my view has not changed, nor do I even consider these disturbances riots.  Traditionally, riots are seen to be making a point about society, the last refuge of the voiceless, a political protest with additional violence perpetrated by the dispossessed.  What happened last week does not come under this definition.  Most of those who took part and subsequently gave interviews seemed hell bent on the acquisition of "free stuff".  Not exactly a driving force to compare with Paris 68 or Brixton 81.

We do, however, live in an unequal society.  A young man carries off water from outside a supermarket and is sentenced to 6 months in prison.  Jim Devine, former M.P., steals thousands in fraudulent expenses claims and serves four months in prison.  Unequal.  David Cameron and Boris Johnson, in their student days, smash up restaurants yet escape without charge.  A family whose son throws a brick at a window are threatened with eviction from their council house.  Unequal.

During the recent Leeds v Middlesbrough match, a lot of Boro supporters were attempting to make their own way to the ground (it is cheaper that way, as anyone who has been to matches in Yorkshire with official supporters club coaches will tell you).  Middlesbrough supporters attempting to walk to the ground were stopped by West Yorkshire Police and told to board coaches - and pay £2.50 for the privilege.  When one complained that this was unfair, that some youngsters did not have sufficient funds on them to pay, he was arrested, served with a Section 27 and given 15 minutes to leave Leeds.  We live in a society where power is not democratically allocated, and can be unfairly wielded.

When disturbances started, the most senior Government representative available was Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister.  Whose bright idea was it that all the senior members of the Government should be away at the same time?  Where was the political accountability?  Why was democratic power not considered in this case?  Police were apparently worried about the consequences if they acted.  It seems that football supporters can be pushed around, but those actually causing offence need to be handled in different ways.  Such confusion could have been avoided if at lease one Cabinet Minister could have foregone their holiday.  Boris Johnson sensitively told the Today programme that he first heard about the disturbances from Calgiari airport.  I bet that was comforting for all those people who have lost their jobs and can't afford a holiday this year.

And now we have the over-reaction.  Make the perpetrators homeless, take away their benefits, throw them out of their jobs.  As if that is the solution.  The traditional calls came to hang and flog people, to blame poor parenting, to pass judgements on schools, churches, the media, computer games, films, Uncle Tom Cobeligh and all.  Everyone and anything, it seems, except ourselves.  We complain about a lack of respect and responsibility, only to then blame other people for this state of affairs.

Let's take a long look at ourselves.  Let's all set an example.  Let's do simple things to make life more equal.  Let's be a little less selfish and a little more giving.  Let's be less greedy, more considerate and less acquisitional.  You never know, it may just work.

All At Sea Under Captain Osborne

Here we go again.  Stock Market down, the value of banks decreasing and economies in turmoil.  The only bright spot about the recent economic news is that George Osborne is on holiday, meaning that we have been spared his sanctimonious preaching for a fortnight.  He would tell us (if he were here) that his strategy is correct and that slashing spending was the only way to protect us from the hell now being unleashed on other parts of Europe.  He would then put his fingers in his ears and sing "La, la, la, not listening, la, la, la...."

The present Government's strategy of keeping hands in pockets and hoping that the market provides a miracle cure is not working.  The Government's annual forecast told us that the economy was going to grow by 2.5% this year.  One quarter of the way through, the latest figures show growth down at 0.2%.  Put simply, for every £100 the country made last year, this year we are on course to make a huge £100.80.  80p more.  Not enough to buy a loaf of bread these days.

Why is the economy not growing?  Well, the idiotic official explanations from the Office of National Statistics (or Order of NonSense) are that the Royal Wedding, the extra bank holiday and the warm weather were to blame.  That would be the wedding that was justified on the basis that it would bring tourists flocking here.  It would also be the bank holiday where people were off work and more at liberty to spend money.  It would be the warm weather where people don't stay at home.  They go outside.  Where they are more likely to spend money.

Unfortunately, the Government is not providing any economic stimulus, meaning that people are worried.  The most recent economic news from around the world will do nothing to allay the fears people have, more likely it will have the opposite effect.  Just when the Government hoped we would all be skipping out to spend what little money we have, it seems we sit at home, watching the television, seething at the sight of David Cameron turning up at a wedding in a morning suit.

