Ros Blog

Saving Weymouth Women's Refuge - why Government needs to support the 'Big Society'.

2011-07-17T15:52:00.003+01:00

When I was Parliamentary Candidate in South Dorset in 2010, I began, with a small group of others, a campaign to prevent the closure of Weymouth Women’s Refuge.

We failed to prevent the closure but last week we won a 2 year battle to reopen the Refuge.

I’m writing about this because I think it’s illustrative of how we need more support in moving towards service provision which combines public, private and third sector partnership. More and more services will be threatened by reduced availability of funding as we move into an ageing society.. This is not about ideological withdrawal of funding – it’s simply the effect of our demographic time bomb. Unless we raise taxes, with fewer people of working age and a longer lived older population, the taxes of workers will no longer cover the care of those no longer able to earn.

We can see how this pans out in the battle at the moment over public sector pensions – which the Blair government tried to reform & bottled. It’s also raising its ugly head in the domain of adult social care.

So how does a civilised society provide the same level of care for the vulnerable where there are insufficient resources at the centre ? And to be clear, if you over tax the workers, the impact on growth in the economy is as damaging in other ways as fueling that growth by public sector expansion was in the Brown years.

So the refuge is a case in point. The community wanted it , desperately, to remain. Not just for iconic reasons, but because many of them had used it, knew people who had used it, and were aware of the damage done by domestic violence in destroying lives.

Collecting signatures for our petition & forming a fundraising group (Friends of Weymouth Women’s Refuge) we met many, many women who had been direct victims of DV – a far higher proportion than you would imagine. But we were told again & again & again by officials, ”You will never be able to save it”.

Anyone who knows me, will know that I rarely take no for an answer.

Aware of how we had managed in BLAST ( a training and skills social enterprise of which I am a co-director in Bridport) to create partnerships that cumulatively were able to piece together in jigsaw format services usually provided by a single body, we set out to construct such a partnership – and my colleagues, Gill Taylor & Mary Watson, set out to investigate a variety of delivery models.

The model we have ended with involves Magna Housing buying and maintaining the building; Raglan Housing providing the staffing in liaison with the Dorchester Women’s Refuge; the Friends providing funding (charitably raised ) for delivery of the Freedom Programme ( training for survivors of DV & their families to enable recovery and prevent repeat experiences) and some financial support from the Borough & District Councils.

As with all partnership models it took years to construct, and a lot of convincing of public officials needed to be done. We needed to change the function of the refuge so that it would provide ‘move on’ accommodation from the Dorchester Refuge – a clear and different need which still increases the number of places available. Now we need to develop the charitable arm of the Friends into a fully fledged fundraising operation. The refurbished refuge will open next year.

Although partnershipworking is hard , it can foster resiliance. When one plank of the model collapses, the others can step in and offer a safety net. Will the service be as good ? I don’t know. What I do know is that Government needs to make such partnership working easier, and that where it is community led, needs to be prepared to support development whether through short term investment or advice.

Since the 1940s we have come to expect the provision of all our needs by the state. That is a model that clearly needs adapting. But the problem with policy in the current Government is the expectation that something will just ‘come in’ to fill the gap. And if you are providing a service it’s not acceptable for that to be a profit led provider – there has to be a community/ philanthropic element involved. How can government help to revive this ? I think that’s a huge task – and one no-one appears to have thought to address.

It won’t be easy – and I think it will rely on evidence based practice from those of us on the ground and recognition that where we ask for help that help is needed. We have been too defeatist in this country and too reliant on the state as provider for this kind of partnership to come about easily. The so-called ‘Big Society’ is not just going to happen. Reopening the Weymouth refuge has been a victory hard won !

Do not subject welfare to the politics of hatred !

2010-08-24T16:24:00.004+01:00

There’s been a lot of ideology thrown around about the welfare issue over the last few weeks – coupled with an equal reluctance to address what appears to be the fundamental question: how can we afford to retain the current post- war model of welfare at its current level ? I know that even appearing to question this shibboleth of the left will set Labour readers quivering with rage – but welfare should not be a shibboleth: it should be practical, have clear aims & be fit for purpose in the 21st century. If we don’t drain the debate of ideology we will never achieve this.

The problem is this – the original Liberal model of welfare was designed by the Lloyd George government to support those in need. It was means tested & this later came to be seen as a problem, partly because the shame involved prevented people applying, partly because of the difficulty of designing a model of assessment detailed & manouverable enough to be fair.

Post World War Two, a more comprehensive model of welfare developed where universal provision became the modus operandi in pensions & health as well as child benefit.

But there has been one fundamental change in UK society since the 1940s that has had an unforeseen impact on this system; not the credit crunch, but our ageing population.

The welfare state is funded by national insurance & taxation. This model of funding assumes that more people are in work than out of work & it assumes more people of working age than retirement age. But there is no pot of savings built up through our regular payments – what you & I pay now pays the pensions of those now in receipt of benefits. This system will no longer work when we have more people aged over 60 than the working population aged 16-65 put together.

Moreover, instead of living to 65, many people now routinely live into their eighties. That means more pensions & more care & more hospital treatment (apart from expectant mothers the majority of expense in the NHS is on the over 60s). We also have fewer children and therefore will have fewer workers in the future. These are issues that the Turner report attempted to address. Government has known about them for a long time, but apart from the so-called ‘death tax’, there has been no real attempt to address them. And they need to be addressed on a practical & non-ideological basis.

I do not believe that we can any longer afford universal provision across the current range of benefits. Longevity was an unforeseen impact for the architects of the welfare state. If we had lived into our eighties in the early nineteen hundreds, Lloyd George would not have designed the pensions system in the same way – nor Beveridge in the 1940s made the same recommendations.

So where’s the solution ? If we increase social mobility it will reduce the numbers of working age on benefits or low wages and increase the amount of tax revenue – but it will not take away the problem.

My personal belief is that it is people like me – the middle classes – who should be prepared to sacrifice our entitlement to benefits (health care & social care & pensions excluded) to make their provision more affordable for those really in need.

I am entitled to Family Tax Credit, but don’t claim it. I could afford to give up Family Allowance. I know many well off pensioners who feel they don’t need their free bus passes or winter fuel allowance, just as there are equally many who do.

It is not the innate right of the well off to have universal benefits in a system where cutting levels for all will only make the poor suffer. That's just self interest & selfishness. If the coalition goes that way just because Cameron made an electoral promise to middle England then that is simply irresponsible government – as irresponsible as the Private finance Initiatives which mortgaged our futures or the huge public debt amounting to £22,400 for every man woman & child in Britain..

It’s a grave error to seek to make political gain out of welfare. Labour were wrong as the century turned to continue to fight for the rights of the middle classes to such benefits. There’s no easy choice here – but ideological debate fuelled by the politics of hatred is no way to make the sums add up; let’s have a grown up analysis of how to direct welfare to where it is most needed & at those for whom it was originally intended.

EMAIL LOBBYING CAMPAIGN URGING LIB DEM MPS TO VOTE AGAINST THE ACADEMIES BILL

2010-07-24T14:42:00.003+01:00

I AM RUNNING AN EMAIL CAMPAIGN FOR LIB DEM SUPPORTERS TO EMAIL OUR MPs, URGING THEM TO VOTE AGAINST THE ACADEMIES BILL. It is important that you are a Lib Dem voter, activist, party member, councillor etc because the point is to heighten awareness of how strongly SUPPORTERS feel about this piece of legislation.

To take part in the campaign, please follow the instructions below:

PASTE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES INTO YOUR ADDRESS BAR THEN PASTE THE LETTER BELOW ONTO YOUR EMAIL ALTERING AS REQUIRED.

I SUGGEST YOU MAKE THE HEADER SOMETHIHNG NOTICEABLE LIKE: PLEASE VOTE AGAINST ACADEMIES ON MONDAY .

hemmingj@parliament.uk
horwoodm@parliament.uk
simon@simonhughes.org.uk
chris@chrishuhne.org.uk
hunterm@parliament.uk
julian.huppert.mp@parliament.uk
danny.alexander.mp@parliament.uk
bakern@parliament.uk
cheesemang@parliament.uk
gordon.birtwistle.mp@parliament.uk
braket@parliament.uk
brookea@parliament.uk
brownej@parliament.uk
hernandeza@parliament.uk
burstowp@parliament.uk
burtl@parliament.uk
cablev@parliament.uk
campbellm@parliament.uk
carmichaela@parliament.uk
mike.crockart.mp@parliament.uk
daveye@parliament.uk
farront@parliament.uk
featherstonel@parliament.uk
fosterd@parliament.uk
andrew@andrewgeorge.org.uk
stephen.gilbert.mp@parliament.uk
duncan.hames.mp@parliament.uk
hancockm@parliament.uk
allenmt@parliament.uk
heathd@parliament.uk.
kennedyc@parliament.uk
lambn@parliament.uk
lawsd@parliament.uk
leechj@parliament.uk
stephen.lloyd.mp@parliament.uk
michaelmooremp@parliament.uk
info@gregmulholland.org
tessa.munt.mp@parliament.uk
pughj@parliament.uk
reida@parliament.uk
rogersond@parliament.uk
brooksse@parliament.uk
sandersa@parliament.uk
robert.smith.mp@parliament.uk
stunella@parliament.uk
ian.swales.mp@parliament.uk
swinsonj@parliament.uk
teathers@parliament.uk
thursoj@parliament.uk
david.ward.mp@parliament.uk
webbs@parliament.uk
williamsmf@parliament.uk
williamsr@parliament.uk
stephenwilliamsmp@parliament.uk
willottj@parliament.uk
simon.wright.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Lib Dem Colleague,

I am writing as a Lib Dem……………………………………………………. voter / activist / Councillor/ Parliamentary Candidate…………………………………… to voice my concerns over the proposed fast track academies legislation & to ask you to vote against the bill to be passed on Monday.

This legislation is being rushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny & without the support of the relevant select committee.

These are controversial measures & as coalition partners they are not something we have signed up to. At the very least I urge you to do all in your power to prevent the precipitate passing of these measures by ensuring that changes cannot be made as early as September.

Why do I have concerns about this Bill ? They are outlined below:
Contrary to the claim that people are going to get much greater powers over services in their area, the expansion of academies and free schools (so-called) will have the opposite effect.

1) It takes powers away from local education authorities which consist, it should be noted, of elected members locally accountable.
2) It is a centralising measure which will have the effect of depriving local authorities of money, leading to a reduction in the quality of services provided to other schools.
3) To whom will the new bodies running the academies and free schools be accountable? How will they be accountable?
4) What about the back-up services currently provided by LEAs eg local inspectors and financial advice?
5) Who will monitor how the new schools use the money they are given, eg use of the pupil premium?
6) What about the salary levels of teachers and other school staff? Will these schools be free to pay as little as they can get away with?
7) Who will decide on the admission numbers and admission policies of the schools? Will there be an appeals process for parents whose children are refused admission?
8) Has any thought been given to the knock-on effect on existing schools in the area? How many will lose children and become unviable?

The record of existing academies is mixed - some good, some bad, some indifferent. In other words, just like LEA schools. Altering the purpose of academies (originally designed to increase funding for failing schools) by encouraging a two tier education system which will remove funding from LEA schools runs counter to the manifesto commitments we fought on in the election & the way this bill is being hurried through will lead to the passing of measures which are ill thought through & the implications of which could damage the education system of this country forever – something for which WE as Liberal Democrats will be held accountable.

I therefore urge you to vote against the passing of this legislation in its current form on Monday.

Yours sincerely,

DON’T ACCEPT THE LABOUR AGENDA: BUILDING AN ALTERNATIVE DISCOURSE

2010-06-22T17:55:00.004+01:00

I think it is really important for those of us who have just experienced the 2010 general election to not allow the agenda for the left to be set by Labour.

Their response to losing is not to investigate the mistakes made in government ( although Ed Balls thankfully does finally seem to be doing some self investigation ) or how they could change their own decision-making processes & communication with the grass roots ; or to choose a leader who represents something different from their last 7 years of poor government, but instead choose to deflect criticism by aiming their guns at the Liberal Democrats, whipping up a frenzy of self righteous concern about appalling damage to the benefits system ( read taking away tax credits from well off middle class families & questioning the relevance of a universal system of child benefits for the same) & conjuring up the succubus of Margaret Thatcher.

We need to be encouraging a discourse that gets its fact straight – because for those of us on the Liberal left it’s quite easy to get sucked in to this distorted Labour world view - & we need to be able to stand back to understand what is really going on here. It’s basically political positional game –playing & it’s offering a fundamentally refracted picture of what is actually happening: it's defining the future by what happened in the past.

Why is it so important to get this right ? Because if we don’t the tone of the first chapter of this government will have been set before it’s too late to challenge the hypothesis upon which the argument has been constructed: & as today’s budget (which by removing 900,000 low income families from taxation; removing those earning less than £21,000 from the public sector pay freeze; affecting the income of single parents & low paid families by only £20 p year, pensioners by £2 per year compared to middle class families at £438 per year – a budget which as promised protects the poor against the vast majority of the cuts) proves - it’s a false hypothesis.

