According to David Cameron it is his “patriotic duty” to remove Gordon Brown from office. Does this mean that anyone who votes Labour at the next election is being unpatriotic? It is Mr Cameron’s pursuit of silly, ‘catch phrase’ politics that puts so many people off voting for him. His tactics these past months has been to go after Mr Brown’s character, to play the man and not the ball. Pleasingly it appears that it is a tactic that is failing and therein lies the Tory party’s main problem - they are obsessed with tactics and have no real strategy.
Cameron leads a party that is desperate for power. Since his election as leader in 2005 he and his team have set out to portray him as a winner, someone who can change the party and restore it to its position as the natural party of government. What Cameron is now grasping, however, is that leading change is a long, slow and often bloody process. The events of the past few months would suggest that rather than the "heir to Blair", Cameron is in danger (as once suggested by Andrew Rawnsley) of going down as the Tories' Neil Kinnock. In many ways this is a grossly unfair comparison. In the end, Kinnock ended up helping make Labour electable. He was willing to take some really tough decisions and showed real leadership in the face of huge and often hostile opposition. It is easy to forget that the enormous task of ditching some of the most unpopular Labour policies of the 1980s was carried out, not by Blair and Brown, but by Kinnock. It was Kinnock who first challenged the party to dump policies and commitments that had helped to create an image of a Labour party that was soft on crime and addicted to the imposition of punitive taxes.
In contrast Cameron's reforms have been primarily cosmetic (a new HQ, a new party logo) and short-lived (the party's "A" list of candidates). In recent weeks more and more local Conservative associations have expressed concern and dismay at the apparent arrogance and conceit of CCHQ. Why? The main reason is that Cameron's Conservatives are dominated by a small elite group - privately educated and from a background of immense wealth and privilege. Under Cameron, the Tories still believe that the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, their economic, and their social views. In 2006 Cameron told his party's spring conference that it needed to change and that the changes needed to be "faster, wider and deeper". Four years later and change in the Tory party looks to be slow, narrow and shallow.
Today, the words of former Tory (now Labour) MP Quentin Davies take on a new resonance. In his letter to Cameron outlining his reasons for leaving the Conservative party and join Labour, he wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything. It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda." How long before the Tory "big beasts" and rightwing press begin to turn on him, how long before Cameron is forced to retreat towards having to peddle past Tory agendas? How long before another Tory leader who started out saying his aim was to recapture the centre ground of British politics, is yet again forced (by his own reactionary right wing) to move to the right in an attempt to hang on to the Tory core vote? My guess? Not long at all.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Labour should make a preferential option for the poor.
Today Gordon Brown will seek to portray the modern Tory party as right wing wolves in sheep's clothing. He will argue that David Cameron has succeeded in modernising his party - back to the age of Thatcher. Brown's speech is important. Since the advent of new Labour taking sides has been a rather unfashionable political stance. For many people the past few years has seen Labour, as a party of principle, disappearing into the soggy centre ground. Labour ministers have become administrators and technocrtas - competent but uninspiring.
Tomorrow the Prime Minister will set out some of the key themes that he wants his party and the nation to focus on in the run up to the general election. I believe that one of those themes should be about the need for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. In today's modern world there is still an unjust distribution of goods and services whereby a relative minority of wealthy groups and ruling classes use their power and influence to perpetuate macro-economic and political structures which exploit the labour and lives of the vast majority of the planet’s population. Gordon Brown is well placed both at home and internationally to advance a new politics of liberation, a politics that offers hope. This is not a jam tomorrow kind of hope, rather the hope that the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard described as the ‘passion for the possible.' Politics that seeks the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution can be a powerful force for change.
At home and abroad perhaps it is time for Brown to be Brown and for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s. As a political party it is time to be clear about who we are, who we were and what we want to become.
Tomorrow the Prime Minister will set out some of the key themes that he wants his party and the nation to focus on in the run up to the general election. I believe that one of those themes should be about the need for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. In today's modern world there is still an unjust distribution of goods and services whereby a relative minority of wealthy groups and ruling classes use their power and influence to perpetuate macro-economic and political structures which exploit the labour and lives of the vast majority of the planet’s population. Gordon Brown is well placed both at home and internationally to advance a new politics of liberation, a politics that offers hope. This is not a jam tomorrow kind of hope, rather the hope that the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard described as the ‘passion for the possible.' Politics that seeks the liberation of people from poverty, injustice and persecution can be a powerful force for change.