Pompous and complacent seem to sum up George Osborne's personality fairly succinctly, but unfortunately, they are also by-words for his economic policy.  Unless the British economy begins to grow rapidly, the downturn in the markets and the sinking of various Eurozone economies will drag Britain down, too.  Osborne seems to have pinned all of his hopes on exports, but without fiscal stimulus, no-one can afford to make anything, businesses are struggling to find alternative markets, and an awful lot of countries cannot afford to buy anything from us anyway.  Only by encouraging the home economy might we avoid the dreaded double-dip recession, but that would involve Osborne admitting that he is wrong - not something I believe he is capable of.

So, the Etonians will limp away in the same way the Tory 'Wets' did in Thatcher's early days, trying to justify their decimation of the economy.  Their friends in financial institutions will have to take a hit ("bad luck, old boy"), but will still vote another £11.4 million into Tory coffers this year.  Meanwhile, small businesses up and down the country will carry the can, with workers losing jobs and repossessions rising. 

Over the coming days, we may hear more of TINA (There Is No Alternative).  We should not be misled.  By cutting VAT, even temporarily, people may be more likely to spend.  If goods and services are being purchased, confidence might return.  Forcing the banks to invest might be an insurance policy for them in troubled times.  All of this will need a Chancellor with spirit and backbone.  Hands up anyone who is holding their breath..........

Service, Not Profit, Is The Priority

It's easy to be cynical about David Cameron's motives for timing the launch of policy initiatives.  The difficulty comes in identifying the exact reason for this cynicism.

On Monday, we were treated to the latest relaunch of 'The Big Society'.  I follow these things and even I have lost count of the number of times this initiative has been trailed in front of the media.  Public services, we were told, are going to be opened up to charities, businesses and the mischievously entitled 'social enterprises'.  Why launch this on Monday?  Was it an attempt to deflect attention from the Murdoch scandal?  The change in the Terrorist Threat Level would indicate that Number 10 was trying to co-ordinate an attempt to wrest the political initiative back from Ed Milliband (improving even more since my last blog) and to start setting the headlines again.  Or perhaps Cameron realised that handing vital services over to private companies in the wake of the news that Southern Cross has gone bump would not be popular, and therefore tried to sneak the announcement out while everyone else was discussing just how far News International would sink.

Cameron's ideas about public services betray a worrying lack of judgement.  The argument has been painted as a Public v Private debate, the truth is that the 'third sector', charities and voluntary groups, have always run services hand in hand with Local Authorities, the NHS and other arms of the public sector.  The WRVS, for instance, have had a presence in hospitals for a long time, PTFA's are crucial to the running of any school and even I have contributed to the process, running a project which helped to take the heat off Youth Services in Stoke-on-Trent (as a regular reader of this blog will testify).  The real difference here, and one which Cameron is ignoring for ideological reasons, is that these arrangements were not undertaken for profit.  When companies become involved in the deliveries of vital public services, there are two great risks.  Firstly, private industries often go out of business, unlike local authorities.  Secondly, the very nature of these enterprises means that things are done for a profit, not for altruistic motives.  So if, for instance, cleaners can be paid 15p an hour less, they will; if 10p can be shaved off the cost of an old persons meal, it will;  if a corner can be cut to increase the smile on the face of a shareholder, it will.  And while there are many companies who are thoroughly decent and straight, there are some who are not.  Horror stories of dodgy care homes, nurseries and day centres who thought they could get away with ignoring health and safety abound.

Southern Cross collapsed because of an effort to maximise profits.  The buildings they used were sold off to private landlords, the profits were used as dividends for shareholders and the buildings were rented back.  The problem with this idea was that no-one ever thought that Southern Cross would be unable to pay their rent.  When take up rates for their Care Homes dropped below 85% capacity, they were struggling.  Who suffered?  Not the people who had made big profits out of the sale of buildings, but the residents and their families who now face a hugely uncertain future.

Charities would not necessarily operate in this way and the so-called 'Big Society Bank' would be willing to lend them money.  The problem is that Cameron was so feeble in his negotiations with the banks when setting up this fund that they will only lend at commercial rates.  Charities will have to pay hefty interest on the money they borrow, which would eat into their income.  Where does their income come from?  That's right, it comes from you.  So for every £1 you drop into a charity box, 10p could go towards paying bank interest, rewarding their Chief Executives with large bonuses.  Nice.  Why did Cameron not stand up to the financial institutions?  Possibly because they paid £11.4 million into Conservative Party funds last year?  Perish the thought.

