Today could be a day school children learn about in a hundred years time. The day Britain broke free from the yoke of despotism and embraced democracy. More likely the powers of vested interest and privilege will win the day and the vote will be lost.
The House of Lords is a disgrace, if a foreign country decided to set up a democracy where an unelected bunch of rich, religious and privileged old people could veto legislation, we would call this a scandal. This is precisely what happens today in Briatain.
Astonishingly only 4% of Lords are under the age of 50! and there are only 2 Lords (out of 850) under the age of 40 (and none under the age of 35).
The Lords does have power - it amends legislation on a regular basis and often squashes legislation by talking it out. It is not the benign institution it is made out to be. It has a track record of defending privilege and power at the expense of Joe Public.
But the question I want to really ask is what happens for us if we do lose the vote tonight. Over the last few years, as a Lib Dem, I've taken a lot of flack. The Government cuts have lost us votes by the bucket full (although I agree with them and actually they are basically Labour's fault). But I have struggled to swallow the changes to the NHS, tuition fees, the 50p rate, Police Commissioners, Free Schools and much more. I have swallowed these changes because I accept the need for compromise in a coalition Government.
Over the last few years, in the North, we have lost about two thirds of the Councillors, I and many of my friends have lost their jobs - through no fault of our own. We no longer run large Councils such as Hull, Sheffield, Newcastle, Cardiff or Liverpool. We've been wiped out on numerous Councils. In Wales we have become a virtual minority party and in Scotland we've been beaten by a man dressed as a penguin.
And God help us at the next General Election.
So why the bloody hell are we putting ourselves through this?
I'm not saying we haven't had our successes - the tax threshold changes have helped millions of people ( if the Tories had been in Government by themselves this tax cut would have gone on inheritance tax instead). We've made school funding fairer through the Pupil Premium, we are bringing forward legislation on Gay Marriage and we've stopped the Tories doing a hell of a lot of bad/bonkers stuff. But many of these changes can be (and probably will be) easily reversed and changed by the next Government. To get up in the morning and hold my head up high, I need something lasting that will make a difference and House of Lords is that something.
If we can't get something that is a) in all parties manifesto, b) has large public support (69% want reform only 5% want the status quo according to an April Yougov poll) and c) is in the Coalition Agreement then we really are powerless and being taken for a ride.
If we lose tonight it shown that the Government is unable to implement the Coalition document. Brutally the Tories have reneged on the deal. As a party we need to think long and hard about how we need to respond to this.
I do not think we should pull out of Government as lets face it we would be battered at the ensuing General Election (and on a personal note I've booked a Holiday in August which I really need!) but we need to be more calculating on what is in our best interest. The Administration will have to become a de-facto confidence and supply Government.
Tomorrow, if we lose we should come out and veto the Boundary Changes and the Data snooping laws. No Lib Dem wants the latter anyway and the Tories really want the former. This would be a statement of intent and would set a marker down for the rest of the 2 and a half years in Government.
If we do veto boundary changes, we will be accused of stopping an important reform of equalizing the size of constituency allowing everybodies vote to be equal.
Well actually votes under the FPTP cannot be equal. Nearly a million people voted for UKIP at the last General Election yet there is not a single UKIP member on the green benches. I'm not going to have a long rant about PR but this change will make very little difference to the fairness of the outcome of an election - and that is what really matters. In fact it will make it harder for many smaller parties to get their voice heard at all as the larger the constituency the harder it is for anyone bar the main two too win.
Secondly one of the big pluses of FPTP is the supposed link between MPs and Constituencies. It allows MPs to represent communities and argue for them. What the Boundary changes effectively does is destroy this notion. Communities are split apart, local authority boundaries are crossed, it will make it harder for MPs to effectively represent communities. As the Liberal Democrat believe in Community Politics this is surely something to hard for us to swallow without an improvement in another area of our democracy?
Dean, on Lib Dem Voice says that if we veto Boundary Changes we will have failed:
1. To demonstrate that coalitions are workable. - rubbish surely it's the Tories who are hell bent on destroying the coalition by not backing the coalition agreement.
