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.
Saturday 7 November 2009
Is Tory Foriegn Policy Insane ?
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.
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.
Sunday 4 October 2009
NEW SKILLS CENTRE TO HELP YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
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 !
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
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.
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.
Thursday 27 August 2009
More on the Purbeck funding fiasco
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.”
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
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.”
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
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.”.
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.”.
Monday 6 July 2009
FAIR VOTES FOR DORSET
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 ?
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 ?”
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 ?”
Friday 15 May 2009
Tories side-step blame for years of abusing the system ?
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 postDelete postEdit Post
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 postDelete postEdit Post
Friday 10 April 2009
LABOUR'S FURTHER ED FUNDING FIASCO
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.
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
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
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
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Are you concerned ?
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”
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
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.
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.
Saturday 7 March 2009
SOUTH DORSET CRITICISM OF BLACKLISTING TACTICS
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.
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
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.
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.
Thursday 26 February 2009
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.
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.
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.!
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.!
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.
.
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.
.
Tuesday 10 February 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday 15 January 2009
Please protest against Israeli Aggression
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 !
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
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 !
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 !
Sunday 11 January 2009
CLEGG CALLS FOR MILIBAND TO FACE THE FACTS ABOUT GAZA
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.
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.
Friday 2 January 2009
Conservatives at Dorset County Risk Huge Insurance payouts
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.
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
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.........
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.........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