I do not advocate all public services standing still.  Yes, there is capacity for voluntary groups and charities to get involved.  But pardon me for thinking that my children's health, education and future prospects are a little too precious to me for others to make a profit from.


***************************************************************************

Many thanks to those of you around the world who read this blog.  I am very proud that I have readers in Romania, China, Singapore and other countries as well as the UK.  If you would like to make contact with me, my email address is liamstubbs@hotmail.com  I am more than willing to engage in conversation, but within respectful perameters!

You can also follow me on Twitter @LiamStubbs

Labour Needs Courage To Bring Convictions

The last time I blogged, I was critical of Ed Milliband's decision not to back public sector strikes.  My faith in his judgement has been restored this week, however, as he has quite clearly backed the right horse in the race between Rupert Murdoch and morality.

My only problem with the criticism that has come from Labour so far is that it has been too mild.  Yes, it is right to make a measured stand and of course, the News of the World may not have been the only newspaper involved in phone hacking.  However, there is a risk that the misdemeanours perpetrated in the name of Murdoch may well be diluted if we accept the argument that 'they are all at it'.  Not only does this harm the genuine end of the newspaper market, it also leads to a general dissatisfaction with the entire industry, meaning that the culprits behind the alleged despicable behaviour can fade into the background of public dislike.  The more shared the blame is, the less direction there is to the anger.

Anger is what people are undoubtedly feeling.  Whatever the statistics about newspaper decline, Murdoch needs people to buy his rags in order to carry on attracting advertisers and making money.  Murdoch's decision to scrap the News of the World is simply the latest sop to try to pacify the British public.  At first, we were assured that only a couple of rogue reporters were involved, then that it was only a few celebrities that were on the receiving end.  More and more scraps have been thrown in an attempt to pacify the public and allow News International to get off as lightly as possible.  My view, and I sense the view of a lot of others on this, is that justice needs to be satisfied far better than this.  Criminal charges need to be brought against those who allowed these horrendous events to happen, either by active engagement or corporate negligence.  As Editor, Chief Executive and Chairman, both Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch should have made themselves aware of what was going on in their newspaper.  If this was a case of a junior minister breaking the law, the Murdoch empire would be leading the charge for at least the Secretary of State to resign, if not the Prime Minister.  I, and I suspect many others, will not be happy until the cancer that is News International receives its just desserts.  The time has come to emasculate the organisation that has done so much to drag British journalism into the gutter.  Its leaders need to take responsibility for what has been done at least in their name, and quite possibly with their encouragement and collusion.

All of which brings me to Ed Milliband's performance.  His questioning of David Cameron was clinical and incisive, exactly the sort of situation Cameron hates.  The Prime Minister performs well when he can bluster, change the subject and generally mislead.  Milliband did not allow him that luxury, quite rightly.  Anyone who employs Andy Coulson as his Press Advisor and defends him at all opportunities despite warnings about the man's character has to have his judgement drawn into question.  Milliband drew this point out very well, making Wednesday lunchtime exceedingly awkward for Cameron.

Now is the time to go further.  Labour should take a moral stand on Murdoch's bid to buy the rest of BSkyB.  The line the Tories have been trotting out about media plurality and the law is a nonsense.  Force Murdoch to seek a judicial review and make him show that he is a fit and proper person.  Put the onus on the person who employed and supported the wrongdoers, rather than just adopting the Pontius Pilate position.  Labour needs to press this issue, force Cameron to voice an opinion on whether an organisation which employs Coulson and Brooks has the moral authority to broadcast in this country.  Given that Brooks is a personal friend of Cameron, we should then see his true colours showing through.  Labour can keep the pressure on Cameron, a man with judgement so fatally flawed that he himself could end up paying with his position.

Despite the power the Murdoch newspapers still undoubtedly wield (along with the assistance of Nick Robinson, their official mouthpiece within the BBC), now is the time for politicians to be brave.  Lets admit that Tony Blair's relationship with Murdoch was wrong, that News International wields too much power and that, as Ed Milliband points out, there is a great need for cultural change.  But let us not lose sight of the fact that there are people who are very possibly guilty of criminal acts who still wield an awful lot of power within the media.  Now is not the time for Labour to relax.