How do we know it’s distorted ? Well, take a look at how the ex- government operated: an ex- cabinet that is now full of recrimination at the removal of a loan to the Sheffield Forgemasters, but which itself refused to bail out Jaguar or Vesta & which systematically dismantled the Post Office; an ex- government which is complaining about a review of public sector pensions & pay – which it also wanted to freeze; an ex-government which is now free to criticise any form of cuts to public spending, although as Will Hutton rightly said in the Observer this week it had “already committed to a greater & faster reduction in the budget deficit than any British Government in modern times” in the pre budget report before the election.

An ex-government that is already seeking the platform for its re-election before the first steps of the new coalition have even taken effect – within less than 8 weeks of it taking office – prejudging the issue because the process of negative spin in opposition is proving just as effective as the process of positive spin did in government.

What matters as far as Labour is concerned is setting an ideological agenda – raising the spectre of Thatcherism as a means to rally back the disaffected because as a party it is totally bereft of ideas & of solutions .

It’s important here to remember what it was that the voters were running from : a government that chose in Blair to remould itself around the Thatcher agenda by making public services operate on the private business model; that sought to deliver services by developing a growth model which was fundamentally unsustainable (& which essentially caused the recession) because it was built on debt . Two kinds of debt : private debt with its subsequent failure of regulation, & public debt through the ubiquitous & pernicious PFI – that albatross around the neck of the Treasury that is partly responsible for the increases in the structural debt of the UK on a year by year basis. Criminally irresponsible policies which failed to recognise the fundamental truth of all markets – one which was painfully revealed even to the 17th century pioneers of venture capitalism: after rapid expansion they collapse.

This is the fundamental difference between Liberal Democrats & Conservatives : we believe in sustainability through regulated growth in a local as well as a global economy & we believe in redistributive measures as the way of tackling the debt crisis. Taxing the banks; taxing the profit of the banks & capital gains; making the wealthy who have profited from Labour’s lack of regulation pay to protect those of us who have suffered from it. Strangely - all policies which have found their way into today's budget !

This ex-Labour government did not produce redistribution; inequalities of wealth expanded during those 13 years under the mistaken belief that so long as most people also got richer when the rich got richer, then that was better than all of us.

Playing to the comfortably off middle-classes led to a clear impact: under New Labour the poor got poorer. So it’s particularly rich that in targeting the middle class recipients of benefits originally designed for the poor that it’s the Lib Dems who are being pilloried by Labour now. Because this is where the majority of cuts will fall now – on the middle classes. So who are Labour trying to defend here – the middle classes or the poor ? Don’t fall for it – don’t let them shape the agenda.

The only way those of us on middle class incomes ( & no I do not need child benefit & I do not claim child tax credit - although I needed both when I was briefly a single parent) can afford to receive these benefits is if benefits for people in genuine need are cut, if we are all taxed more or if the benefits to us as middle class earners are cut. Tell me one thing – why should WE be holding the state to ransom just for a few extra hundred pounds in the pocket that we will be repaid through tax cuts on the first £10,000 of our income anyway ?

Under new Labour the poor got poorer & child poverty was not alleviated despite large amounts of spending on the welfare state. This is where the Liberal Democrats are far more radical than Labour – we believe in local, tailor-made solutions designed within communities, perhaps involving charities & voluntary organisations supported by the state, & geographically varied solutions rather than a one size fits all centralised model.

Centralisation was another defining problem of the ex-government & redefining the role of the state so that it can deliver without it is the main challenge of our times & one that Labour is aeons away from addressing. It was this target driven, top down, rigid culture that you voted against this May.

So what about Thatcherism ? Well – the UK today is hardly the same country with the same problems that Thatcher inherited & the coalition does not even come close to the 1979 cabinet: Danny Alexander is not Keith Joseph; Vince Cable is most certainly NOT Norman Tebbit ;& although Ken Clarke is still, unfortunately, Ken Clarke, his later years in the Major administration (pro Europe, rebuilding the economic damage wreaked by Lawson) were far more liberal & constructive than his early years spent slashing the education & health budgets. Idiosyncratically un-Thatcherite I’d say.

The condition of Britain in 2010 is different in both good & bad ways. The UK HAS fundamentally changed - & not being a tribalist I’m prepared to say that much of this is down to the first 6 years of New Labour.

British industry however was thinned down by Thatcher & never rebuilt by Blair & Brown – the main difference in our economy is overdependence on the financial sector – unleashed by Thatcher in 1988’s ‘big bang’ & only encouraged by 10 years of a Brown chancellorship & by the policies of Brown’s coterie – Ed Balls & the Milibands.

This same lack of regulation fuelled the housing crisis , failure to address which is Labour’s greatest let down after 13 years in office & one which makes the slating of the coalition in abandoning regional spatial strategies particularly rich in hypocrisy. Surely the first responsibility of any Labour government following the right to buy fiasco was replenishment of the depleted housing stock ? In 13 years they failed to do this. What’s the point of earning even a half a decent salary if you can’t afford a place to live ? It’s an area where the ex-government simply got its priorities wrong.

Lack of available affordable housing stock stimulated high demand in the smallest private units, fuelling rising prices & lining the pockets of solicitors, estate agents & the banks. Labour chose not to regulate this industry by linking house prices to inflation or through setting a ceiling on debt by limiting mortgages – they did the latter only when it was too late. A signal failure over 13 years to address the single most important issue to people on low incomes.

So before you listen to the arguments that the coalition is somehow a reincarnation of the monetarist daemon just remember what Labour did wrong – what their senior party members - & that includes ALL former ministers - failed to challenge, & how the Liberal part of this new government has committed it to redistribution; has confirmed it will NOT support the rich at the expense of the needy, but instead will make practical choices about the finances that deny the false syllogism: that to cut means to inevitably damage the worst off. When it’s the middle classes who have benefited most from universal payments that is simply just not true.

Thatcher’s cuts were ideological (remember the Miners’ strike) & starved the British economy of the oxygen of recovery. But whatever you may think of George Osborne, Vince Cable is not Margaret Thatcher – the reforms planned at the Department of Business seek to make investment in the economy work hardest with local variations which will respond to local need –regional enterprise boards & partnerships , increased credit to small firms, lower corporation tax.

Progressive government is not protectionist of the rich; & before you take on board hook line & sinker Labour’s flawed analysis, just remember how much they stand to lose if they do not reconquer the left/middle ground: as Mervyn King said before the election – whoever becomes the government risks being banished from power for the next generation. That is the ground Milliband & Balls are laying – the Labour confidence trick – full of spin, bereft of substance. It ill behoves us on the left to swallow the argument before the evidence can be tested.

I would encourage you therefore to judge everything by the old adage –‘ by the evidence of their deeds shall ye know them’. Measure every current accusation, every media spun scare tactic against the evidence of Labour’s record in government . If it wasn’t sorted in 13 years, what makes them better qualified to sort it now ? Measure the impact of the current changes 3 years down the line – to do so now is both unfair & precipitate. There is no room to abuse the coalition 6 weeks in for trying something different .

Be objective – measure up the facts against the performance. Do not accept the agenda currently being set by Labour – it is not straight; the syllogism is flawed – there is a strong ulterior motive - & it just does not add up; use your brain – refuse to believe it.

Holding the mirror to Labour: what political reformers most need to fear .

2010-05-31T22:00:00.002+01:00

On Thursday I am going to have to plead the virtues of coalition to a combined campaign group of Greens, Respect, Lib Dem, Labour & Citizen party activists as part of the campaign group Fair Votes 4 Dorset. It is something I can only approach with discomfort.

Among the left, the repeated accusation against the Liberal Democrats for entering the coalition is one of betrayal; of selling out. But what makes me even more uncomfortable is what these accusations suggest about whether or not we are mature enough as a political culture to accept the outcome of electoral reform as a system. Because that’s the thing about coalition government: if we want electoral reform we are going to have to learn to live with it.

Why is it so threatening ? Is it because the history of UK politics has been until recently the history of class struggle ? Is it because politicians are loyalists & obsessives, intensely focused people who don’t lead normal lives, & because radicals are used to being positioned on the outside, powerlessly looking in ? Or is it because of tribalism ? Tribal politics makes working with anyone else almost always intensely uncomfortable.

In the immediate aftermath of the General Election I had some interesting tweets from Labour activists: one of them predicted that the Lib Dems were about to be assimilated by the Tory party & we should joyfully expect annihilation at the next election.

So I’m intensely uncomfortable about assimilation too. I’m on the left of my party – what Kinnock would describe as a Lloyd George Liberal – strongly refusenik, non conformist & commuitarian.

But if we are to convince the public & the other parties that coalition means anything other than assimilation & that coalition government is good government, then it will be precisely because it involves challenging the tribalism of British politics.

Why does coalition work ? Because when you abandon tribalism you are left simply with problems – and the choice of whether to turn your back on them or to explore a variety of solutions. That usually involves something that is practical rather than political. Evidence based politics that is about doing things that will work rather than about ideology; guided by political principle but not dictated by it. And it always involves some form of compromise – but then none of us can be self righteous or arrogant enough to claim that we have all the best ideas in every policy area, surely ?

But in discussing PR we have to look beyond coalition - we also have to ask, ‘what sort of a country is it that we want?’

We may say we want fairer voting & more democracy in a variety of places: the anomalous House of Lords; for elected Mayors; for local government. More power for District, Borough, Town & Parish Councils to influence the lives of local people. Power for organisations & services to innovate, develop & respond to local need. A devolution, empowerment & self determination agenda.

People who engage in politics are by and large interested in activism, in community, in volunteering their skills for the benefit of others. But these qualities are not merely restricted to politicians & they always involve a decision to make an impact on your own life & on that of your community.

What vanished from British culture during the course of the 20th century was precisely that sense of community & self determination. I won’t call it responsibility because that smacks of Cameron’s ‘big society’ - an ill defined spin of an idea. People want control over their lives & they want to influence them for the better. In our historical journey from industrialisation to consumerism community got lost along the way. Why ? Because the centralisation of power in the state & the decline of local market systems transferred all power to the centre.

So what kind of society do we want ? Well, peak oil indicates to us that reliance on globalised trade may well not last beyond our lifetimes. Local markets & economically as well as environmentally sustainable solutions are going to have to be recreated.

The centralisation of the State & the global economy have over the past 500 years taken away local self determination. Only in some less developed parts of some European countries can we in the West see how local small scale agrarian & industrial systems can deliver prosperity effectively – in regions of France, parts of Spain & Italy. Being a small country & the first to industrialise & develop global trade, we lost this local infrastructure long ago.

So what does the sustainability agenda have to do with voting reform ? This: people are profoundly dissatisfied with their lives because they have no power; localism gives access to a smaller, more clearly defined political arena than that of the state; a smaller environment – one where it is possible to genuinely & effectively influence the local economy & well being. One which is much more accessible to groups currently excluded from the political process – one which , given the current debate at a national level, is much more accessible , for example, to women.

Instead of the vast mechanism of central government, there will be a series of interconnecting honeycombs – interdependent but with independence - & yes, monitored at some level by the state so that exploitation & corruption don’t occur; but by & large self monitoring: it’s called local democracy – and we don’t do it well in Britain.

Changing our voting system is one of the steps we have to take to reverse the historical decline in the ability of ordinary communities to determine their own lives. Why ? because with a wider variety of parties in Parliament & local government we encourage a pluralism of ideas & a greater ease with sharing an agenda in politics.

I believe that single party government produces bad government – it produces a hierarchy rather than a honeycomb. Both Margaret Thatcher & Gordon Brown & his henchmen represented all that was wrong with this system. But returning Parliament to a place of genuine debate, where an ordinary MP can influence the political agenda & encouraging dissemination of power down the hierarchy of government from central to local levels creates participation & it creates involvement.

Until this election I had never believed this involvement was really possible – it was more of an idea. Now I do . Not just because the British people voted for a hung parliament, but because talking to voters on a daily basis in the 4 months running up to the election I discovered something I’d never expected to see – the British people engaged in & feeling deeply about politics.

something about the nadir of the expenses scandal & enduring that last 5 years of poor government had exploded their habitual cynicism & positively energised them. Again & again I saw repeated a real anger ‘I certainly won’t be voting for Gordon Brown’ – and that was from Labour voters: it largely explains the result here in South Dorset 4 weeks ago.

After the election the results were all people in the pubs & on the streets could talk about. They were intrigued. They were even talking about how things might have been different with electoral reform !

So if now IS the time to seize the day, what do we need to do & how can we make the changes that so desperately need to happen ?

There’s one main obstacle to achieving electoral reform in this country & it’s not, as you’d expect, the Conservatives: they’ve been brutally honest about this all along, they don’t want change & they’ll campaign hard & vote against it. The real obstacle to electoral reform that we have to plan for & deal with , the real danger to genuine reform of our political system, comes from the Labour party.

Why ? We’re back to that word again - tribalism; & its accompanying dementors - centralisation; stratification; paralysis of ideas. Despite all the talk of going back to roots, we are watching in the leadership race, a contest based virtually entirely on the very dramatis personae that propped up Brown agenda.

The problem lies in the contradiction between the two very different sides of the Labour movement that I will call 'radicals' & 'authoritarians'. It is manifested in two points of view expressed in the newspapers in the past week.