At home and abroad perhaps it is time for Brown to be Brown and for Labour to make a preferential option for the poor. It is time to take sides and end the political cross-dressing of the 1990s. As a political party it is time to be clear about who we are, who we were and what we want to become.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Animal welfare and the Tories - now there's an oxymoron
Hilary Benn's excellent piece for the Guardian's CiF on the Tory proposals to repeal the hunting ban is well worth a read. My favourite line is:
'The Conservatives' ironically named "animal welfare spokesperson" said recently that bringing back hunting with dogs will be something that a Tory government would do soon after the election – with a government bill, in government time.'
Animal welfare and the Tories, surely this is an oxymoron of the modern age.
'The Conservatives' ironically named "animal welfare spokesperson" said recently that bringing back hunting with dogs will be something that a Tory government would do soon after the election – with a government bill, in government time.'
Animal welfare and the Tories, surely this is an oxymoron of the modern age.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Irish Bishops are failing the people of Ireland
“Unprecedented”, “historic” and “unique”, this is how the recent meetings to discuss the scandal of clerical sex abuse the between the Irish bishops and Pope Benedict were described by the Vatican. It is interesting, though perhaps not totally unexpected, that the words useful and productive do not appear in the official statement. In reality the talks were at best missed opportunity and at worst a mere public relations exercise.
The Pope met the Bishops but refused to meet any of the victims of sex abuse in person. Not one of the 24 Irish bishops felt it important to ask the Pope about the Vatican’s role in the mishandling of clerical child sex abuse in Ireland or about the lack of co-operation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the papal nunciature (Vatican ambassador) in Dublin with the Murphy commission. None of the Irish bishops asked his holiness whether it was right and proper for his ambassador to Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, to refuse to appear before the Irish parliament’s committee on foreign affairs.
The recent Murphy Commission into clerical sex abuse in Ireland has highlighted the ongoing erosion of trust between the laity and the ordained. Trust is a social practice. Humans are social beings who swim in an ocean of trust. What happens when this ocean begins to drain away is that we become sceptical, often cynical and perhaps even a little paranoid. Some of the more disturbing findings of the Murphy Commission relate to the systematic attempts by numerous Irish bishops to control information, prevent public disclosure and silence dissent. Some of the most heart-wrenching testimonies from abuse victims are their reports of having nowhere to turn when their priest was part of the problem and of their attempts to engage others within the church that were ignored or rebuffed. Similarly, the laity has no formal recourse when their pastors are insensitive or incompetent. What has been become crystal clear in recent years is that many of the mistakes and cover-ups, involving the abuse of children by priests, have been made by bishops. Yesterday’s missed opportunity in Rome indicates that the Irish bishops are unwilling or incapable of acting swiftly and decisively.
The problem is that those who want to do something to help to move things on, namely the laity and some clergy, have no real vehicle for doing so. Despite the long-ingrained tendency of lay men and women to defer to the hierarchy, lay people have both the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many of them are now tragically aware of the consequences that follow from the concentration and misuse of power and lay deference to hierarchical authority.
The Pope met the Bishops but refused to meet any of the victims of sex abuse in person. Not one of the 24 Irish bishops felt it important to ask the Pope about the Vatican’s role in the mishandling of clerical child sex abuse in Ireland or about the lack of co-operation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the papal nunciature (Vatican ambassador) in Dublin with the Murphy commission. None of the Irish bishops asked his holiness whether it was right and proper for his ambassador to Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, to refuse to appear before the Irish parliament’s committee on foreign affairs.
The recent Murphy Commission into clerical sex abuse in Ireland has highlighted the ongoing erosion of trust between the laity and the ordained. Trust is a social practice. Humans are social beings who swim in an ocean of trust. What happens when this ocean begins to drain away is that we become sceptical, often cynical and perhaps even a little paranoid. Some of the more disturbing findings of the Murphy Commission relate to the systematic attempts by numerous Irish bishops to control information, prevent public disclosure and silence dissent. Some of the most heart-wrenching testimonies from abuse victims are their reports of having nowhere to turn when their priest was part of the problem and of their attempts to engage others within the church that were ignored or rebuffed. Similarly, the laity has no formal recourse when their pastors are insensitive or incompetent. What has been become crystal clear in recent years is that many of the mistakes and cover-ups, involving the abuse of children by priests, have been made by bishops. Yesterday’s missed opportunity in Rome indicates that the Irish bishops are unwilling or incapable of acting swiftly and decisively.
The problem is that those who want to do something to help to move things on, namely the laity and some clergy, have no real vehicle for doing so. Despite the long-ingrained tendency of lay men and women to defer to the hierarchy, lay people have both the right and the responsibility to make their voices heard. Many of them are now tragically aware of the consequences that follow from the concentration and misuse of power and lay deference to hierarchical authority.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Twitter can make us look like Twits
I know, like and have a lot of time for Dave Wright. He and I were local councillors on Telford & Wrekin Council back in the late 1990s - he is decent, hard working and committed. His recent Twitter comment (which he has stated was tampered with by an unknown hacker) has caused a good deal of fuss. I personally believe that calling your opponents names simply reaffirms the views of the general public that politicians are over-grown school children. On this note I have to declare that - with some justification I feel - I have not been averse in the past to a bit of name calling as I once, on this blog, described the Tory MP for Shrewsbury as a gutless coward!
