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
Tuesday 12 July 2011
Friday 8 July 2011
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.
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.
Friday 1 July 2011
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)