Labour Needs To Be Strikingly Different

Is it possible to think too much?  Perhaps not.  But over-analysing is sometimes a huge mistake.  That is what Ed Milliband has been guilty of this week.

Given my previous involvement in politics, I appreciate as much as anyone the need to outflank your opponents.  Every advisor and researcher wants to give their politician the ammunition to achieve the result - the unanswerable question, the evidence that forces the other side down, the killer phrase that ends the debate.  Often, though, the maxim of doing what your opponent least wants you to do has to be ignored.  Sometimes you have to play into their hands and accept the jibes because it is the morally correct path to follow.

Ed Milliband has this week fallen into that very trap this week.  He criticized yesterday's industrial action, saying that it was "a mistake to resort to disruption at a time when negotiations are still going on."  I'm not sure of Ed's definition of negotiations, but it seems to be very different from that used by the Government.  The Conservatives and Lib Dems seem to have already made up their minds about pensions, wheeling out the parasitic Francis Maude to misquote the Hutton Report at every chance, boring his way through successive interviews, showing an alarming alacrity to veer from the truth at every available opportunity.  Asking public sector workers not to take action is the equivalent of the silent film baddie tying them to the railway in time for the Tory Express to steam down the line.

I fear that the reason Ed Milliband has taken this stance is less to do with the details of the case and more to do with the potential taunts he would face in the Commons.  The Tories have managed to come up with a strategy for dealing with Labour which has not yet been countered, which is puzzling, given the scatter gun nature of the tactic.  The constant repetition of various allegations seems, in some cases, to be doing the trick.  One of those they fire at Milliband is that he is "in the pockets of the Unions", a ridiculous jibe, but one which may well stick.  So young Ed, keen to avoid this taunt, distances himself from the industrial action to reassure middle-England that he is not 'Red Ed', another ludicrous attempt by the Tories to discredit him.  This is quite a double-edged coup for the Tories, as it backs him into a corner.  Support the strikes and risk alienating the very people Labour need to win back in order to form a Government.  Criticise the action and risk annoying the core voters, the very people who stuck with Labour at the awful 2010 election.  It seems like a no-win situation.  But it's not.

Whatever Ed Milliband does, David Cameron will continue to scream and shout at Prime Ministers Question Time.  He will show his usual lack of grace and dignity.  He will carry on avoiding questions and misleading people.  If he wants to portray Ed Milliband as left wing, let him.  A Prime Minister whose party is in the pockets of the banks to the tune of £11.4 million a year has no room to criticise.  Yes, Union members voted for Milliband, but putting up Baroness Warsi (who on earth voted for her......?) to criticise this shows how lacking in judgement Cameron is.  A Prime Minister that has to be rebuked by the Speaker, as Cameron was only a couple of weeks ago, should be exposed for what he is.  The Conservatives have more holes than a Swiss cheese, but Labour seems to be making little impact.

Labour members and supporters are screaming out for the party to take the attack to the Conservatives.  We all know that there is a policy review underway, but that does not stop the party heavyweights taking a stand.  This Government has shown a huge lack of competence in many areas, with policy fanfare being followed by criticism, being followed by u-turn.  Unfortunately for Labour, it is others making the arguments.  Supporters of Forests, anti-rape campaigners, GP's, Nurses and now teachers are all landing the blows that Labour should be raining down on the coalition.  If Danny Alexander and Francis Maude are the best the Government can offer, it is in a very sorry state.  When the opposition cannot match them, let alone beat them, serious questions need to be asked.


http://edmiliband.org/2011/06/30/i-wanted-to-respond-to-people-who-disagree-with-me-about-todays-strike/

Monmouth M.P. Is Bottom Of The Class

Education, education, education.  Three things the current Conservative Party seems not to like very much.