David has, quite rightly, apologised and I hope now we, he and the public in general can get back to debating and discussing real issues.
David has, quite rightly, apologised and I hope now we, he and the public in general can get back to debating and discussing real issues.
My talented younger daughter
I have two daughters, both beautiful and both very talented. My youngest, Catherine, has her own showreel - see what you think.
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Progressive Education Network
According to its own website the Progressive Education Network aims to engage with and challenge policy makers of every political hue by bringing the voice of experience and the wisdom of leading education professionals and school leaders to the debate.
Sounds interesting.
Sounds interesting.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Compulsory voting?
Following on from the debate about voting reform perhaps now is also the time to begin a wider consultation with the country regarding compulsory voting. In fairness the term 'compulsory voting' is a bit of a misnomer, what we are really talking about is the compulsory casting of ballots - pedantic I know but it is important nonetheless.
Personally I am quite attracted by the idea, mainly because:
1. It can help improve turnout
2. It leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than focusing huge efforts on 'getting out the vote'. It can also reduce the impact of better finance campaigns and reduce the incidents of negative campaigning.
3. It can help create/enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. It is also a means of reducing social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them.
I know that there are many reasons why we shouldn't make voting compulsory but I do think we need to have the debate nationally, indeed can we afford not to?
What do you think?
Personally I am quite attracted by the idea, mainly because:
1. It can help improve turnout
2. It leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than focusing huge efforts on 'getting out the vote'. It can also reduce the impact of better finance campaigns and reduce the incidents of negative campaigning.
3. It can help create/enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. It is also a means of reducing social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them.
I know that there are many reasons why we shouldn't make voting compulsory but I do think we need to have the debate nationally, indeed can we afford not to?
What do you think?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Flying the comprehensive flag
Let’s begin with a little quiz.What do the Today programme presenter Evan Davies, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, his brother and fellow government minister Ed Miliband, the novelist Zoe Heller and Labour List editor Alex Smith have in common with yours truly? Is it that we are all passionate Manchester United fans? Or is it that we are all ardent Coronation Street watchers? Or how about we all holiday in Aberdovey? Actually it is none of these. The simple answer is this - we are all products of the comprehensive system of schooling.
Years ago our parents all took the bold decision to become part of the solution, rather than seeking to be part of the problem when they decided to send us to the local state comprehensive school. There is only one factor more powerful than a pupil’s social background as a predictor of her/his future academic performance at sixteen and that is the average social background of other pupils in her/his school. Since comprehensive education was introduced barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 30 years.In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment that has not yet been tried (Hackney being a good example). In 2009 well over half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools in England achieved 5+ 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, nearly half of all of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2009 that figure was down to 2%. In 1971-72 14% of under-21 year olds entered higher education, in 2007-2008 45% entered.
Over a third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part to the promotion of the comprehensive system.
I often hear some of my friends and "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and then seek to justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility. It is also the case that because so many of these parents work in the media (or are in government) there is little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities. Those who do have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. The sad truth is that when middle-class parents abandon the comprehensive state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.
There are plenty of other talented and successful Evans, Davids, Eds, Alex and Zoes out there and many of them have their local comprehensive school to thank for helping them achieve what they have.
Years ago our parents all took the bold decision to become part of the solution, rather than seeking to be part of the problem when they decided to send us to the local state comprehensive school. There is only one factor more powerful than a pupil’s social background as a predictor of her/his future academic performance at sixteen and that is the average social background of other pupils in her/his school. Since comprehensive education was introduced barriers to achievement for many young people have been removed. The annual government statistics of school attainment, examination results, and participation in further and higher education offer clear evidence of a 'levelling-up' over the last 30 years.In some areas of England it is reasonable to regard comprehensive schooling not as a 'failed experiment' but as an experiment that has not yet been tried (Hackney being a good example). In 2009 well over half of all 15-16 year olds in maintained schools in England achieved 5+ 'higher passes' at the end of compulsory schooling. This is the hurdle set in the past for only those attending grammar schools, one which many, even of that selected minority, failed to surmount. In 1970, nearly half of all of pupils left secondary school with no qualifications; in 2009 that figure was down to 2%. In 1971-72 14% of under-21 year olds entered higher education, in 2007-2008 45% entered.
