I've just seen a headline on the Sky News website that says the tax payer funding of the Prince of Wales has GONE UP by 17.9%. Charlie now costs over 1.25 million with over £200k EXTRA lavished on him this year. I'm furious about this.
During the run up to the debates before the General Election all three party leaders offered small examples of cuts they would make. They interviewer would then say that this tiny cut wouldn't solve the debt problem. They would then give a few more examples and then the interviewer would make the same point. It was frustrating as a viewer because it was abundently clear that there wasn't one big cut that would solve everything. The only way to solve the defecit was to make hundreds of thousands of cuts and make sure that everything the tax payer funds would have to be make savings.
The cuts are painful, new schools have been axed meaning kids are still learning in portacabins. Police men and women are been laid off, Day centres for the elderley are closing. Some of these decisions are extremely difficult and hard.
So why does the Prince of Wales get more cash, he is not a frontline service! why does he not need to tighten his belt as every other public service does? He is a multi miliionaire landowner who can afford to pay his own way. I'm sorry this is a very bad decision - it gives the impression that the rich are immune from the effects of the cuts, and maybe this is because they are.
Tuesday 28 June 2011
Thursday 2 June 2011
Breaking a Ben Gunn butterfly over a mobile phone mast
One blog I have been reading for the past year is called Ben's Prison Blog. It is a by a serving prisoner called Ben Gunn. Ben has spent over 30 years at her majesty pleasure. When he was 14 he was involved in a fight with another boy that tragically led to the death of this individual. He pleaded guilty to murder and was effectively given a life sentence with a tariff set at ten years - so he should have been released 20 years ago. Except he still in prison. While inside, Ben hasn't killed anyone, he hasn't committed one violent offence in the entire 30 years. He has, however, been a thorn in the side of the HM prisons service - he has not played the game. He has also broken a number of non-violent regulations, such as developing a relationship with a female member of staff.
Recently he was about to be sent to open prison with the hope he could be released in 12 months time. On the day he was due to make the trip to Prescoed Open Prison, he borrowed an illegal phone to contact the outside world. From this moment on the story becomes sketchy. The next fact is that when his property was x-rayed on leaving the prison the phone was in it. Ben's story is that the con who he borrowed the phone from, stashed it there. This is a problem because prisoners aren't allowed mobile phone (in fact it's a crime, punishable by a further 2 years in prison).
It is now highly likely that Ben Gunn release to open conditions will be go ahead and it may now be many years before he is released.
This is a case of breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
I think Ben is daft for using a mobile phone on the day of his release. I believe the phone was planted by the con as I don't believe anybody knowing their property was to be x-rayed would be that stupid. Even so should possession of a mobile phone halt Ben Gunn's move to Open Prison?
The answer to me is no, maybe if this was the first parole hearing after the 10 year tariff was up, this maybe a legitimate reason to deny release. But after a further 20years it is disproportionate to prevent his freedom based on what is basically a misdemeanour. I have on occasion driven above the speed limit. People I am friends with have not paid for items they should have. Most students at my university broke copywrite law. Should the book be thrown at us for these trivial offences. The answer, of course, is no. Part of being human is making mistakes and doing things we shouldn't do. Very few people live a year, let alone 30 years, without been totally blameless and it unreasonable to expect even convicted murderers trying to get out not to be human occasionally.
There is a difference between these misdemeanours and what Americans would call a felony. If Ben had say stabbed an inmate, dealt drugs or stolen something then this would raise doubts about whether he was safe to be released. But do we actually think Ben Gunn is not suitable for open conditions because he used a mobile phone? Is he a threat to society, numerous psychological assessments and his non-violent 20 year stretch indicate that he is not a threat in any way.
I'm not saying that Ben shouldn't be punished for using a mobile phone (removal of phone privileges for a week or two may be an ironic punishment) but the sentence must fit the crime. This is about what society do we want to live in. Do we want to be caring and compassionate or vindictive and cruel. If it is the former then we should release the prostate cancer sufferer (Yes he is not well)to open conditions as soon as humanly possible. Plus as a taxpayer, I don't want the Government to keep on forking out 40 grand a year to keep him inside!