Here in Monmouth, we are unfortunate enough to be saddled with a Member of Parliament, David Davies, who shoulders a chip so large that it carries an EU health warning.  In a recent exchange with a Minister of State for Education, he asked what steps were being taken to reduce red tape for employers.  A pretty standard question, you may think, and fairly uncontroversial.  An equally bland response came forth.  Then Davies follow up revealed his true colours:

"I thank the Minister very much for that. Does he agree that, to many people, high-quality vocational courses will offer a far better route to gainful employment than a meaningless degree somewhere?" (1)

A meaningless degree?  Meaningless to whom?  To which degrees was Davies referring?  The one he took?  Sadly not.  For Davies did not attend University, and has never wasted an opportunity to deride those who do.  Instead, he worked for the family firm.  One can only imagine the intensity of that particular interview.  "What is your name?"  "Davies."  "Welcome aboard."

If this was the singular, isolated case of Davies showing his dislike for education, he could (at a push) be forgiven.  Unfortunately, it's not.  Back in February, Davies criticised students as being bone idle - a ridiculous generalisation, and, as I have pointed out, not one based on any personal experience.  Such knee-jerk reactions do not enhance anyone's reputation, but given that he made his comments within the Monmouth Constituency, it's doubly embarrassing.

Back in 2007, Davies blundered his way into a debate on education inspections with characteristic thought and consideration:

"I saw  that it is schools in the independent sector which will face snap inspections, to ensure compliance with Charity Commission regulations. The state sector will continue to receive ample warning of any effort to uncover their failings."

This, according to Davies, was unfair, given that:

"The majority of parents who educate their children independently do so at great personal sacrifice often because their local state schools are not performing well." (2)

Which schools was he thinking of?  Maybe Monmouth Comprehensive, judged by it's most recent inspection to be:

"... a very good school with outstanding features in the standards it achieves, the quality of education it provides and in the effectiveness of its leadership and management. A particular strength is the innovative approach it adopts in all areas but especially in devising stimulating and effective learning experiences. Inspectors’ judgements match the school’s self-evaluation grades in all seven key questions." (3)

Perhaps he was referring to Chepstow School (another Comprehensive in his constituency) where over three quarters of "lazy" students managed to achieve 'A' level grade C or better last year, higher that the national average?

If not those two schools, what about another in his constituency, King Henry VIII school in Abergavenny?  Unfortunately for the ignorant Davies, inspectors who stayed for a whole week:

"...found that pupils at key stage 3 'had made significant progress' since the last inspection in 1999. In national curriculum tests, they found that 'the proportion of pupils achieving the expected level or higher in all three core subjects is well above national averages'. GCSE results for pupils gaining 5 or more passes 'are above the national average' ." (4)

Or maybe none of the above.  Perhaps, in keeping with many of Davies utterances, he hadn't bothered thinking before opening his mouth.  If students in his constituency had been as lazy as he in doing their homework, then the inspectors may have had reason to complain.

Another interesting point here is  an assumption Davies seems to make about independent schools.  If they are superior to these excellent state schools, then surely they have nothing to fear from snap inspections?  Another confused and muddle-headed idea is that parents who educate their children privately are the only ones to make sacrifices.  Rather than deride the parents of children at state schools, he should be praising those people in Monmouth who work exceedingly hard in helping their children achieve more than ever before.

Monmouth's students are not lazy.  They, along with many of their compatriots across the country, are working harder than ever before, achieving more than ever before and are rightly lauded for it.  Apart from by Davies, of course, who seems to dislike education, students, parents and schools, unless they are private.  Monmouth's students deserve everything they have worked hard to achieve.  What they do not deserve is a series of ignorant rants by an unthinking and unintelligent M.P.

(1) http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-06-09a.260.6&s=speaker%3A11719#g261.0

(2) http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/the-new-education-inspection-regime-by-david-davies-mp/

(3) http://www.moodle.torfaen.gov.uk/monmonmouth/file.php?file=%2F1%2FWebsite%2FSchool_info%2FSUMMARY_REPORT_FOR_PARENTS.pdf

(4) http://www.kinghenryviiischool.org.uk/about/inspection/

React Today, Recant At Leisure

The Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the current Government has drawn some fairly predictable reactions.  The very people who were cock-a-hoop over praise from a bunch of right wing overseas economists earlier in the week suddenly filled the television studios with their strangely puce faces, growling that a religious leader (and Parliamentarian) should not have the temerity to voice an opinion.  The award for Biggest Charlie of the Day went to Ian Duncan Smith, who seemed to be implying that the Archbishop's criticisms of his welfare policies were unfair because he had spent a long time on them.  As with Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms, it is fair to say that Mr Duncan Smith is meticulous in taking a long time to get things badly wrong.