Over a third of the age group entering higher education is an aim which would have seemed impossibly ambitious a generation ago. Given that expenditure on education did not increase in real terms between the mid-1970s and the late-1990s this remarkable increase in productivity as measured by qualifications is attributable, in large part to the promotion of the comprehensive system.
I often hear some of my friends and "comrades" attempting to ease their conscience by announcing that the local comprehensive school is simply not good enough and then seek to justify their decision to go private in the name of parental responsibility. It is also the case that because so many of these parents work in the media (or are in government) there is little political mileage in calling for the reform of private schools and more equal access to universities. Those who do have influence, those who have a "voice" in our society have such a high stake in the current order they will seek to mobilise and organise in order protect it. The sad truth is that when middle-class parents abandon the comprehensive state sector in favour of the private, it is conservative and not progressive politics that triumphs.
There are plenty of other talented and successful Evans, Davids, Eds, Alex and Zoes out there and many of them have their local comprehensive school to thank for helping them achieve what they have.
Robin Hood is good
Today I signed up to the new campaign for a 'Robin Hood Tax.' The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on bankers that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad. By taking an average of 0.05% from speculative banking transactions, hundreds of billions of pounds would be raised every year. That’s easily enough to stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and to help fight global poverty and climate change. Because of the financial crisis, frontline services at home – like the NHS and our schools – are under fire. At the same time, poor communities and the environment are being hit hard – as aid and green budgets are slashed by rich countries.
So it’s time for the people who caused this mess to pay to clean it up. This isn’t some crazy pipedream. It’s a simple and brilliant idea which transcends party politics and which – with your support – can become a reality. If you are interested then click on the link below, watch the quick video featuring Bill Nighy and then enter your details (name and email) and show your support. To show your support for the Robin Hood tax simply click here.
Students for rent?
Who were they? No one at UEL seems to recognise any of them. Does Dave have his own set of student groupies or were they hired for help?
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Ashcroft, cash for constituencies and the Tory party
Sooner or later the Tories are going to have to deal with the 'Ashcroft' issue. The main issues appear to be:
1. There is still no clarity with regards to the the status of Lord Ashcroft as a UK tax-paying resident fully domiciled.
2. Ashcroft's entry into the Lords was made at the request of William Hague when the latter was Leader of the Conservative Party. The then Chairman of the Honours Committee, Lord Thomson, asked the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) to clarify the then Mr Ashcroft’s residence and tax status. When he was made a peer, Downing Street (not Lord Ashcroft) issued a statement in March 2000 stating that ‘Michael Ashcroft has given a clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of the calendar year.’ Nine years later and we still do not know if he is domiciled in the UK in the full tax-paying sense.
3. In 2000 One of Lord Ashcroft's predecessors as Tory party treasurer, Lord McAlpine of West Green, said that it would be "outrageous and wrong" for him to receive a peerage.
4. In 2005 Ashcroft used his own private money (supported by fellow businessmen Lord Leonard Steinberg and Bob Edmiston)to support Tory candidates in key seats. This was separate from the party's official campaign. All in all Ashcroft and his colleagues spent £1 million in 93 constituencies.
There have been all kinds of stories and allegations against Ashcroft over the years and Cameron can ill afford for more and more questions to remain unanswered. Same old Tories?
1. There is still no clarity with regards to the the status of Lord Ashcroft as a UK tax-paying resident fully domiciled.
2. Ashcroft's entry into the Lords was made at the request of William Hague when the latter was Leader of the Conservative Party. The then Chairman of the Honours Committee, Lord Thomson, asked the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) to clarify the then Mr Ashcroft’s residence and tax status. When he was made a peer, Downing Street (not Lord Ashcroft) issued a statement in March 2000 stating that ‘Michael Ashcroft has given a clear and unequivocal assurance that he will take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of the calendar year.’ Nine years later and we still do not know if he is domiciled in the UK in the full tax-paying sense.
3. In 2000 One of Lord Ashcroft's predecessors as Tory party treasurer, Lord McAlpine of West Green, said that it would be "outrageous and wrong" for him to receive a peerage.
4. In 2005 Ashcroft used his own private money (supported by fellow businessmen Lord Leonard Steinberg and Bob Edmiston)to support Tory candidates in key seats. This was separate from the party's official campaign. All in all Ashcroft and his colleagues spent £1 million in 93 constituencies.
There have been all kinds of stories and allegations against Ashcroft over the years and Cameron can ill afford for more and more questions to remain unanswered. Same old Tories?
Monday, February 01, 2010
Tories would strangle economic recovery - Mandelson
Cameron and Osborne are the 'Laurel and Hardy' of British politics. So says the noble Lord Mandelson as the Tory party economic policy begins to unravel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)