Recently he was about to be sent to open prison with the hope he could be released in 12 months time. On the day he was due to make the trip to Prescoed Open Prison, he borrowed an illegal phone to contact the outside world. From this moment on the story becomes sketchy. The next fact is that when his property was x-rayed on leaving the prison the phone was in it. Ben's story is that the con who he borrowed the phone from, stashed it there. This is a problem because prisoners aren't allowed mobile phone (in fact it's a crime, punishable by a further 2 years in prison).
It is now highly likely that Ben Gunn release to open conditions will be go ahead and it may now be many years before he is released.
This is a case of breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
I think Ben is daft for using a mobile phone on the day of his release. I believe the phone was planted by the con as I don't believe anybody knowing their property was to be x-rayed would be that stupid. Even so should possession of a mobile phone halt Ben Gunn's move to Open Prison?
The answer to me is no, maybe if this was the first parole hearing after the 10 year tariff was up, this maybe a legitimate reason to deny release. But after a further 20years it is disproportionate to prevent his freedom based on what is basically a misdemeanour. I have on occasion driven above the speed limit. People I am friends with have not paid for items they should have. Most students at my university broke copywrite law. Should the book be thrown at us for these trivial offences. The answer, of course, is no. Part of being human is making mistakes and doing things we shouldn't do. Very few people live a year, let alone 30 years, without been totally blameless and it unreasonable to expect even convicted murderers trying to get out not to be human occasionally.
There is a difference between these misdemeanours and what Americans would call a felony. If Ben had say stabbed an inmate, dealt drugs or stolen something then this would raise doubts about whether he was safe to be released. But do we actually think Ben Gunn is not suitable for open conditions because he used a mobile phone? Is he a threat to society, numerous psychological assessments and his non-violent 20 year stretch indicate that he is not a threat in any way.
I'm not saying that Ben shouldn't be punished for using a mobile phone (removal of phone privileges for a week or two may be an ironic punishment) but the sentence must fit the crime. This is about what society do we want to live in. Do we want to be caring and compassionate or vindictive and cruel. If it is the former then we should release the prostate cancer sufferer (Yes he is not well)to open conditions as soon as humanly possible. Plus as a taxpayer, I don't want the Government to keep on forking out 40 grand a year to keep him inside!
So what if the public deosn't care about House of Lords reform
Commentators and newspapers are telling the Lib Dems should give up on Lords Reform. The reason - that the public doesn't care about it.
I disagree with this argument - just because the public aren't engaged on a particular issue doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. If this argument was continued to it's logical conclusion - then the Government should do nothing for people with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, becasue the public are only interested in diseases they might get.
It is of course wrong to run Government according to public clamour, yes politicians must take public opinion into account in decision making but the key thing is to do what is right.
There were proposals in each of the main parties manifesto's, and actually in most of the minor parties as well, for Lords reform. The problem at the moment with the Lords is that they have an impact on the laws we obey and yet we have no say in the make up of this body. This is something we would condemn in other countries as non-democratic, mainly because it is. It is also unrepresentative - did you know there are more peers in their 90's than in their 30's. There isn't a single peer who is younger than 34!
But I don't want to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should have an elected house of Lords. What I want to argue is why the Lib Dems should push forward now.
At the recent local elections, it was noticable that we were losing a high percentage of the intellectual liberal left. In wards with a high percentage of this demographic our vote was significantly down. Accross the country support for Lords reform is highest amongst the intellectual liberal left. The coalition has done a number of things this group don't like (tuition fees been number one) so it important that we try and win this group back (lets not forget that we have a large of university seats, where intellectual liberal left have been crucial to our victories.
Secondly, for Lib Dem members and activists, it is very important, especially after the AV referendum. If we are to be electorally succesful then we will need the foot soldiers to go out and deliver leaflets, knock on doors and stuff envelopes. If we can't get any very lib demmy policies through then these people will melt away.