Who politicians listen to and who they ignore will always be a bone of contention.  After all, most Governments since the war have been accused of not listening to the people, and many of those who preceded them probably only got away with it only because society was more deferential.  There's no doubt that Governments do conveniently ignore the will of the majority in certain cases, and there are times that we should say thank you for that.  If this wasn't the case, we would probably rival Iran for our policies towards crime and punishment, while the various wars we would have started would have had Tony Blair producing a dossier a week.

The nature of democracy in this country is such that we elect people under one guise, then expect them to behave in a completely different way once they enter Parliament.  Come election time, we want to hear about policies.  "What can you do for me?" is a familiar refrain on the doorstep.  Our candidates are then expected to put ideas forward and be judged on them via the ballot box.  Once we've elected someone, though, the nature of the relationship changes.  We no longer expect them to carry out the ideas they put forward, but to vote on issues in the way we want.  We want to elect ideas people, then turn them into directed delegates.

One of the reasons I voted against AV was the idea that politicians should try to appeal to the broadest number of people as possible.  A political culture that fosters this would lead only to blandness and a lack of principle.  The best example of this in the current Parliament is Norman Lamb, bag carrier for Nick Clegg and a man completely devoid of any political ideals.  Within the last fourteen months, Lamb has achieved a feat of political gymnastics previously unsurpassed.  He has both opposed tuition fees and supported their trebling.  He has promised to protect front line policing and also been instrumental in introducing 20% cuts.  He has promised to create jobs and helped preside over a large leap in unemployment.  All of this, however, pales into insignificance when one considers his somersaults on the NHS.  When he was trying to get elected, he wanted to defend the NHS.  When it was expedient for him, he supported Andrew Lansley's reforms.  Now his Leader's Leader has announced a change of mind, Lamb wholeheartedly supports it.  His appearance on Newsnight attempting to defend the position was squirm worthy tv of a kind not seen since Basil Fawlty's heyday.  When a politician behaves in this manner, people lose faith.  The kind of spineless display we see from Lamb and his ilk on a regular basis turns people off politics and brings the whole business into disrepute.

I have worked for and with various politicians and can vouch for the difficulty of mailbag management.  In any given week, people will expect the elected member to take two completely different positions on any given issue.  The politician who is permanently reactive would have to echo these sentiments expressed by Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Minister:

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years. If I had believed in all their policies, I would have been passionately committed to keeping out of the Common Market, and passionately committed to going into it. I would have been utterly convinced of the rightness of nationalising steel. And of denationalising it and renationalising it. On capital punishment, I'd have been a fervent retentionist and an ardent abolitionist. I would've been a Keynesian and a Friedmanite, a grammar school preserver and destroyer, a nationalisation freak and a privatisation maniac; but above all, I would have been a stark, staring, raving schizophrenic.  (From The Whisky Priest by Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, December 1982).

Perhaps Kipling's 'If' needs updating (poorly) for the current political climate:

"If you can listen to Archbishops and the IMF
And be a little bit more gracious when hearing both
You might be listened to a bit more often
And not be laughed at for squealing like babies when you're criticised"

Criticism will come and criticism will go.  Politicians should not get over excited by it.  When opposition is overwhelming (Poll tax for Thatcher, ID cards for Blair, NHS reforms for Cameron) there is a case for dropping a policy.  Being directed by the morning's headlines, though, merely produces a mess.

Nanny Needs To But Out Of More Than The Obvious Areas

http://thisismytruth.org/2011/05/23/bring-on-a-new-age-of-co-operatives/

This political generation has a genuine chance to be different, to change the political and economic culture for many years to come.  Just as the post war generation built the corporatist concensus and the Thatcherites made private sector adulation a holy grail, the current crop of politicos can equally make their mark.

Current political debate seems to be concerned with managing the slow, lingering death of Thatcherism with a Blairite tinge.  The Tories are overly concerned with "rolling back the frontiers of the state", to quote William Hague in 1976.  But rather than seeking to privatise the public services, we should be seeking to socialise business and build an economy that works for the good of society rather than a handful of individuals.