As Alan Johnson in the Observer, May 23rd puts it:
The Lib Dems missed a golden opportunity genuinely to re-shape politics in this country by failing to negotiate seriously with us on constitutional reform.
It is time for Labour to end the ambivalence that prevented us from honouring our 1997 manifesto commitment to a referendum, offering the British people a choice between the current system or a proportional alternative……….

So what now? The Labour leadership election has spawned much necessary internal contemplation and will produce more rhetoric about empowering the electorate. Here's how we turn the platitudes into policy.

The new government is committed to a referendum on a new voting system. It will contain two options — the current first-past-the-post system and the alternative vote. It will be the first time in the history of our democracy that its citizens will have a say in how their votes are translated into political power. What possible argument can there be against adding the recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Voting System, AV+ as a third option? It retains the constituency link, extends voter choice and is broadly proportional.

I hope that all the opposition parties, backed by a popular movement throughout the country, unite to press the Tory-Lib Dem government to give the public the option of genuine electoral reform in a referendum. If not, I will certainly be making the case within my own party to submit legislative amendments to that effect.....

Martin Kettle however in the Guardian on May 28th paints what I fear will be the more likely picture:
…..the AV referendum will be a moment of historic choice for Labour. Its future will hang on the decision it makes. On the one hand …it can support a move towards greater electoral fairness…even though the effect of a yes victory will be that labour must change into an alliance making party if it is to govern again……

On the other hand, Labour could abandon AV under the smokescreen of antipathy to a reduction of Commons seats…..it can campaign for a no vote & hope that someday a new Tony Blair will emerge….to deliver an overall majority under a continuing first –past-the-post system.

On past form, lacking the steel to face up to hard issues…Labour will jump on board the no campaign…..but a Labour party with strategic sense & principle would do the opposite....

That is why what is happening in the Labour party at the moment is so important to our campaign. I believe we should be encouraging what Alan Johnson suggests – campaigning with Labour for inclusion of AV+ in the referendum. But I think we are far more likely to get what Martin Kettle predicts.

Remember that tweet: you will be assimilated & you will face annihilation at the next general Election.

After all that is what the rump of the Labour party really wants. Why ? Because just like the Conservative party, New Labour is all about power. Obtaining, holding & maintaining power at the centre & doing whatever it can to preserve it. Its preferred aim is to re-establish itself as the Leviathan of the left, regardless of its centralist & antiquated ideas: alteration of this is the change the Labour party least wants to make happen.

The Labour that would support PR is the Labour of the co-operative movement; the early trade unions & early dissenters & social reformers – a Labour party that left leaning Liberals would quite happily support. But not New Labour : not this Labour party.

So as electoral reformers what must we do ? Because the only way we’ll get this change is with their support. They have the resources, the man-power ,if they so decide, to make this change happen. Without it only 25% of the vote will support the change this country desperately needs to see.

For me that’s the central issue – we have to turn the mirror onto the Labour movement, just as they are doing now with the Liberal Democrats, & ask them to face the same hard truth: what kind of a party are they ? What has happened to radical Labour ? Can it possibly survive the authoritarianism in the party ?

Radical Labour has far more in common with Respect, with the Greens & with radical Liberals than it does with authoritarian Labour – but I have to be honest with you, I don’t hold out much hope - & why – because it too is the victim of tribalism. It will be too hard for Labour to give up.

It’s the curse of always believing that you are the underdog – that you have to fight hard against everyone, all the time, in order to survive – even your friends. And of course, if you are working class, or disadvantaged in any way at all, that’s true . But it’s also the fatal legacy of the class struggle in British politics. It makes even the thought of coalition government unpalatable.

That is why we must support this coalition at the same time as supporting electoral reform: so that the coalitions of the future are not restricted to a version of ‘small state’ versus ‘controlling state’ politics, - the power of the market against the power of the state - but so that we can include a precious third option, the option of genuine, devolved democracy & radical power-sharing reform.

Unfortunately we can only achieve this if we bring the Labour movement with us.. I’m not by any means suggesting that you should all go out & join the Labour party ! But yes, those of us who are union members need to think about how we use our vote & I am saying that I will be supporting whoever has the reform of the Labour movement at heart & whoever commits to the vision proposed by Alan Johnson.

MORE CHAOS IS NOT WHAT EDUCATION NEEDS: WHAT’S WRONG WITH GOVE’S ACADEMIES

2010-05-28T19:12:00.001+01:00

In the 1980s the Conservatives chose to break up local authority control over education by allowing schools to opt out & achieve grant maintained status – all at the same time as standardising & monitoring pedagogy in the form of tests & the national curriculum. Most of the changes were furthered & supported by the subsequent Labour government, a new piece of legislation every year for 13 years ……….beleaguered teachers having to reinvent the wheel every two to three years as each new policy wonk invented the next great solution to the low standards primarily caused by the inability of central government to leave well alone & give professionals the time & money to get on with what they do best: teaching our kids.

And I can tell you - & I met one at the Portland Academy meeting only this week – there are thousands of inspirational, creative, genuinely child centred, innovative leaders in our schools. But what they need is money & curriculum support – not academy status.

Andrew Adonis is such a policy wonk & his plans for the Portland Academy have led to the more hare-brained aspects of the scheme –redesigning an education system which combines 6 tiers age 0 – 21 plus community education under one umbrella - recognised as hare-brained by professionals & the community alike, because you can’t just make change happen by throwing money, buzz words & nice ideas at social deprivation - you have to plan it in detail & understand how it will work on the ground ! Adonis has been such a policy wonk then - unfortunately so also is Michael Gove.

Swedish Free Schools, recently condemned by the Swedish education secretary for having failed both in terms of breaking up the existing school system & in producing declining standards, & academy status given to outstanding schools rather than failing schools , will both lead to the privatisation of education in this country , reintroducing the two tier divide between high & low achieving institutions ( why not go the whole hog & call them Grammars & Secondary Moderns), in that worst of all worlds where there is a huge reduction in funding for those at the bottom of the pile.

It is a huge failure in the coalition for the Lib Dems not to have challenged this. Our manifesto supported sponsor led schools & local schools led by community groups or charities, but specifically NOT academies or free schools taking money away from local authorities. We did not want funding to bleed from the mainstream sector. We may holler & shout about the adoption of the pupil premium – but the levels of finance have not been set & there’ll be far less in the pot for state schools once this privatisation is finished. It’s a retrograde & dangerous step & I will do everything I can to campaign against it.

And where does that leave the proposed Portland Academy? No one knows !

If the rationale behind it was to reverse disadvantage, there is a different rationale dictating government policy now. A different academy model in Portland would have certainly worked – not all through but 11 to 18 with primaries joining at a later stage where they wanted & freedom of choice for each individual school community; a federation not a corporation. And a properly planned funding stream with a huge amount of work on growing & developing the local economy could have transformed the island. At best now I fear it will be put on the back burner.

State education has a role to play in delivering social justice – but not for advantaging the already advantaged. Leave that to the private system: if we have to have one it’s better left that way.

And yes I am angry – two Labour education secretaries have screwed up here & now I fear for the future of education not only in Portland, but for the whole country. Only the Liberal Democrats can influence this policy now: for God’s sake let’s do something about it.

Ros has been a member of the NUT & an examiner & teacher in secondary & further education for 22 years.

DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN by CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR PRETENCE

2010-04-08T14:45:00.011+01:00

Of course it's aways nice to see a range of longstanding Lib Dem policies adopted by other two - pupil premium; high speed rail; tax on non- doms & even localism ( a policy that goes back to the days of Joe Grimmond); green new deal & now reform !!!

As Nick Clegg said yesterday , Labour "have systematically blocked at every turn every single reform: party funding reform, they have blocked reform on lobbying...."

The Tories are also promising during this campaign things they actively blocked when there was a chance to make them happen - the power of recall for errant MPs for example, taking big money out of politics, clamping down on lobbyists.

According to www.publicwhip.co.uk which records how MPs vote in Parliament South Dorset's Labour MP also has an unenviable voting record - voting with the Government against 16 year olds being given the vote , an item which Gordon Brown now claims will be put to a free vote !- as well as being absent for every vote on MPs' expenses, and of course voting for the war in Iraq & against a whole range of inquiries into the war.

Brown is finally committing to a fixed term parliament - strange he has only said this now when we have spent the last 2 and 1/2 years waiting with baited breath for him to call an election.

No-one will be fooled. The electorate know that only the Liberal Democrats will provide these reforms - only by electing enough Lib Dem MPs with the power to insist on reform in a hung parliament will any of this come about.

In 13 years Labour have had plenty of chances - but its record on the lack of reform in the House of Lords speaks for itself - as, I would say, does the rest of its record since 2003 !

IS ASHCROFT TRYING TO BUY SOUTH DORSET ? THESE QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERING

2010-03-08T23:08:00.002Z

Should elections be bought ? If the Conservatives in South Dorset only received £29,000 from their non-dom party vice-chairman billionaire donor Lord Ashcroft in 2005, and as they claim, that was only 2% of their funding, then did they really spend £1.45 million on the last general election campaign here ?

I wonder how much they are planning to spend this time ?

A number of issues arise from this scandal – and it is a scandal in the real sense of the word – because it raises very ugly questions about how politics works in this country, that a political party can promise that its major donor will become resident in the UK in order for him to be given a peerage, and then, once he has become a law-maker he evades complying with the conditions on which the peerage was given, avoiding paying tax as a consequence. An ugly question therefore is – does this mean that the British taxpayer is now bankrolling the Conservative campaign ?

But more alarming even than this is the lack of transparency shown by party leaders. It would appear that William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary , the man who might be responsible in a few months for taking us into future wars, firstly avoided asking the relevant questions, then was prepared to give an assurance based merely on supposition, and when he did find out the truth three months ago, persisted in evasive denials in a series of public interviews in which he assured the questioner that there was nothing untoward about Lord Ashcroft’s behaviour. If we thought there were problems about WMD, we have, I fear, far more of a treat in store for us.
His party leader appears to have taken the view that ‘what I don’t know won’t hurt me’ & that it is perfectly acceptable for his party to be in receipt of millions from a non dom resident of Belize, who has also failed to pay tax there & whose income the president of the country estimates is more than its gross domestic product . Someone who is prepared to bankroll a party that claims it cares about the poor in this country, yet who pays nothing towards the upkeep by the state in an impoverished Caribbean tax haven, despite it being in the lowest quartile on the poverty scale of international

I WORRY ABOUT MICHAEL GOVE

2010-03-08T23:06:00.001Z

The thing that worries me about the Tory shadow education secretary, is how little he appears to understand state education.

Whether it’s suggesting that all secondary teachers have first class degrees or that the most successful schools should ‘opt out’ to become academies, he shows clear misunderstanding of how the system works and how it is experienced by those using it.

He has been rightly pilloried regarding the degrees. Good teachers combine academic knowledge, the ability to enthuse, rapport with and respect for their pupils, with emotional awareness of what is going on in the classroom, for themselves, the class and individual students.

About 4 years into my own teaching career I realised that what inspired my pupils at secondary level was not the subject, but my relationship with them & the fact that my empathy, & understanding of them as individuals was at least as important as my ability to stretch their minds and transmit knowledge. It was this awareness that led me to train as a psychotherapist.

Now many people at the pinnacle of academic achievement do not share the above qualities, and would not therefore prosper in the environment of a state school – where they would also need to establish firm boundaries & a strong sense of order & discipline. Helped always if your charges know that you respect and like them ! You have to be prepared to be tough, to know who the likely miscreants are & you have to be able to second guess the kinds of behaviour that are likely to happen – all the time, every minute of the day, wherever you are in school.

Needless to say, those who go into the profession need to be able to handle stress – and I want to be quite clear that being a parliamentary candidate is much less stressful & onerous than teaching in a modern comprehensive !

The above qualifications cannot be squashed neatly into the box labelled first class degree. They are character based. And it’s usually more accurately the case that the less academic are the more well liked by their charges.

State education will not improve by being modelled in the form of private education in terms of degree level or in terms of school type – because the service users are different. What we do need is the same kind of resourcing, both to employ the best teachers in the hardest to reach schools (funding that will follow the pupil, as in the Lib Dems’ Pupil Premium) and to provide the relevant environments for good quality learning experience.

But with the cuts in real terms currently being proposed by the Conservatives, I can’t see that happening. Neither can I see the currently proposed powers to give parents and charities the opportunity to create their own schools – in many ways an excellent idea – being any more than a way of siphoning off money from the majority, a form of grant maintained foundation trust. We must be very careful of half-baked ideas which are based upon ideology rather than a real knowledge of the facts. As Polly Toynbee has correctly noted (Guardian 6.3.10) “Through social ignorance they assume the newsworthy 2% living profoundly dysfunctional lives, represent all the poor.”

A report which claimed – 3 times - that more than half of teenage girls get pregnant in poor areas (real figure 5.4 %) exposes what Toynbee rightly calls the “social cluelessness among those who would govern a country unknown to them”.