2. That the lib Dems are a serious grown up party ready for government - Wrong - being a grown up party ready for Government means standing up for yourself and the people who elected you - rolling over and doing as your told is not part of being a grown up party!
So in summary if we lose tonight we can stop being NICE - time to be bitter and twisted, grow some balls and put ourselves first for once.
Tuesday, 10 July 2012
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Clegg isn't a commie but social mobility is an issue
The Daily Mail thinks that Nick Clegg is a communist - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148484/Nick-Clegg-accused-adopting-communist-policies-state-school-students-universities.html
This is a bit of an about turn for the Mail who accused him of being a Nazi during the 2010 General Election!
The Daily Mail blasted Clegg because he has highlighted the widening gap between the educational performances and opportunities between private and state school pupils.
Before Tony Blair, the previous 5 Prime Ministers were all state educated. In the 80s and early 90s the problem seemed to be in decline with John Major declaring Britain to be a classless society.
Now most of the Cabinet and the majority of the opposition front bench are privately educated. It's a problem across many major industries - those who have over the last ten years risen to the top tend to have the "old school tie".
So what has happened in the last twenty years to halt and reverse social mobility? you could write a book on it (and I don't intend too). Andrew Neill presented a documentary on it, where he lamented the loss of Grammar Schools. I don't intend to either agree or disagree with his verdict, but as I am a former Grammar School pupil I did find his view interesting.
One personal point I would make one assertion between the difference between my experience at a Grammar School and my wife's experience at a Comp. My wife is brighter than me, she achieved straight As in her GCSEs and A-Levels. I was pretty much a straight B pupil - good, but not great. Yet, when we looking for Universities, I was hauled into the Head of 6th Forms' office and he made it clear to me that I could get into a Russell Group University and it was important that I applied for them. My wife, on the other hand received no such encouragement, had she gone to my school she would have been told to apply for Oxbridge. This is of course just one example from more than a decade ago, but I do wonder whether Comps do enough to open the eyes of their brightest pupils to the possibilities that they could pursue.
This is a bit of an about turn for the Mail who accused him of being a Nazi during the 2010 General Election!
The Daily Mail blasted Clegg because he has highlighted the widening gap between the educational performances and opportunities between private and state school pupils.
Before Tony Blair, the previous 5 Prime Ministers were all state educated. In the 80s and early 90s the problem seemed to be in decline with John Major declaring Britain to be a classless society.
Now most of the Cabinet and the majority of the opposition front bench are privately educated. It's a problem across many major industries - those who have over the last ten years risen to the top tend to have the "old school tie".
So what has happened in the last twenty years to halt and reverse social mobility? you could write a book on it (and I don't intend too). Andrew Neill presented a documentary on it, where he lamented the loss of Grammar Schools. I don't intend to either agree or disagree with his verdict, but as I am a former Grammar School pupil I did find his view interesting.
One personal point I would make one assertion between the difference between my experience at a Grammar School and my wife's experience at a Comp. My wife is brighter than me, she achieved straight As in her GCSEs and A-Levels. I was pretty much a straight B pupil - good, but not great. Yet, when we looking for Universities, I was hauled into the Head of 6th Forms' office and he made it clear to me that I could get into a Russell Group University and it was important that I applied for them. My wife, on the other hand received no such encouragement, had she gone to my school she would have been told to apply for Oxbridge. This is of course just one example from more than a decade ago, but I do wonder whether Comps do enough to open the eyes of their brightest pupils to the possibilities that they could pursue.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
The man I hate most in politics - The Baron Winston
When asked which politician I despise most, my answer surprises most people. It's not Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Tebbitt, Ed Milliband, Philip Davies or one of the many other crackpots who have represented us on the green benches of the House of Commons.
It's Lord Robert Winston, not that kind doctory type you may say. YES I do mean that horrible anti-democratic Labour zealot.
You see the above names don't pretend that they are not politicians. They stood for elections, present their views and won or lost accordingly. While I generally dislike their politics, I admire the fact that they are upfront and honest with party affiliations and put themselves up for public critique (and occasionally ridicule).