The co-operative movement is growing and a fanfare for that.  Co-ops involve local people taking an interest in the economy of their local area.  The ambition of large companies is that we simply see the total at the bottom of the receipt and not the damage that we do to our local area by filling their coffers.  For the sake of 10p off a tin of chopped tomatoes, we often close our eyes to the unethical shopping, the anti-union tendencies and the enslavement of producers, suppliers and distributors.  Better to pay the little bit extra to make sure that independent suppliers survive, making sure that we are not enthralled to one company for everything - a company who can then leave us in the lurch without notice or complaint.  Caring about your customers, staff, environment and the local economy makes a huge difference, every little genuinely helping.

While governments create the impression of trusting local people to make economic decisions, we are still not trusted politically.  Genuine local democracy does not exist and has not done since the introduction of rate-capping.  Margaret Thatcher's beloved Poll Tax (officially and laughably known as the Community Charge) was meant to increase accountability, but simply led to a rehash of the Rate Support Grant.  Council Tax has not moved the relationship between local and central government forward.  David Cameron is proud of having told councils to freeze council tax.  I think I'm more capable of knowing whether a rise in council tax is more necessary in this area than Cameron is.  Let the council set the rate and let the voters decide whether they want it or not.  If people want to re-elect their councils they will.  If they want to kick them out, they will.  Central government meddling in local affairs has reduced the role of local elections to an annual referendum on the performance of the occupants of Downing Street.

If we are to have a real localism agenda, we should be making our own political and economic decisions.  Local banks setting interest rates for people in their area would be a start.  Unemployment in the north is not a price worth paying for low inflation in the south, despite what Eddie George once said.  Areas with low college staying on rates should be offering grants and tuition fees to their students, those suffering low economic growth could vary their business rates, while elderly care should be regulated by vigorous local inspections, rather than the current, misfiring reliance upon a centralised system which is overloaded and underfunded.  And if you don't like what this costs?  Vote against it.  It's your democratic right.

From the large supermarkets who want you to buy one product to governments who want to give you Hobson's choice at the ballot box, it's time we started saying "no".  There are plenty of politicians who cry "Nanny State" whenever we are given any health advice.  Strange how they keep silent when their own paymasters interfere in our lives.  If any political party is serious about decentralisation, the time to prove it is now.

Cut Out The Argument And Try A Different Tune

In politics, timing is everything.  1992 turned out to be a good election to lose.  2010 may turn out to be similarly cursed.  History would have been very different if Heath had triumphed in 1974, Churchill in 1945 or Callaghan in 1979.

Apart from the headline events, though, the timing of smaller occurrences can have  a dramatic impact on the political culture.  Anyone who has looked into the last recession knows that it had very little to do with run of the mill public spending.  As the banks collapsed, Government receipts went with them.  Add to this the cost of keeping the banks afloat, and it is soon obvious why the gap between Government income and expenditure grew so quickly.  Explaining this now, however, is utterly pointless.  The notion that Labour overspent and were financially imprudent is so firmly entrenched in people's minds that it is now almost impossible to shift.  Every time a Tory spokesman is featured in a news report, they allude back to this allegation, particularly the ubiquitous Frances Maude, who seems unable to answer a question without referring to 'The Deficit'.  It will take a long time and a lot of political skill to move the debate on.

How did this happen?  Well, during a key moment last summer, just as 'Dave & Nick' were chumming up to each other, Labour looked inwards.  Just at the time when the coalition were putting their proposals and arguments forward, Labour held a leadership contest full of nice people and nice sentiments.  At the very time that Ed Balls could have taken George Osborne to pieces, he was more concerned with trying to find differences between himself and Andy Burnham.  Just when David Milliband could have turned the attack on Nick Clegg, he was congratulating himself on nominating Diane Abbot.  Of course Labour needed to elect a new leader.  Just not then.

So where do we go from here?  Well, I sense that there is another, far more vague idea that goes hand-in-hand with blaming Labour for the deficit.  Around a third of people seem to like the idea of slashing public spending.  Another 15 to 20% of people seem prepared to go along with it for now.  However, what people do not seem to be registering is that these measures are not temporary.