She’s so right I will almost give her the last word – “The chasm yawns between [Cameron’s] critique and his remedies – marriage, a few small schools and volunteers.” The possibility of Michael Gove gaining control of our state education system should set the alarm bells ringing. I welcome the freedom offered to parents and the educational advantages to be offered by small schools – but it is not enough.

DON'T TRUST THE TORIES ON THE NHS: OUR LIVES IN THEIR HANDS

2010-01-13T12:09:00.001Z

In our latest tabloid, South Dorset Lib Dems have highlighted how those Tory MPs not constantly under the cosh of cuddly Cameron, have revealed the real thinking behind what might happen to the NHS in Conservative hands.

Leading Conservative Daniel Hannan, described the NHS as a “sixty year mistake” when touring the US last summer. Then it was revealed that leading Conservatives described the NHS as “no longer relevant in the 21st century” in a book co-authored by one of David Cameron’s close colleagues. Clearly the preference would be for the kind of private health insurance enjoyed by those who can afford to pay for it in the US with only the very basics available to the poor. A return to the two tier nightmare of the 1992 election campaign ?

Now, Tory adviser Julia Manning wants to end the availability of minor treatments on the NHS.

In her report, Manning, who last week hosted a “Cameron Direct” town hall meeting for the party leader, wrote: “‘Diagnostic drift’ or ‘disease-mongering’ are draining the NHS of precious resources.

“Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.”

The most controversial proposal is to end IVF on the NHS, which is already heavily rationed by health authorities as well as the introduction of further prescription charges.

Manning, currently on the shortlist of Conservative parliamentary candidates, has proposed that free prescriptions should end for painkillers and cold remedies, and that alcoholics and drug addicts who repeatedly turn up to A&E should be fined.

As director of the 2020Health.org think tank she is a close adviser to the Tory leadership, and has claimed that ending free treatment for minor or “lifestyle” illnesses could save £20 billion a year — about a fifth of the annual budget. “Examples of this include varicose veins, acne, short stature, IVF, cosmetic surgery and moderate increases in blood pressure or cholesterol.” she said.

This beggars belief. When we have seen how hard Obama and the Democrats have had to fight over the course of several administrations to get even universal private health care through the statute books , how can we even think of rationing health care in this way.

But the real learning point is not to believe the spin. There is a wide gap between what the Tories actually believe on health, and what they say they are going to do. It’s a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ for those who can afford it – and a free- for- all for the rest of us. Whatever appears to be on offer – see your way through the gauze of manicured publicity: leopards don’t change their spots

DON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN BY DORSET'S TORIES

2010-01-13T12:06:00.001Z

DON’T LET DORSET’S CONSERVATIVES OBSCURE THE TRUTH

Toni Coombs’ explanation of the reasons behind schools’ closures in the Purbecks (Letters Telegraph 28.12.09) is reductive to say the least . It is a defeatist rationale, which in assuming that the worst will happen, risks condemning an area which is both vibrant and potentially economically resilient, to stagnation.

Illustrative of this is the current battle being fought in Swanage. One of the largest towns in Purbeck (population 10,000) , Swanage lost its both its secondary schools in a 1970s switch to the three tier system. The town gained a middle school, and 14-18 education transferred to Wareham (population 5,600) – 12 miles away.

Now, following the Government instigated review of surplus places, middle school provision is being taken away throughout the Purbecks – with no offer to reinstate secondary provision in Swanage. Other towns in Dorset which use the two tier system, including the much smaller towns of Beaminster and Lyme Regis, have retained their secondary provision.. There is some lack of equity here .

The argument which attributes closure of the schools entirely to the prevalence of second homes in the Swanage area is disingenuous because, according to research based on different statistics to those used by Dorset County Council, almost uniquely among towns in Purbeck Swanage is actually growing: there is an increased birth rate & a recent expansion in the number of families with young children coming into the town.

Newly Liberal Democrat led Purbeck District Council is proposing the development of over six hundred new homes in the town, (40-50% of which are to be affordable) in future years. All the evidence suggests therefore that the school aged population in Swanage will substantially increase in future years.

The strength of this interpretation is boosted rather than diminished by the response of the community. Education Swanage, a highly competent and eloquent group of parents who have banded together to put the case for secondary provision in the town, are proposing that the smaller part of a split site Purbeck Secondary be sited in the town where it could take advantage of the unique opportunity offered for the study of Earth Sciences by the proximity of the World Heritage Coast and Purbeck Stone Centre. Research conducted by these parents has been of a professional quality item by item to rival that of Dorset County’s officers – but they have repeatedly been given short shrift by Dorset County Council.

David Cameron claims that the new Conservatism supports localism, but here is an example of a visionary and eloquent local community being rebuffed again and again by a Conservative County Council as it presents alternative plans which are financially viable and which deserve to be taken seriously.

In fact, this short-sighted schools’ review will amplify the very effect that it proffers as a cause – desertion of Swanage and its vicinity by families with young children , thereby encouraging its infiltration by second home owners - whereas forward thinking and upfront investment by the council in building a new secondary, working alongside the District council’s excellent programme for employment and housing regeneration, will attract more parents with children to the town, ensuring that it has a working, full time population.

In a rural county where there is plenty of poverty, economic regeneration needs foresight, joined up planning between local authorities, vision to see the opportunities and fortitude in finding and exploiting relevant sources of revenue. All of these have been singularly lacking in Dorset County Council, but are amply visible in the creative vision and determination of Education Swanage, a group which I continue to support wholeheartedly in their endeavours to retain secondary education in their town.

At the other end of the county, it’s a different story. Woodroffe School in Lyme Regis, (population 4,406, school population 1,106) has been rated outstanding in two consecutive Ofsted inspections. Lyme is fortunate in having a visionary Development Trust, which, working with local authorities and the international scientific community is seeking to transform the economy of the town by capitalising on its Jurassic Coast location: the role of the school is central to this development………….if only we could see the same in Swanage.

Proof of the Educational Pudding in Portland

2009-11-07T16:58:00.005Z

I have always been against academy schools, & indeed must delcare myself an opponent of oversized secondaries as a whole - young people are alienated enough from meaningful participation in our culture without being alienated from each other & their teachers in huge & intimidating factory-learning environments.

This is why I have supported the calls in Swanage for a Swanage Secondary: whatever the subject, young people perform best among teachers & peers with whom they have a 'team' relationship. A school is essential to its community in all sorts of ways, whether from professionals identifying problems & being able to liaise closely with parents or teachers being able to watch their charges grow & mature over the years ( one of the keenest pleasures of working in education) to links with the community that enable a whole range of local , retired, or just enthusiastic experts to engage with them in a 'living' education.

The academy model is the anthesis of the kind of vision parents in Swanage want to make a reality & the argument for a giant secondary in Purbeck, with access to the full range of diplomas has, I feel, disadvantages as well as strengths. It is with relief therefore that I see that the Government's academies programme has decided to prevent ULT, the largest sponsor of academies, from taking on new schools until it dramatically improves the ones it already runs. This will affect the proposed 4 - 19 all through academy in Portland.

In my opinion the idea of an all -through mechanism like this seems completely counter-intuitive to the needs & developmental stages experienced by children of various ages - although on a large enough campus with clear separation between the schools & excellent leadership, it could be made to work.

My big concern however has always been linked to the 'creationist' controversy - & the motivations of bodies wishing to run schools for purposes that are clearly wider than that of education alone. This is something that a future Tory administration would have to address closely, were , under their tutelage ,the Swedish schools model to come into effect.

The United Learning Trust's Sheffield academies, plagued with behavioural problems & low results, have failed spectacularly. It appears that it is not enough simply to throw money & new buildings at a deprived area & that spritual guidance is not an adequate replacement to skilled & professional teaching ! The poor management of the schools has worsened their performance, leading to both being put into special measures.

Of ULT's 13 academies, one was judged outstanding, three good, but seven were only satisfactory & two inadequate. That is why the Government has required them to turn their attention to their existing establishments, stalling plans for new developemnts.

I must admit that separating off state schools & attempting to turn them essentially into private schools with public funding, had always seemed a suspect performance to me - not that different from the Conservative's schools of the Grant Maintained variety. It's a piecemeal rehash when in fact, what we may be said to need is an entirely new debate about how education is organised in the UK.

Government after government has tampered with a succession of schools turning our children ( & teachers !) into experiments in ideology & social engineering.

Schools are most successful when they are adequately resourced to attract skilled & motivated staff who are left to do what those skilled & motivated staff do best. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to offer resources to schools only when they jump through the hoop of the latest social experiment. There are huge problems with how we educate in this country - but they have not been solved by the academies: I am relieved that Portland will not be part of the same experiment in the near future.

Is Tory Foriegn Policy Insane ?

2009-11-07T16:16:00.003Z

Cameron's experience abroad is described by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in yesterday's Guardian as "a series of missteps & own goals, culminating in the gruesome embarrassment of his volte face on a referendum".

He continues "...this raises the question of whether the Tories actually have a sane foreign policy - for Europe & beyond- that they can conduct in office."

This is more pertinent question than it may at first seem.

Cameron's careful avoidance of detailed policy planning on the domestic scene, which on the doorstep I find is leading so many ordinary voters to question his reliability, & which seems to be designed to avoid critical examination at the same time as inviting approval for twisting every which way the wind blows (where is the emphasis on green issues now we are in a recession ??), is put into sharp profile by his simplistic & partisan approach to diplomacy, international conflict & European affairs. It is here that perhaps we see the real Cameron - a man who whilst adroit at domestic manouverings is clearly quite scarily out of his depth in the international arena.

Most European countries, notably Germany & France, are governed by centre right administrations -in recent months Cameron has alienated both: - a Conservative administration would see us once again in the second tier in Europe.

The alternative to the European idea promulgated by neo-cons & eurosceptics, the opinions of which are so unfortunately shared by the Conservative candidate in South Dorset, is a relationship with the United States so "special" that only the English appear to know it exists & which over recent years has clarified the extent to which the UK is clearly a very junior partner - after the way Blair prostated himself before Bush & got nothing in return.

For the clearest & most worrying sign of Cameron's inadequacy in foriegn affairs however, we need to turn back to last year's conflict in Georgia, where he gave his fervent backing to the Tbilisi government , unilaterally declaring, in a literally 'flying' visit, that Georgia should be admitted to Nato forthwith.

A suggestion which, if taken seriously, might have precipitated full scale international war !

As put succinctly by Sir Malcolm Rifkind "Britain, France & Germany are not going to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia"..... but under a Cameron administration, what might have happened ?

Not only does the Shadow Cabinet lack experience of the real world, & the Shadow Chancellor reveal his clear misunderstandings of economic instability by advocating Thatcherite economic retrenchment, against the advicce & practice of the countries that are now officially out of recession, but the forays into foreign affairs of the party leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary are based on prejudice & show they are not fit for purpose as national leaders in the modern world.

In the 1980s the Specials sang about the lunatics taking over the asylum - let's only hope the British people have more sense than to elect this bunch of amatuers.

NEW SKILLS CENTRE TO HELP YOUNG UNEMPLOYED

2009-10-04T16:28:00.004+01:00

September 11th saw the opening of the West Dorset Skills & Training Centre in Bridport, the result of 2 years of hard work by the Bridport Local Area Skills Training (BLAST) management team, chaired by Arthur Woodgate, of which I am a director.

The centre opens at an opportune moment with youth unemployment up to 18.5 % & we have been supported all the way by Nacro which has funded the training at the centre to provide opportunities for 16 + year olds not in education, employment or training.

Dorset has the highest rate of exodus of young people in the United Kingdom. One of Blast’s aims is to give them something to stay for – both in terms of training that is relevant to the 21st century & support for employment opportunities that mean they can stay & work in the area.

The project has taken us hours & hours of work to get off the ground. What it gives evidence of however is the value of committed local community groups, pushing for funding & support to do for themselves something which a town has been waiting for for years & which local authorities & colleges alike have failed to deliver.

As a Liberal Democrat I am committed to increasing localism - power to ordinary people in their communities to do things for themselves in order to benefit the whole community with the support of public funding where there will be a measureable return. End the top down centralisation of policy & empower communities to take responsibility for delivery where they are able. I only hope the Swanage Education campaign will be able to make a move in the same direction if their bid for local training at secondary level is scuppered by the County Council - as I suspect it will be.

What we have achieved in BLAST is what motivated me to go into politics. I am proud to have been part of the team that has made this happen !

FIGHT TO SAVE WEYMOUTH REFUGE CONTINUES

2009-10-04T16:10:00.003+01:00

I would like to thank all those who have contacted me directly to support our campaign to save the Women's Refuge. I think that the word 'disgusted' probably best describes the shared response . The County Council's Cabinet gave short shrift to the combined arguments of several Lib Dem councillors, myself & Jim Knight . There was no real attempt to listen .

At the beginning of September however I attended a meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee whose role it is to examine the operation of the Supporting People Commissioning Body & it was clear that they were prepared to listen to the arguments & were gravely concerned, voting unanimously against the closure of the refuge.

I hope that this wasn't a pyrrhic victory. Whilst I'm sure the cabinet will ignore this decision it has now been minuted & can be debated in Council.