The Lord Winston however does not do this, instead because of his roles, both within the medical profession and as science TV presenters, the general public views him as a neutral figure. Somebody they can trust over political issues when he speaks. Yet of course he is not. He is a Labour Lord, taking the Labour Whip and speaking in a Parliamentary assembly on behalf of them.
This is of course a problem, when he speaks about Lords reform. Because he speaks about protecting an institution, the public view him not as a Labour Lord, trying to keep his expenses, but as a that nice guy off the telly. It gives him a non-politician credo that is totally misleading. He is a politician - just an unelected one, I can't vote to replace him though like I should be able to do with someone who impacts on the laws I am meant to abide by!
It's Lord Robert Winston, not that kind doctory type you may say. YES I do mean that horrible anti-democratic Labour zealot.
You see the above names don't pretend that they are not politicians. They stood for elections, present their views and won or lost accordingly. While I generally dislike their politics, I admire the fact that they are upfront and honest with party affiliations and put themselves up for public critique (and occasionally ridicule).
The Lord Winston however does not do this, instead because of his roles, both within the medical profession and as science TV presenters, the general public views him as a neutral figure. Somebody they can trust over political issues when he speaks. Yet of course he is not. He is a Labour Lord, taking the Labour Whip and speaking in a Parliamentary assembly on behalf of them.
This is of course a problem, when he speaks about Lords reform. Because he speaks about protecting an institution, the public view him not as a Labour Lord, trying to keep his expenses, but as a that nice guy off the telly. It gives him a non-politician credo that is totally misleading. He is a politician - just an unelected one, I can't vote to replace him though like I should be able to do with someone who impacts on the laws I am meant to abide by!
Back Blogging
Well according to Blogger the last time I posted anything was July last year. I didn't really plan on stopping it just turns out I've been quite busy - mainly with a new job. But I plan to start blogging again from today!
Friday, 1 July 2011
Well done Ken Clarke
I'm not a Tory, I despise much of what the Conservative party stands for. I hate their hard right, particularly Philip Davies MP. But I have always had a soft spot for Ken Clarke.
When he became Justice Secretary I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw the opportunity to end Labour's decade of warehousing people. Much of what he wants to do has been frustrated by a mixture of lack of cash and the right wing press.
There is not a lot he can do about the former, but a couple of days ago he played a blinder on the latter.
This week it was announced an end to may the IPP sentences and a reduction in the number of people serving time on remand. For clarification IPP are Imprisonment for Public Protection orders. Basically prisoners who are given these sentences will not be allowed to be released until they can prove they are nothing more "than a minimal threat to public safety". The problem of course is that is quite a difficult thing to prove, sitting in a prison cell. So people sentenced for a crime of say 4 years may end up serving 20 or 30 years. This is extremely morally objectionable, and Ken Clarke obviously agrees.
However the right wing press and Labour were gearing up to have another go at Clarke over this. So he made a statement about how people should be able to stab burglars in their home. This "clarification" is nothing of the sort and would affect a handful of cases. But, the right wing press had to report the more sensational story rather than the more political nuanced IPP and remand story. The proposals have stayed intact. Well done Ken.
When he became Justice Secretary I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw the opportunity to end Labour's decade of warehousing people. Much of what he wants to do has been frustrated by a mixture of lack of cash and the right wing press.
There is not a lot he can do about the former, but a couple of days ago he played a blinder on the latter.
This week it was announced an end to may the IPP sentences and a reduction in the number of people serving time on remand. For clarification IPP are Imprisonment for Public Protection orders. Basically prisoners who are given these sentences will not be allowed to be released until they can prove they are nothing more "than a minimal threat to public safety". The problem of course is that is quite a difficult thing to prove, sitting in a prison cell. So people sentenced for a crime of say 4 years may end up serving 20 or 30 years. This is extremely morally objectionable, and Ken Clarke obviously agrees.
However the right wing press and Labour were gearing up to have another go at Clarke over this. So he made a statement about how people should be able to stab burglars in their home. This "clarification" is nothing of the sort and would affect a handful of cases. But, the right wing press had to report the more sensational story rather than the more political nuanced IPP and remand story. The proposals have stayed intact. Well done Ken.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Why does the Prince of Wales escape the cuts?
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.
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.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)