There is a gap between income and spending.  No-one would deny that.  By bringing expenditure down, the Tories may very well close that gap.  What happens then?  Precisely nothing.  There seems to be a feeling that the deficit is like an overdraft, that as soon as it is paid off, we can start spending again.  A better way of looking at it would be to study the analogy of the household budget.  At the moment, we are spending more than our income.  We therefore have a choice.  The Tories are happy with a low income and will cut spending accordingly.  Labour should be arguing that, rather than slashing outgoings, we should be taking our income back up the levels we previously enjoyed, allowing us to afford the essentials - as well as 'luxuries' like police, libraries and SureStart.

This, of course, requires economic growth, something which the Tories are not renowned for achieving.  After the last recession, Norman Lamont became a laughing stock for his continual reference to 'green shoots of recovery' despite the economy doing a fair impression of the Sahara.  By not stimulating demand, keeping unemployment high and steadfastly refusing to invest, the coalition are making rods for their own backs, ensuring that growth will be either very slow or non-existent.  The economy has flatlined in the last twelve months, a contrast to the modest but palpable growth occurring when Labour left office.  Under the fiscal regime currently being imposed by George Osborne and Danny Alexander, unemployment will remain high, welfare bills will eat a large part of the available cash and businesses will go to the wall for want of trained staff.

Giving local communities the ability to vary business rates, introducing a National Training Credit and giving new businesses a tax holiday would all go towards kick-starting the economy, not to mention the feel-good factor.  Unfortunately, all the Tories can offer is a mixture of cuts, unemployment and the prospect of interest rate rises.

The Tories have already patented the hymn sheet.  Labour needs to start singing from a new one if it is to sound any different from the Conservative Cutting Choir.

I'm Not A Celebrity, But I Have An Opinion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13414374

Oh dear.  Here we go again.  Every time there was a problem the Mayor of Gotham City didn't understand, he sent for Batman.  Whenever UK Prime Ministers find themselves in the same position they instantly want to send for a celebrity.

Following on from Jamie Oliver and school meals, Lloyd Grossman and hospital food, someone who has made a few programmes about shopping is now going to be asked their views on economic regeneration.  While bringing experts into Government is a very laudable aim, we must remember that there is a division between people who might know what they are talking about and people who are good at communicating what they think.  Grossman, for instance, knew a lot about food, but very little about the NHS and its budget.  Give him a blank page and he would have come up with a wonderful menu for patients.  However, work under the constraints of a very limited budget, overworked staff and kitchen personnel with a level 1 HND and you soon realise that the view from the Hampstead dinner party won't quite translate into wonderful changes at a hospital in Brentford.

Asking a celebrity to produce a report into failing High Streets is intended to do one thing and one thing only:  grab headlines.  The last 30 years have seen a steady decline in High Street shopping and there are many and varied reasons for this.  The growth of car ownership has made alternatives easier, and the 'out of town' shopping areas have grown as a result.  Even these have now been superseded by the almighty Trafford Centre, Cribbs Causeway, Metro Centre and others.  The homogenisation of towns has led to a domination by big cities.  Why go to a clothes shop in Burnley when you can take a trip into Manchester, visit the same shop and do a lot more besides?  The growth of supermarkets has also had an extremely damaging effect, with the extension of what they sell being almost as dangerous as their domination of streets both high and low across the country.  Look out for a Tesco Free School opening near you.

If we are to resuscitate the High Street, we need to change culture.  The out of town centres are here to stay - that particular genie will not be revisiting the bottle in a hurry.  If towns want an alternative to pound shops and Cancer Research outposts, then a sense of community needs to return.  I'm not talking about David Cameron's 18th relaunch of The Big Society, whatever he may mean by it.  I mean a cultural shift that looks for goods and services to be locally sourced.  Cafes and restaurants buying their ingredients from the nearest source, not the cheapest.  Furniture shops that are an outlet for local craftsmen and not trying to compete with DFS.  Banks that talk to local businesses rather than setting everything against a set of de-humanised rules.  Rather than making a sacrifice, businesses are protecting their own future, ensuring that more local people have jobs and income, so increasing the likelihood of having custom themselves.

We need to change too.  We need to purchase as locally as possible.  We can certainly balance this with Fair Trade, as a two pronged attack against multinational ordinariness.  It does not need a pledge not to touch Tesco and the out of town giants.  Just, perhaps, a little more thought.  And not a celebrity in sight.