We are at the stage however where if the decision is not overturned we may well need to begin to raise money in order to save it. Public opinion is so strong & the refuge too important to lose.

People from all over Dorset as well as the Borough are outraged. I have rarely seen people so angry. We have over 5000 signatures on our petition now & people are still signing. When I have spoken to individuals on the street they all express the same opinion: to close a service like this goes beyond the pale.

We must also remember that cutting this service in Weymouth cuts the number of places available for women seeking safety across the whole of Dorset.

Some services are simply too important to cut. The Conservative Cabinet at County Hall think that the safety of women is less important that providing an outreach service: it is not. But this issue goes beyond party politics – we must all work together to get the Council to change its mind, & if it won’t to raise enough money to keep the refuge open ourselves.

When people in power refuse to listen to what ordinary people want, we have to take action as a community to make sure that they do.

More on the Purbeck funding fiasco

2009-08-27T22:44:00.001+01:00

SHAM OF UPGRADES IN FLAGSHIP SCHOOLS’ POLICY

Government policies to rebuild or refurbish almost every school in England have been labelled a sham after Liberal Democrats have discovered that one in every five projects had provided only computers !

Last year, out of 41 projects, 9 involved little more than an upgraded computer suite, according to data provided in answer to a parliamentary question by the new schools minister, Vernon Coaker.

David Laws, Lib Dem Schools Spokesperson said “The inclusion of such small scale projects turns what is supposed to be a flagship programme into a bit of a sham”

“Schools in Purbeck are supposed to be being reorganised on the basis of this money” said Lib Dem parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset, Ros Kayes. “I hope that the County Council planning this unpopular move have taken these figures into consideration. The Government is running out of money & a Conservative administration would be committed to cuts: schools restructuring in Purbeck is clearly a question of wrong time, wrong place.”

South Dorset Support for Clegg's bank plan

2009-08-27T22:43:00.001+01:00

BANK CHARGES CHALLENGED BY LIB DEM LEADER

Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, has described the refusal of banks to repay unfair charges as “scandalous” & is tabling a parliamentary motion backing a campaign to force banks to repay them automatically, rather than making customers apply for them to do so.

Around a million customers have had refund claims frozen until the result of a test case that will decide whether fairness rules apply to charges of up to £35 a time for unauthorised use of overdrafts.

Seven major banks & a building society have asked the law lords to overturn rulings that the charges for making just one payment over an agreed overdraft limit come under “unfair contract “ rule making them subject to Office of Fair Trading regulation.

“This is a hugely important case – but I don’t think it goes far enough” said Ros Kayes, Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset. “The banks say they make £2.6 billion a year from these charges. They have the ordinary customer by the short & curlies here. If a payment goes out by direct debit & it’s been a difficult month, even the most careful customer can go over that limit all too easily.

“Perhaps if they win the case, another should be made for making them pay us the interest on the money they make by taking 5 working days to clear a payment into our accounts. I wonder how much they are making from us in that process, in an age when debits can be made at the push of a button. I applaud Nick Clegg & he is right – but all of these antiquated & unfair practices need to be challenged, not just one of them.”

A NEW KIND OF SCHOOL REFUSAL

2009-08-27T22:41:00.000+01:00

PRIVATE SCHOOL’S REFUSAL TO ALLOW STATE SCHOOL USE OF FACILITIES IS SELFISHNESS IN CARNATE says South Dorset parliamentary candidate.

South Dorset’s Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate, Cllr Ros Kayes has slammed the Independent Schools’ Council (ISC) following a statement by its chief executive earlier this week that the LSC intends to challenge the Charity Commission in court.

The Commission has interpreted legislation passed in 2006 by insisting that schools should pass a new “public benefit test” to continue to qualify for charitable status & tax breaks worth millions of pounds every year.

That would mean allowing state pupils to use their facilities & having a number of free state bursaries to allow limited number of children from poor backgrounds to attend the schools for free.

“If the private schools challenge this”, said Ros, “it makes them no different from the banks ! In receipt of millions of pound of public money every year in the form of tax breaks because they claim to exist for charitable purposes. This stretches the definition of charity very far”, she continued. ”Fees at these schools are very high – more than most of us earn in a year for the top schools. In my opinion, with parents who can afford these fees, schools should not be claiming charitable status at all. It’s charity for the very rich.

The schools claim that without their existance, ordinary tax payers would be having to pay £3 to 4 million extra in taxes and therefore they ae already giving aid to the poor. “A ridiculous argument !” said Cllr Kayes. “ How much do the tax breaks schools receive already cost us in lost revenues that could be ploughed back into the state system. On the contrary, if private schools did not exist, those same parents would be sending their children to comprehensive schools & giving generously to those schools to ensure that their facilities were upgraded instead – improving education for all of us.

“It’s selfishness incarnate to seek to challenge legislation that attempts to make private schools take some responsibility for supporting the public sector & at least goes some way to improving education for all of us.”.

FAIR VOTES FOR DORSET

2009-07-06T20:03:00.001+01:00

A campaign for electoral reform as the first step to reforming UK government is being launched by cross party group FAIR VOTES FOR DORSET. It will involve public meetings on what impact a fair voting system would have for us locally & nationally plus a mock election.60% of voters in West Dorset do not vote for Oliver Letwin & 54% of voters in South Dorset didn't vote for Jim Knight. If the whole of Dorset was one constituency with a fairer voting system (ie not one where the winner only needs one more vote than his or her nearest rival) we would certainly have a Green MP as well as Tory, Lib Dem & Labour.I didn't vote until I was over 30 because the system seemed so pointless. As a Green & later a Lib Dem my vote has never counted, because I have always lived in areas where the MP was Conservative.I think it matters because people don't get interested in politics where there's no one they agree with to represent them - loads of other reasons too I know, but if we had a more varied Parliament perhaps the corruption would be less likely ? Anyone agree ? Watch this space for more details.

PIE IN THE SKY OR DANGEROUS SOCIAL ENGINEERING ?

2009-07-06T19:32:00.001+01:00

LIB DEM SLAMS TORY VOUCHER PLAN FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Controversial Conservative plans for International Development to be revealed later this week have been described by South Dorset Liberal Democrats as naïve & dangerous.

The plans which would give aid vouchers to millions of people in the poorest parts of the world so that they can shop around for the best private schools & private health services are ludicrous, pie in the sky, & show ignorance of the situation on the ground in developing nations according to South Dorset’s Lib Dem Prospective MP Ros Kayes.

“It’s a nonsense to think that poorer countries have schools or services within easy reach of some of the most poverty stricken neighbourhoods. How can you have choice when there are no services available ? “

An Oxfam spokesman said that the idea was only superficially appealing:
“In many poor countries there are no services available, full stop. There is a chronic shortage of teachers, nurses, doctors, infrastructure & materials”

The plans would also be redeemable for development services of any kind, thus allowing private companies to jump on a gravy train of grants for services, say the Lib Dems.

“This is right wing social policy at its worst” said Ms Kayes “Trying to superimpose the system of inequality which exists in this country onto existing inequalities in the 3rd world instead of investing in free public health & education systems.

If taxpayers money is to be spent in this way it will be an outrage. It also reveals that the Conservatives have changed little in their social agenda since the days of Margaret Thatcher. If they are prepared to do this in Africa, what is their real agenda in the UK ?”

Tories side-step blame for years of abusing the system ?

2009-05-15T21:11:00.004+01:00

Apologies for the blog delay - electioneering hard......So what should be done with them ? Should there be a General Election - or should just some of them resign ? Should we force them to live in the Olympic Village ? At least then the press could get plenty of lurid stories about who's sleeping with whom ?

Seriously though - is it a storm in a tea-cup engineered cleverly by the Tories to champion in a supposedly new era ? - Many of us remember the hilarious 'back to basics' campiagn in the Major era, which outed most of the cabinet, including Major himself - as having a wide variety of affairs, with a wider variety of people.

Surely MPs should be means tested & only those without an alternative income/ directorship at Rothschilds/ private income (Dave Cameron - after all being married to an Astor can't be bad) allowed to claim expenses.

I spoke to a pensioner today who said he was infuriated that Oliver Letwin, with the Rothschilds income, nevertheless claimed £8,000 for his heating bill last year when he, because his pension was £6 over the threshold, was unable to get help for his heating costs. I believe the word obscene came into it.What would you do with them ? Is this a constitutional crisis or just part of the backlash against anyone who is fiddling the system & manages thus to do better than the rest of us ?

And is it right that the Conservatives, many, many of whom have been living in the standard to which they are accustomed for years, should be gaining credit for disciplining their MPs only NOW, when they should have taken the moral high ground about it years ago...... strange that they only just noticed.
Reply to your post Delete post Edit Post

LABOUR'S FURTHER ED FUNDING FIASCO

2009-04-10T16:08:00.000+01:00

How can this have possibly occurred. ?

The LSC is given huge tranches of capital to encourage building projects; Government extends the future compulsory age of attendance from 16 to 19; the new 14-19 curriculum which will require complete restructuring & massive funding is introduced – with targets on how quickly institutions should be responding - & then it’s all taken away again.

Is the LSC to blame for not keeping proper account of the funds promised to institutions or the Government to blame for not keeping proper account of the LSC ?

All I can say is that a sector vastly underfunded since Thatcher moved FE out of local authority control, which has over the years had to contort itself to the point of deformity to fit the critieria of a variety of government funding fads in order to secure the money to survive - & I say this as a lecturer of some 20 years experience in the sector- is now going to be struggling once again to provide against even greater odds an adequate education to post sixteeners struggling to get the right grades to access places at university which since the onset of recession have become more competitive than ever.

What an awful mess - & you can bet that with the pressure on to provide infrastructural funding that will create jobs in the adult labour force, there won’t be many handouts left to undo the damage.

Like the whole Building Schools for the Future & Diploma programmes this has been ill thought out, poorly planned for & even less effectively monitored. What have the ministers concerned been doing ? It’s hard to believe that in some areas education has suffered even more under Labour than it did under the Tories.

SOUTH DORSET CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO POLICING TACTICS THAT LED TO DEATH OF G20 BYSTANDER

2009-04-10T16:06:00.001+01:00

Although the last national demo I attended was the Stop the War March in 2003, demonstration was almost a pastime in my teens & twenties & I watch with growing incredulity the increasing number of restrictive measures taken to limit the right to protest since 1997. That’s not just in terms of legislation – removing the right to protest outside Parliament for eg ( heaven forfend that MPs might actually need to know when the public feel strongly about an issue !! ) or removing Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference on spurious counts – but the range of activities that seem to be being conducted by the Police as part of their treatment of those engaged in the perfectly legal action of non-violent demonstration.

This year’s climate camp produced a plethora of such over zealous techniques - journalists photographed & monitored by the police; close surveillance of demonstrators not breaking the law; over restrictive behaviour such as kettling , apparently considered to be completely justified by the level of injuries suffered by the police, the most serious of which included ‘shutting my own finger in a car door’ & ‘ being stung on the hand by a wasp’.

Those who took part in last week’s G20 demonstrations in the capital were forewarned by their networks – not all of which are anarchist or terrorist by the way ( I myself am on the contact list of Avaarez ,an ethically sound outfit that protests against human rights abuses all over the world, from Mugabe, to Darfur, to Tibet, to the blockade on Palestine & which organised members to demonstrate in London at the G20) –to expect unusual levels of police heavy-handedness. But what actually occurred ( the apparently unmotivated assault on a member of the public returning home from work ) seems more akin to our expectations of military or police behaviour in Tibet, Zimbabwe or Burma.

What is more worrying is the apparent attempt to cover over the facts by the Met.

I’m not implying that the police were angels in the Miners’ Strike, or the Anti Poll Tax Riots, or the CND marches – but where there is complicity by government of such tactics, we all need to be concerned.

We need a Public Inquiry into relevance of the type of tactics being used routinely against protest today. The principle in British law that ‘the end justifies the means’ is clearly being abused: protestors at a climate camp are not the same as Islamic terrorists; demonstrators have as much right to be on the streets as a man walking home from work. Whilst the truncheoning of Mr Tomlinson was totally unmerited, so would the similar truncheoning of any individual engaged in lawful & peaceful demonstration be similarly reprehensible.
Just as an addendum – isn’t it interesting that Boris Johnson has eschewed all responsibility of the death of Mr Tomlinson – whereas he was only too keen to implicate Ken Livingstone in the poor policing that lay behind the equally unnecessary death of Jian Charles de Menezes

Are you concerned ?

2009-03-31T15:28:00.001+01:00

Privacy campaigners are expressing concern about a planned new tracking device to be fitted to new cars throughout Europe.

Officials claim it will reduce carbon emissions, road accidents & congestion, but the system, which will be more accurate than current Sat Nav technologies, will have profound implications for privacy. British roads are already the most monitored in the world - details from the automatic number plate recognition cameras are stored for up to 5 years.

As with all these systems, the argument is that it’s for our own protection. But I agree with Simon Davies, director of Watchdog International, who says “ The problem is not what the data tells the state, but what happens with interlocking information it already has. If you correlate car tracking data with mobile phone data, which can also track people, there is potential for an almost infallible surveillance system”

Thoughts on the Two Party System

2009-03-31T15:03:00.002+01:00

It occured to me last week, when the new rise in unemployment figures was publicised as being the highest since 1997, that this means that even during the boom in the Thatcher years, unemployment was higher than it has been at any time under the Labour government. What a huge indictment of the Tories. If they couldn't do better in the loadsamoney era, how on earth do Cameron & Osbourne plan to improve things with their mish mash of economic ideas.