For the position of the party in national politics it is also key, if we can't get this, what changes to the country can we actually trumpet. The change to personal limits is popular, but easily reversable. The pupils premium, which hasn't resonated with the public can also be easily reversed (and in practice already has with the cuts to the education budget). With the loss of the AV referendum we do need things to say to the electorate that we have actually changed. If we don't how do we sell to not tory leaning voters the value of the Lib Dems in Government.
Finally, we are not a populist party. the preamble to the party constitution reads "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one will be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." If we are to build this type of society then Lords reform is crucial - the lords is not open, not free and not fair - where better to start than dismantling this anachornostic institution.
I hope Nick Clegg won't duck the clash with the lords and he doesn't end up thinking "I fought the Lords and the Lords won."
I disagree with this argument - just because the public aren't engaged on a particular issue doesn't mean nothing should be done about it. If this argument was continued to it's logical conclusion - then the Government should do nothing for people with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, becasue the public are only interested in diseases they might get.
It is of course wrong to run Government according to public clamour, yes politicians must take public opinion into account in decision making but the key thing is to do what is right.
There were proposals in each of the main parties manifesto's, and actually in most of the minor parties as well, for Lords reform. The problem at the moment with the Lords is that they have an impact on the laws we obey and yet we have no say in the make up of this body. This is something we would condemn in other countries as non-democratic, mainly because it is. It is also unrepresentative - did you know there are more peers in their 90's than in their 30's. There isn't a single peer who is younger than 34!
But I don't want to rehash the arguments about whether or not we should have an elected house of Lords. What I want to argue is why the Lib Dems should push forward now.
At the recent local elections, it was noticable that we were losing a high percentage of the intellectual liberal left. In wards with a high percentage of this demographic our vote was significantly down. Accross the country support for Lords reform is highest amongst the intellectual liberal left. The coalition has done a number of things this group don't like (tuition fees been number one) so it important that we try and win this group back (lets not forget that we have a large of university seats, where intellectual liberal left have been crucial to our victories.
Secondly, for Lib Dem members and activists, it is very important, especially after the AV referendum. If we are to be electorally succesful then we will need the foot soldiers to go out and deliver leaflets, knock on doors and stuff envelopes. If we can't get any very lib demmy policies through then these people will melt away.
For the position of the party in national politics it is also key, if we can't get this, what changes to the country can we actually trumpet. The change to personal limits is popular, but easily reversable. The pupils premium, which hasn't resonated with the public can also be easily reversed (and in practice already has with the cuts to the education budget). With the loss of the AV referendum we do need things to say to the electorate that we have actually changed. If we don't how do we sell to not tory leaning voters the value of the Lib Dems in Government.
Finally, we are not a populist party. the preamble to the party constitution reads "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one will be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity." If we are to build this type of society then Lords reform is crucial - the lords is not open, not free and not fair - where better to start than dismantling this anachornostic institution.
I hope Nick Clegg won't duck the clash with the lords and he doesn't end up thinking "I fought the Lords and the Lords won."
Diamond Jubilee - can it come up North?
A year today we will be starting a 4 day weekend for the Queen's Jubilee. One thing I noticed about the planned events is that they are all in London.
With the Olympics, London is already set for a great 2012. In 2005, when London were awarded the Olympics a number of prestige projects such as the Leeds Supertram were scrapped to pay for the Olympics.
Surely some (if not all) of the Diamond Jubilee events could have been held outside the capital. It could have boosted tourism is places that will probably lose out to next year as people race to London, and help highlight to the rest of the world that there is more to the UK than London.
With the Olympics, London is already set for a great 2012. In 2005, when London were awarded the Olympics a number of prestige projects such as the Leeds Supertram were scrapped to pay for the Olympics.
Surely some (if not all) of the Diamond Jubilee events could have been held outside the capital. It could have boosted tourism is places that will probably lose out to next year as people race to London, and help highlight to the rest of the world that there is more to the UK than London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)