The other issue is this. Jacqui Smith's embarassing revelations & those of other expense account MPs seem to be opening the floodgates to a new era of sleaze.

Is this being orchestrated ? If so, by whom? From which party the mole that has leaked the recent MPs expenses report for the princely sum of £300,000 ?

Does any of this matter ? I think so. No-one can take the business of democracy seriously when the reasoning behind a change of vote .is based upon mudslinging from whichever side. Decisions should be made on the efficacy of policy ideas, not on attempting to discredit the other side.

SOUTH DORSET CRITICISM OF BLACKLISTING TACTICS

2009-03-07T13:13:00.000Z

SOUTH DORSET PROSPECTIVE MP SLAMS BLACKLISTING OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

One of the greatest freedoms we have in this country is the right of protest. That’s why the collection of private details of union members & perceived trouble-makers by a private detective who sold the data to major construction franchises like Mcalpines & Laing is so worrying. Many of these men have had their earning capacities seriously blighted & their lives have suffered accordingly.

We could link this to the police databank containing surveillance details of thousands of political campaigners. Photos, names & video footage of people attenbding demonstrations are stored on an ‘intelligence system’ which also includes their political associations.

One the one hand here what we have is businessmen illegally monitoring their workforce & on the other the police using legislation introduced by Labour to define genuine protestors as potential terrorists.

Many people say they don’t care about the erosion of our freedoms. But if you can’t get a job because you attended a demonstration years ago then this data gathering will affect your life in a very direct way.

Join the Convention on Modern Liberty & the Guardian newspaper in protesting on these issues.

SOUTH DORSET CANDIDATE BLAMES CONSERVATIVES FOR RECESSION

2009-03-07T13:05:00.000Z

SOUTH DORSET CANDIDATE BLAMES FREEMARKET CONSERVATIVISM FOR RECESSION
In an interview with the Guardian the party's Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable, blamed the Conservatives for the economic downturn and said the current leadership had been caught unawares by the crisis. He said: "They didn't anticipate it. Many of the problems we have originate from the Thatcher years. If you take for example the way in which they demutualised building societies, which became banks, that was a real Thatcher policy and those institutions have been at the heart of the crisis of irresponsible lending."
Cable blamed the Conservatives for arguing "unremittingly" for the lifting of effective banking regulation. He also said that in the US rightwing politicians took a much more straightforward approach. "John McCain is saying just get on and nationalise the banks. You have to do it for pragmatic reasons. The Tories here don't seem to have grasped that.
I can only agree ! The kind of mass consumer culture that we have in this country & all of the evils it brings with it, whether overspending & resultant debt or the emphasis on material goods as the only form of self worth or happiness, is all the result of the massive deregulation brought about by the Conservatives in the 1980s.
This is something I feel really strongly about having worked for 14 years in the NHS as a Counsellor. Again & again I’ve seen families struggling with debt brought about by irresponsible lending & people whose sense of value in life is not about themselves but about what they own. It’s had a huge impact on our children & what they think about themselves & it’s a dangerous legacy for the future
When the Conservatives bemoan the so called ‘broken society’ & criticise the lack of responsibility taken by families for their own, they should look at themselves. The ‘broken society’ is the result of the rampant consumerism unleashed in the 1980s & 90s, where all of the bonds that had held society together were broken apart by Margaret Thatcher & the only thing offered to fill the gap was the pursuit of materialism. We are facing the truth now: the only people who have really benefited from this are the wealthy - & the gap between the richest & the poorest in this country is wider now, even after a Labour government than it was in the 1970s.

2009-02-26T19:34:00.000Z

DATA BONANZA SPELLS END OF PRIVACY

I have been fighting the extension of data sharing among public bodies in Dorset for a number of months, challenging the county-wide Information Sharing Protocol at West Dorset District Council & in the media.

I won a concession at West Dorset that the Scrutiny Committee would revisit the appropriateness of the legislation next year in relation to the promised Communications Data Bill which will allow the collection & storage of all phone calls, emails & internet activity in the UK.

Now Sir David Omand, former Whitehall intelligence & security co-ordinator & author of a report by the Institute of Public Policy Research on the national security strategy – the database of advanced passenger information, airline bookings, passport data, immigration, identity & border records, criminal records, financial, telephone & other communication records - suggests that once an individual is assigned a unique index number, it is possible to retrieve & access data across numerous databases & thereby obtain information about that person’s life that was not authorised in the original valid consent for data collection.

He has recommended the establishment of clear human rights guidelines, such as sufficient sustainable cause, integrity of motive, methodology proportionate to the seriousness of the business & use of data collection as a last resort. I would entirely support the establishment of these guidelines in law so that challenges to privacy invasion can be brought effectively. I would also like to see built in to the legislation a review focusing on whether the number of successful prosecutions made as a result of the database has increased compared to the number before its inception. This needs to be conducted by an independent agency – likewise a survey of the increase in the number of complaints made as a result of the data storage. Only then can we monitor whether the level of risk has been worth it.

2009-02-26T19:32:00.000Z

TORIES FAIL TO CONSULT IN DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL’S SCHOOLS’ REORGANISATION

Last week I attended a special meeting of Purbeck District Council – the latest of many public meetings in which the subject of proposed changes to the three tier structure of schools was hotly debated. Lib Dem councillors proposed a rejection of the County Council’s proposals but were outnumbered by a Conservative proposal which, although it contained some laudable features, contained the killer suggestion that some parts of Purbeck might be better suited to the 2 tier model. Unfortunately this gives this County Council an escape clause.

The most important factor is that the public be properly consulted & permitted to have a role in the decisions made. During the weekend I met with the leader of a Welsh council which had attempted a similar reorganisation. At least the new leader of the Council that had formed after the local elections, which were lost by the party that hadn’t listened & with education as the major issue. Remember there are only 2 seats in the Conservative majority in Dorset & it’s only 8 years since the Lib Dems ran the council – during which time incidentally we built several new schools without going over budget & entered the election period with the books balanced.

Back to the schools issue – the new council in Wales made sure that it involved the community closely in the decision eventually reached through a series of working parties. Which did involve some compromise – but at least people had played a proper part in the decision made.!

2009-02-26T19:29:00.000Z

SOUTH DORSET MP SUPPORTS POST OFFICE PRIVATISATION PLANS

Despite the promise in Labour’s 2005 election manifesto (pg 21 “no plans to privatise” its services & supporting “a publicly owned royal mail”) Mandelson today introduced a bill in the Lords setting out a programme of part privatisation.

Beware ! The Dutch firm TNT which has offered to buy up a third of the service has just spent a year contesting the German government’s introduction of a minimum wage for all postal workers & only a week ago reported a 37% drop in its fourth quarter profits.

Royal Mail however in the nine months to Christmas 2008 made a profit of £225 million.

Part of the problem facing the industry is the 13 year pensions holiday started in 1990 & therefore the responsibility of both Tory & Labour administrations – seeking to save money by ignoring the pensions time bomb in their midst.

Needless to say, Jim Knight is not one of the 140 Labour rebels who have signed an Early Day Motion in protest at the plans.

Liberal Democrats would like to see the following arrangements made for Royal Mail:
Re-opening the 3500 Community Post Offices closed by the Tories & the 4000 closed by Labour; allowing employees in Royal Mail to become shareholders following the John Lewis model;commiting any future government to retaining the network as a public service;
ensuring the contracts for pensions & benefits would stay.

.

2009-02-10T18:32:00.002Z

The pre-Budget report has been roundly condemned by South Dorset Liberal Democrats as a wasted opportunity to help ordinary people in Dorset.

This was a golden opportunity for the Chancellor to help ordinary people by reducing the basic rate of income tax. Instead, he has announced a £5billion tax hike!

The rise in National Insurance will hit anyone earning over £19,000. In comparison, relatively few people will ever actually pay the new 45p rate on incomes over £150,000. That’s a smoke screen, not a real attempt to make taxes fairer. It will raise less than 10% of the extra money which workers and employers will have to pay in National Insurance.

Liberal Democrats are also angry that the government is still not doing enough to ease the affordable housing crisis in South Dorset. We want councils to be allowed to build social housing, reversing a policy introduced by Margaret Thatcher.

Putting money into building more affordable housing is good for everybody. The economy would benefit from the capital investment and from the jobs that would be created. Hundreds of thousands of people who have been on housing waiting lists for years would benefit by finally getting a chance to move into a decent home.

Liberal Democrat proposals for helping people to get through the financial crisis and for stimulating the economy include a 4p cut in the basic rate of income tax paid for by closing tax loopholes used by the wealthy, investing in capital projects such as social housing, energy efficiency and public transport to bring long-term benefits and taking steps to ease the credit crisis by compelling banks to lend money to viable businesses.

2009-02-10T18:30:00.001Z

No Let-Up In Labour’s Appalling Human Rights Record

South Dorset Liberal Democrats have condemned a judgement last week which saw two senior judges declare that they were powerless to reveal information about the torture of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, because David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary had warned the court that the US was threatening to stop sharing intelligence about terrorism with the UK.

According to Miliband releasing the evidence would mean that “the public of the United Kingdom would be put at risk”. Miliband has stuck to this decision even after Barak Obama signed orders announcing the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

The decision by Miliband to carry forward the threat by the Bush administration is deeply disturbing. It implies that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s wish of last year to investigate possible criminal wrongdoing by M15 & the CIA over Mohamed’s treatment will receive pretty short shrift.

Surely the inauguration of President Obama offers this government the chance to close the door on its deplorable association with the actions of the Bush era. For an apparently forward-looking politician like Miliband, sometimes billed as a future prime-minister, to continue holding a cloak over activities in a prison camp which we know to have been illegal under international law is simply appalling.

If there is a genuine threat by the Americans to withdraw co-operation because it will reveal their own misdemeanors then that is something that needs to be addressed at the highest level. The British people are as deserving of democratic transparency as the American people & the change of administration should be used as an opportunity to mend breaches in human rights rather than continuing to obscure them. There’s no excuse this time.

Please protest against Israeli Aggression

2009-01-15T14:13:00.003Z

So many people have contacted me about the disproportionate killing that is occuring in Gaza. 30 Israeli's killed & over 1000 Palestinians - 300 or more of them children.

Nick Clegg has organised a Facebook Group to protest - so log is you agree - against the UK government approving the sale of arms & arms components to Israel.

On a democratic level, I was appalled by Tuesday's news that two of the three Arab political parties in Israel have been excluded from contesting the forthcoming general election, on the grounds that expressing concern for the level of killing of innocent civilians in Gaza makes them supporters of terrorism ! That's the equivalent not only of banning Sinn Fein, but also the SDLP prior to the Good Friday Agreement, & only shows what scant regard they have for real democratic process.

I only hope that the UN does have the balls to begin proceedings for war crimes. Leaving children clinging to the bodies of their dead parents for 4 days after shelling the house to which you sent them for refuge draws inevitable comparison with the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or even Rwanda.

Incidentally, of the 30 Isrtaeli's killed, some of them lost their lives through friendly fire. By this logic the Israeli army should turn the guns on itself...........enuogh said !

New Sustainable Communities launch

2009-01-15T14:10:00.001Z

Here is a copy of a press release to the echo on Sustainable Communities - potentially brilliant legislation which will give us a say in how our town & parishes are run.

Dorset Liberal Democrats have hailed as a victory the launch of a new Bill tonight (Friday) at the Sustainable Communities meeting in Dorchester by Unlock Democracy group Local Works. Sue Farrant, Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for West Dorset, said today
“ Liberal Democrat architects of original bill originally argued for it to include town & parish councils as well as the districts , boroughs & counties & are delighted that a formal attempt is being made to alter the legislation." "The problem with the original legislation" said West Dorset District Cllr Ros Kayes, also Lib Dem Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset, "is that it did not go far enough. What's the point in offering power to local communities if your cut off point is at district level ? How local is that? I'm delighted that Dorset Conservatives are now supporting our campaign on this, because we've been asking some pretty awkward questions at West Dorset & in Weymouth & Portland as well about whether councils are going to involve town & parish councils in their consultations & as yet we have received no formal reply." "The problem with the original legislation," said Sue Farrant , "is that the parish & town councils were taken out after the first draft. We have been looking for a commitment from West Dorset District Council to include them in their consultation ever since. I also hope that the County Council opts in to the Act at the first opportunity . If they are going to support this change at tonight's meeting then it's a victory for local communities in West Dorset because it will give them the chance to come up with good ideas that suit their own town or parish & actually give them the power to roll them out" Come along to tonight's meeting to celebrate the launch - & bring some ideas, about what your community would like to see done !

CLEGG CALLS FOR MILIBAND TO FACE THE FACTS ABOUT GAZA

2009-01-11T13:40:00.009Z

Nick Clegg has argued strongly in the Guardian this week that the UK government must lead the EU into using its economic & diplomatic leverage to broker peace in Gaza by suspending the proposed new cooperation agreement with Israel & halting British arms exports.

World leaders must accept that their response tot he election of Hamas has been a strategic failure, he argues.

Seumas Milne has also argued that the media choice to focus on the immediate reasons for the current conflict (ie the Hamas shelling of Israel) leads us to a reductive interpretation of events.

As a psychotherapist & campaigner for conflict resolution I have long been aware that just as aggression is triggered by 'emotional history' in the individual, so too is it triggered by 'emotional history & the framework of intepretation' in a nation, culture or religion. Both peoples in this situation need to be able to see the conflict from a different interpretative framework.

Until Western governments are able to show empathy & respect for the Palestinian world-view (61 years of national dispossession, refugee camps, occupation, seige & multiple Israeli violations of UN Security Council Resolutions & Geneva conventions) & are able to hold Israel to account for its actions where these are contravened, then peace & reconciliation will never take place.

The international world must stop shying away from the fear that criticism of Israel is the same thing as anti-semitism: it is not. Nothing can exonerate the action of the Nazis, or indeed, the action of Esatern & Western Europeans throughout the period of modern history. It is partly our responsibility that Zionists hold the opinions that they do. However none of this justifies Israel's attempt to enact a 'final solution' in Gaza nor does our own guilt in the West justify our tacit support of it.

Britain must not be led by the complex range of domestic factors that influence US policy on this issue. Sarkozy has taken an unexpected lead in this matter & it is a lead we should follow.

Ultimately only a UN with teeth can kick-start the kind of dialogue required. Whilst I worry about what Clinton's new position in the Obama administration will throw into the mix, I retain hope that the US president elect's vision for the UN in the 21st century holds some hope for the future.

Conservatives at Dorset County Risk Huge Insurance payouts

2009-01-02T15:36:00.003Z

I have been running a campaign from the Bridport end of the coast road about the lack of markings & cats eyes on the new surface for about a month now & have concerns that the money saving device by the County Council could have a huge financial backlash in terms of insurance claims.

This road has one of the highest accident rates in Dorset. I think everyone is agreed that to take the markings away is sheer lunacy. The road has plenty of bumps, bends & unexpected twists, it is used as a race track for motor-cyclists & if you drive at night & have to dip your headlights when you meet another driver the lack of cats eyes means that you can’t gauge where the edge of the road is.

But what will happen if the accident rate increases ? If the lack of markings can be said to be a contributing factor to any accident, you can bet that the County Council will be asked to pay up –and with our money. When the Bridport News covered this they contacted the National Insurers Assoc which agreed that yes, if there was a chance to make a claim against the County on the grounds of failure to safely mark the road, there would be claims made.

It’s alright for our local Conservative County Councillors to complain about the road, but it was the Conservative Cabinet of the council which decided to go ahead with the raw roads policy.
Personally I don’t believe this decision has been made to improve traffic flow – when we suggested a signal free town centre in Bridport the County ridiculed us – they are over £153 million in debt & I think it’s purely to save money.

South Dorset thoughts on the Green scenario

2009-01-02T15:08:00.004Z

A couple of things occured to me over the Christmas break with regard to this case. The first is this: who vetted the civil servant concerned & why didn't they pick up not only that he was a member of the conservative party (not in itself a crime for a public servant !), but also that he was an activist who had been approved as a parliamentary candidate for the party ( a different issue altogether) ?

The second is this - why did the conservatives seek to implicate an approved candidate in activity that would be damaging to his career by accepting leaks from this source ? Were the leaks actively sought or were they voluntarily given or (and the logical conclusion must be explored here) was the individual allowed to infiltrate the civil serviceprecisely for the purpose of generating leaks that could then be used to create political capital for the party of which he was both a member & an approved candidate ? If that were to have been the case the whole thing is very murky indeed.........

LABOUR'S DISMAL RIGHTS RECORD

2008-12-13T14:07:00.006Z

The Guardian on Thursday reported the resignation of Lord Lester, Lib Dem adviser to Gordon Brown on Constitutional Reform in Labour's 'Government of all the Talents'.

On the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights he described Labour's record on Human Rights since the passing of the 1998 Act as "deeply disappointing", saying also that:
[The Govt] could have...accepted the recommendations of the UN human rights treaty bodies,
the joint committee on human rights & NGOs to allow the people of this country the
individual right to petition against the government under the international
covenant on civil & political rights...the UK is alone in the EU in refusing to do so..

The Constitutional Reform package seems also to have been lost in the water. When Brown took over many of us were refreshingly surprised at his apparently forward-thinking measures on changing constititional anomolies.

But yet again this appears to be a Government that says one thing & does another : vaunting civil liberties whilst turning a blind eye to Guantanamo Bay & extraordinary rendition & promoting extended periods of detention without trial; attacking Mugabe's appalling record in Zimbabwe but failing to support a European Force to avert further humanitarian disaster in the Congo becuase they want to wait for UN backing.

When since did this government wait for UN backing ?? .................Strange logic !!

IT'S NOT UNUSUAL - LABOUR'S DODGY STATISTICS

2008-12-13T13:20:00.006Z

Today's news about the Home Office massaging statistics on knife crime will only add to public disenchantment about the believability of data. Ever since the Tories so shamelessly redesigned ways of collating the unemployment figures - 24 times I think , at the last count - the British people have been refreshingly dubious about the difference between what is said at a national level & the evidence that we experience in our daily lives.

What is most concerning is the idea that a department of state might decide to design a survey to measure the effect of a policy & when the results still don't add up the way they want to, they will selectively publish the data that appears to show them in a good light: Hospital admissions for knives -27%; Serious knife crime aginst young people -17%; Young Victime sof crime on London -18%. Incidentally some of these figures only began to be recorded for the first time in March of this year - so how it is possible to measure the decrease effectively is unclear to me.

Secrecy or Public Interest?

2008-11-28T09:25:00.001Z

So today a Conservative shadow spokesman, Damien Green has had to endure the ignimony of 9 hours of detention while being interrogated for doing his job - releasing information that the government wanted kept secret, into the public domain , in the public interest.

Now it's not often that I'll support a conservative - but this heavy handedness reeks of yet more surveillance & regulation. An opposition exists (partly) to criticise governmental bad practice. If 5,000 illegal immigrants are working in the security services ( which is one of the items Green is meant to have leaked) then that should be in the public domain.

It's hard enough, as Chris Huhne said on the Today programme this morning to access the information to enable effective opposition - but heavy handedness when it is released is not an appropriate way to treat an elected member of parliament.

Even if the data were a threat to national security, bully boy tactics reveal more about the paranoia of the current administration than about the severity of the information released. It raises a terrible spectre: if a member of parliament can be treated this what lies ahead for the ordinary citizen whose civil liberties have been chipped away to allow detention without trial should he reveal something unexpected that might be considered in a roundabout way to have some vague relation to an issue of national security !!

MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR SOUTH DORSET - LABOUR FAILS TO GREEN THE ECONOMY

2008-11-28T09:23:00.001Z

Earlier this week the exec director of Greenpeace noted that the current credit crisis is "an historic opportunity to invest billions in a low-carbon, high-technology future". Dorset is crying out for such investment.

He goes on to add "but the Chancellor blew it !". Both Darling & his opposing number on the Tory front bench have been quick to use the recession to wriggle out of supposed commitments to investment to promote sustainability in such a way as to genuinely beg the question - did they really believe in those measures in the first place ?

Kick starting the Green economy will always seem expensive in the short term - & back-sliding will continue to take place until there is widespread governmental acceptance of a value system which belongs alongside ( and many would say should replace) that of capital: a sustainability value system.

A green restructuring of the economy as proposed by the Lib Dem GREEN TAX SWITCH and our many other green policies, links taxation to despoiling of the environment rather than financial profit & seeks to move us away from the global mentality ,that, expecting something for nothing , chases the fast buck and which creating spiralling debt bubbles for both investors, manufacturers and consumers, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

It also outlines plans to develop the economy, through encouraging development of public transport & the support of small & local enterprise to regenerate rural communities. In South Dorset, with its combination of spectacular environment and low earnings, developing the Green economy is a must.

Easy credit got us into this mess - how can it be trusted to get us out ? In spending to get out of the bust what the government should be investing in is creating new jobs in renewable energy & energy efficiency, & improving the public transport infrastructure (especially the railways).

Instead of nationalising the banks, which seem only too keen to keep their ill-gotten gains to bolster their dwindling resources instead of benefiting the tax-payer, perhaps Darling & Brown would have been better to think of renationalising rail & bus companies. Building extra roads is going to solve neither the economic nor the environmental crisis Gordon !

John Sauven is right - this is a tremendous opportunity. It's one that Obama has recognised. If he can see it - why can't our government ?

2008-11-19T18:16:00.004Z

WHAT THE DORSET ECHO WON'T PRINT.

When I spoke to Roger Hayre, postmaster at Buxton Road Post Office in Weymouth yesterday, he informed me that he'd spoken to the Dorset Echo & mentioned both my support & the legal challenge I'd discovered concerning Hastings Post Office under the Disability Discrimination Act. I have been liaiaing with the chambers mounting this challenge & we think at Buxton Road fits into the same category. Here's the article the Echo wouldn't print:

CAMPAIGNERS TO MOUNT CHALLENGE ON POST OFFICE CLOSURE

Buxton Road Post Office in Weymouth is earmarked for closure at the end of February according to a statement from the Post Office today, but local campaigners led by Buxton Road resident Michael Watson & Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate, Cllr Ros Kayes are campaigning to prevent the closure.

“After talking to Mr Hayre the postmaster about his concerns recently I did a bit of research” said Cllr Kayes, “& discovered that there is currently a case waiting judgement in the High Court, that concerns the Post Office in Hastings. The closure there is being challenged under the Disability Equality Duty which is part of the Disability Discrimination Act. This, I am assured by my contact, who is a barrister at the Chambers that has brought the case, means that organisations have a duty to ensure that they are not unfairly discriminating against disabled members of the community in any policy decisions that they take. In terms of the number of disabled & elderly people in the communities served the Hastings PO is similar to Buxton Road

“The Post Office's criterion for closure is that in urban areas residents should not be more than one mile away from the nearest post office. If you are disabled that mile is much harder to make - especially in Buxton Road, which is very hilly. Mr Hayre's research supports his case strongly - 25% of residents within a kilometre are over 65 & 97% of them have a limiting or lifelong illness. A large proportion of service users are reliant on home help & there are 9 residential establishments for the severely mentally disabled within the near vicinity.

“It is entirely reprehensible for the PO to consider closure of this branch, which is one of the few in the area with its own parking, when 60% of its post office card account holders are disabled. It shows scant regard for the infirm & disabled within the community & I believe there is ample evidence with which to challenge their decision on the basis of discrimination. If the judgement in Hastings goes in favour of the community then we will be mounting a challenge to today’s decision. It’s bad enough to close rural POs many of which are the lynch-pin of their local communities, but to close this one, where there is a very real need is callous in the extreme & we must do everything we can to stop it.”

So Why.......?

So why did the Dorset Echo print a nonentity quote form the tory candidate who quite obviously knew nothing of this latest development, although Roger informs me that he did speak to him some months ago - but obviously decided to take no action as also is the case with the sitting MP ? This post master is hard working & providing a real service to the community. He needs all the support he can get & the action group we are setting up to raise funds for a legal case will make sure he gets it - but the Echo wouldn't print that either, would they !

Schools Fever: Schools' Minister's Anti-Terror Policy

2008-11-11T12:19:00.001Z

Just a point that concerns me about the current Governments Schools' policies.: turning in the proto - terrorists.

Apparently as teachers, my colleagues & I have to report any student that we think may be susceptible to islamic extremism. Where will this end ? I was at a secondary school in Birmingham with several Fenians - none of them engaged in terrorist activity.

What I'm objecting to is the filing of information (which might well be incorrect) on students, who, let's face it, might just be being a bit gobby with one member of staff because they don't like them, & this then potentially putting them on the terrorist database.

Teachers are always & have always been concerned about the welfare of students & there's plenty of opportunity in the range of lessons taught & in pastoral work to consider these issues with individuals - but reporting them ??? More Big Brother State than genuine student welfare.

Conservative Leader David Cameron's Free Flights Fiasco

2008-10-25T09:52:00.001+01:00

Actually this is not a fiasco at all, but something rather more alarming. Cameron accepted £34,000 worth of free flights from Matthew Freud, son-in-law to Rupert Murdoch, this summer (strange that anyone married to an Astor would need freebies, but more worrying that a relative of Murdoch would want to give them) - one flight from Farnborough to Istanbul & thence to Santorini, followed by a link to Dalaman, also in Turkey. In Santorini, Cameron met with Murdoch.

One remembers Tony Blair cosying up to Murdoch in Australia before his election - but his declaration in the MPs Register of Interests at the time mentioned the interest of Murdoch. Cameron's did not. Why not ? We will only really believe that the party of privilege & the old school tie has changed when the con is demonstrably taken out of Conservative.

More Confusion in Labour's Schools' Policy: putting the sex back into education !

2008-10-25T09:45:00.001+01:00

Sex education for 5 year-olds would have been an impossible idea -
but even relationship education will be difficult. My youngest child
is 10 & I can't think that he would have been able to understand the
sort of themes that must be meant by this at that age. Learning
through drama maybe ( although primary kids get little enough chance
for this with the National Curriculum) & working with little ones to
understand the emotions they are going through when they fight or
bully or are upset is a possibility - anger management, sharing,
being supportive. But these are addressed in schools already -
through one to one relationships between teachers, children & parents
& through circle time.

Suggesting that primary teachers need a specific curriculum on this
detracts from their professionalism. Most teachers who stay with one
class day by day through an entire year would seek to address those
issues. Most parents would also probably prefer to have the facts of
life revealed to their children by themselves & when they themselves
feel the child is ready for it.

Dorset County Council's Conservatives took advice from National Conservative Party Treasurer

2008-10-23T16:14:00.001+01:00

TORY TREASURER ADVISED IN DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL'S ICELANDIC INVESTMENTS FIASCO
The local authorities facing the largest losses from the collapse of the Icelandic banks were all advised by the same company. Kent, Norfolk, Dorset and Hertfordshire county councils and Nottingham City Council and the borough of Barnet all paid for the services of Butlers, which is owned by the treasurer of the Tory party, Michael Spencer, who has a fortune of £1bn.
Three of the six also paid Butlers' parent company ICAP to broker some of their investment deals. One of the others failed to say who brokered its investments.
Between them, the six councils have £207m in Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki banks or their UK subsidiaries. The money is about 20 per cent of the estimated £1bn potentially lost by local authorities.
Lib Dem District Councillor &Prospective Parliamentary candidate for south Dorset, Ros Kayes, learned on Saturday of the Butlers/IACP link today said:

”What concerns me is not so much that Dorset County Council invested money in an Icelandic bank ( although any public body does have a responsibility to invest public money with some caution rather than just trying to make a quick profit), but that a Tory council was using a company owned by theConservative Party Treasurer to advise them on that investment. I can’t believe they could be so naïve – it was bound to raise questions however it came out.

I'd like to know who else put in a tender for the advisory role; and how Butlers/IACP were chosen, as well as how much they were paid for this advice. We'll need to follow the audit trail on this quite carefully. Just on a matter of ethics, I would have thought it was highly foolish, in dealing with public finance, to be receiving ostensibly impartial advice from a body run by a member of the same political party. It's just poor practice.

Big Brother is Watching YOU!

2008-10-23T16:11:00.001+01:00

WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT DORSET’S BIG BROTHER COUNCILS……

Thursday’s debate at West Dorset District Council offers the first & perhaps the only chance for councillors in Dorset to overturn the so called ‘snooper’s charter’, the Dorset- wide Information Sharing agreement between public services in the county that has been brought in without the agreement of elected councillors.
In the News 2 weeks ago I was quoted as saying that……’It is completely undemocratic to introduce these changes without informing elected members…and it makes a mockery of democracy when councillors have not even been allowed to discuss the measures & their impact in the council chamber.’ Now I want to explain my concerns.
When I first heard about these measures, I couldn’t believe that councillors had not been consulted or even informed. Like the two other councillors who became aware of them, (one in Chickerell, one in Wareham) we found out only by accident. The measures include information sharing between public bodies about sexual life of citizens; family, lifestyle & social circumstances; alleged criminal offences & physical or mental health , as well as financial & criminal data .
Alarmingly, there are all sorts of other organisations involved here from religious & voluntary organisations to charities, trade unions & yes, even political parties. Any of these can request exchange of information from the others & I just don’t believe they are all set up to transfer & safeguard this information securely. The whole system is open to abuse.
One of the people who first alerted me to the agreement was Debbie Bond, Bridport resident & member of data campaign group ‘NO 2 ID’. Her main concern is that like much similar national legislation it has been “ brought in by the back-door”.
“ People don’t know about it or understand what’s going on” says Debbie & she urges us to “Act now, before it’s too late.”
Another gentleman living in my ward had contacted me about a questionnaire from Magna Housing which he felt to be upsetting & invasive because it was asking the elderly residents where he lived to give details about their sexual orientation. What was the point of this information he wanted to know ? When I learned about the protocol it got me thinking about the negative effect this information-gathering could have on the privacy & safety of all of us
One of my fears is that some of the information recorded will be inaccurate. In the Criminal Records Database for example, some 2,700 people are wrongly described as having convictions. In the Police DNA Database, which has 1 million profiles, & which has at no stage been approved by Parliament, the DNA of three children who climbed a cherry tree to build a tree-house & were arrested then released on suspicion of Criminal Damage has been recorded, as has the genetic profile of a 14 year old schoolboy mistakenly identified by teachers as having been involved in a fight. In both of these cases police have refused to remove the DNA. These kinds of misdemeanours happen all the time – all of us can think of kids we know who get up to mischief. Now the council, housing associations & probably schools as well could all have access to that data.
Take health records. In Bridport we were asked last year to take part in a pilot of the NHS database – but the protocol could mean that some of your private health information might become available to say schools or social services. Now although the Councils, like the Government, argue that this is designed to protect us – what if someone wrongly used it to check out applicants for a job ? How would you feel if you found out that you hadn’t got your dream post because 10 years ago you’d had an episode of depression ? That’s the reality of a Big Brother society.
Charities, political parties & voluntary groups have also signed the agreement. Many of their staff are volunteers. What if someone unscrupulous checked out sensitive information & gave it out to the wrong person ? Earlier this year the Sun reported how a man employed as a care worker trawled a Council’s database for details of girls who had recently left foster-care – culminating in the vicious rape of an 18 year old. A woman working in a local tax office disclosed details of the whereabouts of a battered wife to her ex husband, whom she was dating at the time. Two workers at an East London police station were convicted for using its criminal database to check up on the criminal records of their boyfriends…… and their associates & family members. These were employees, but volunteers are even less easily tracked & less likely to be vetted.
So it’s impossible to monitor all the people who will have access to this information, and over 20% of employees work in the public sector – that’s a hell of a lot of people with access to sensitive data!
At the moment if you work in a school you only have access to data on your students – under this agreement you might also have access to their & their parents health records, criminal records, sexual orientation, credit record – the list goes on. Are you telling me that, human nature being what it is, that it is possible to safeguard against the misuse of this data. Bridport is a small town where everyone knows everyone else– imagine the impact it could have here !
Roger Green from the legal department at West Dorset has argued that the protocol is designed to ensure that cases like the murder of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman never happen again. But Ian Huntley was allowed to work as a school caretaker because a police administrative officer who was doing some tidying up, threw away documents that should have been sent to his prospective employers under regulations that already existed - having this protocol would have made no difference.
Apparently the Information Commissioner has also given his approval. I find this strange because when last week a furore erupted over proposals in the Data Communications Bill, which gives town halls, the police, security services, health authorities & other public bodies powers to access the data of anyone suspected of even a minor crime by requiring all our mobile phone, email & internet records to be stored (at a cost to the taxpayer of £46.58 million pounds) the same Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, described it as “ a step too far in the British way of life.”, saying that, “…..you can never eliminate the risk that the data will fall into the wrong hands”.
Let’s put two & two together shall we ? If the Data Communications Bill becomes law & the Dorset Protocol continues, will all the public bodies in Dorset have legal access to our internet, email & phone records too ?
This is what really concerns me. An apparently tame protocol in Dorset, added to the national legislation, could give away some tremendous powers to local authorities. Powers that in the hands of an unscrupulous or incompetent administration could be dangerously misused.
There are two things that need to be addressed : inadequate regulation of the collection & transmission of data by public & private organisations as well as the principle ( being constantly chipped away by the present Government in its Control Orders & restrictions on public demonstration), that traditional British liberties, enshrined for centuries in our code of law , freedoms that have made our democracy the envy of the world, can be automatically shelved because a perceived crisis is so dangerous that, we’re told, it’s better to give up our freedom & privacy than to risk the assault on our way of life by either terrorists, organised criminals or the so called ‘broken society’.
Many of us say – “It’ll never happen here”. But sooner rather than later it will.
We are too used in our society to giving up responsibility to the powers above us; to believing that things are just so because that’s the way of the world & there’s nothing we can do about it. I happen to believe that it’s this abdication of responsibility that has led to much that is wrong with our society today.
“Those who would give up essential liberty” observed US liberal President Benjamin Franklin, “to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety.” In other words – we get what we deserve !
That’s why storing & giving away information to increase the powers of those that are meant to protect us makes me worry.
What if the criminals it is trying to protect us from gain access to it ? What if it is simply lost - & then found by someone who has no right to it but who can see the use that can be made of it? How can the bodies that collect this information be monitored to ensure that they store & transport it safely ?
Here are some statistics from the last two years:
In 2008 alone, the details of 150,000 railway workers were stolen in a laptop; 100,000 army personnel & 600,000 recruits had their unencrypted details ‘mislaid’ in a computer hard-drive. Millions of Child Benefit recipients have had bank details stolen & 4 NHS Trusts in 5 have suffered data confidentiality breaches in the last year.
HM Revenue & Customs have disciplined 600 staff over data protection issues; the DVLA was reported for selling data without consent to convicted criminals; 2 council CCTV operators were jailed for spying on a woman naked in her home.
The data revolution of the late 20th century has transformed the way we live, but it has brought with it its own dangers. The safety of information cannot easily be secured. Seeking to increase the exchange of personal information in this way before creating adequate safeguards is surely madness !Personally I object to even the voluntary giving of information when we don’t know how it will be used and I really baulk at the protocol’s statement that those who do not give their consent ‘may receive an adversely affected service’. Like journalist & campaigner Henry Porter I would like to see an Independent Public Inquiry to examine the collection, storage & use of data & a proper regulatory system for ensuring that those who collect it do not misuse it – with custodial sentences if required. I would also like to see the jettisoning of local versions of the national legislation - I want to see the Information Sharing Protocol thrown out of Dorset now.
In West Dorset will be debating it today. I can’t predict what will happen, but as this is a matter of conscience I hope it will be a free vote. Even if the vote is lost it could be debated again in the County Council. If after reading this you have decided that you do care about what is happening to your information & happening now- please phone your District & County Councillor & let him or her know – before it’s too late !

"Swanage rubbish must go to Wareham" - Conservative Dorset County

2008-10-23T16:06:00.001+01:00

CAMPAIGNERS CAUSE A STIR IN SWANAGE:

MILLION MILE MARCH TO SAVE RECYCLING CENTRE !
Monday 13th October saw angry residents of Swanage proving to Dorset County Council’s Cabinet, just how difficult it really will be to get to the Household Recycling Centre in Wareham, should the existing centre in Swanage be closed down and not replaced.
The County Council claim that it would cost £ 2 million to build a new centre that meets altered health and safety requirements. But Steve Burdis, head of waste management at County Hall, indicated at a recent specially convened meeting of Swanage Town Council that there are 25.000 visits every year by Swanage residents to the current recycling centre in Panorama Road.
Multiplied by the number of households in Swanage that makes a million miles, for annual visits to the Wareham tip – a 24 mile round trip. And this despite the County’s aim in the Draft Waste Management Strategy to take sustainability into account in future policy developments.
“Expecting people in Swanage to make this journey several times a year is simply ludicrous” says Ros Kayes, newly selected Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for South Dorset, herself an experienced environmental campaigner.
“What about those people without a car ? It’s a £ 5 round trip on the bus – plus 2 ½ hours of their time. When they get to Wareham there’s a 45 minute walk to get to the centre and back – all this carrying their rubbish. It’s hideously impractical.”
“The County Council must put their money where their mouth is. If they are committed to the environmental principles behind effective waste recycling, and they say they are, then it makes no sense at all to take away an existing centre if it’s going to increase car use in this way. They need to commit to providing an upgraded centre in Swanage & commit to it quickly.”
Cllr Kayes, also Deputy Leader of the Lib Dems at West Dorset District Council said that they aim to physically demonstrate to Dorset County Council, whose waste forum meets in Dorchester on Monday, just how “impractical, awkward and environmentally unsound” closing this recycling centre would be “Just think of the carbon footprint of that million miles “ she added.
Residents, complete with bin-bags, travelled by bus to the Wareham centre, where they were interviewed by a reporter from BBC South, explaining that they felt fly-tipping would be increased by the proposed closures.
The County Council Cabinet is likely to make a decision on the issue on Wednesday November 5th.

Condemned to the PTSD Dustbin

2008-10-22T12:48:00.000+01:00

As an NHS Counsellor in Yeovil for 13 years I can't count the times I've had traumatised ex-servicemen referred to me. The state must take responsibility for the damage being in a war zone does to ex servicemen & women. Sometimes the trauma doesn't emerge immediately - it gets picked up years later. Psychological care needs to be added to the service contract. It's okay to say that military personnel know what they're letting themselves in for - but no-one can predict the way the individual will react to the horrors of modern warfare. There needs to be a contract with the NHS to ensure that these people get proper access to psychological therapies in an aftercare package even after they've left the forces: the proportion of ex- servicemen in the prison population sends the message that after they've served their purpose as far as this country is concerned all they've earned is a place in the psychological dustbin.