Will Egypt be forced to embrace secularism in light of their democratic uprising?
Is one of the inevitable results of a social liberal democracy, embracing freedom of citizens, democratic voting rights and transparency of government a move towards secularisation?
As Egypt, still a storming nation under millitary rule following citizens' successful uprising this year, dissolve into religious clashes, there is a wider context within which we can view social unrest, war and religion.
Christians and Muslims clashed in Cairo, over an issue which is still not clear but seems to be linked to interfaith marriage and religious conversion.
When viewing such clashes from a Western perspective, the drama is shocking, and the resulting deaths more so. I am liberal in that I consider people to be entitled to practice whatever religion they chose, but I have the luxury of choice.
In the West we see democracy as a founding principle of society, forgetting it is a extravagance we have shaped from a mere political foundation where citizens have equal say in governance, to liberal appreciation and understanding of wider democracy in socio-economic, cultural and religious practices.
When second Gulf war commenced, I commented on the imprudence of enforcing democracy on a nation governed by a religion that did not recognise equal rights for citizens. It struck me as being a retrospective mistake, rather like imposing Christianity through the British Empire on aboriginal countries, thereby creating confusion, clashes and potentially war over the principles in a socio-political climate in flux.
As democracy evolves, we now see a good example of how democracy is not merely a political ideology, but shapes an entire culture around rights, entitlement and liberty that have a subsequent impact on the cultural practices of a country.
An even wider picture is what the religious clashes may indicate in the Arab Spring Uprisings as a whole. Egypt was not the first to protest, but was the first leader to submit to the pressure.
With the inevitable removal of Gaddafi in Libya, and subsequent cycles in Yemen, Damascus, Bahraim and the Ivory Coast, are we in fact going to be exposed to more violence in these coutnries as they battle for a wider socio-political understanding of democracy across all strands?
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
6 May 2011
Carnage at the Polls
There was clearly a misunderstanding in the sheer weight of public loathing towards the Lib Dems in the UK.
The Lib Dems believed, some would say correctly, that their huge investment in community engagement, the time and energy they volunteer in making their wards and boroughs a better place, would mean the public could see beyond the politics and see the real people.
Grassroots has saved the Lib Dems in the past, and devoted local campaigners had no real insight that this election would be any different.
Some would say the loss of Sheffield City Council and other Northern Territories was inevitable given the MPs unpopularity, but to those who held minority oppositions, who were lib dems but much more; community wardens, forum chairs, trustees and other hardworking volunteers, did not expect a lateral effect from National opinion.
Price of Government
Perhaps this has not happened to the Lib Dems on such a grand scale because they have never held this sort of position in government.
All of a sudden, their local-level popularity is focused on more than just how many recycling boxes they can sort out and how many people they know by name. The "politics" of the situation has caught up with them and it has not been kind.
Government's Price
The question remaining, as Conservatives steam ahead in the polls and Lib Dems fall into third, fourth and fifth place, is what effect will the devastation on the grass roots have?
Some are calling for Clegg's blood, but this is unlikely, despite posturing by other MPs. The Lib Dems appear to be bound to the coalition with no chance of escape.
Will the network of community focused lib dems crawl away then? Will they, as Milliband prompts, give up on the phoenix and sign up to the rose? Or perhaps the centre-right will chose the scribble on a stick.
Or, as is more likely, the shattered parties will regroup after a defragment, and plan more effectively for the next one.
Shattered Ideologies
The analogy I used as the Lib Dems went from opposition to fourth place in our Council was to sculpt Mount Rushmore using only a toothpick. Sometimes it doesnt matter how much you enjoy something, if you are getting no-where, it is tempting to give up.
And indeed, some may.
But realistically, the Liberal Democrats are stronger than that. They have gone from being the ashes to being the phoenix, and like the phoenix, they can rise again.
If there is one redeeming feature in local grass roots - it is the dedication and loyalty to their values that prevails. The Lib Dems are not Labour, they are not Conservative and they are not Green. They are built on a structure of premises on Liberalism and Democracy, and, most keenly, they are tenacious. Or they would jump ship with ease.
Perseverance, tenacity and a dedication to core values will maintain the majority of the party in spite of casualties.
Greek Myths
I far prefer the image of the phoenix rising again, but it should be noted there is an alternative Greek Myth Analogy.
Prometheus stole fire from the Gods. In this comparison, the Lib Dems attempted to share power with the Tories. They lapped with the Gods and they have been punished like Gods. They may be bound to an eternal hell, with not a phoenix but an eagle pecking their liver on a daily basis, as punishment for their audacity.
Or perhaps, an even better, less bird-focused observation would be that of Sparta. Perhaps the Lib dems, with their dedication to value and grass roots, are like Spartacus rising up to challenge the rich and the noble over their oppression. And perhaps you have to lose a few battles before you win the war.
The Lib Dems believed, some would say correctly, that their huge investment in community engagement, the time and energy they volunteer in making their wards and boroughs a better place, would mean the public could see beyond the politics and see the real people.
Grassroots has saved the Lib Dems in the past, and devoted local campaigners had no real insight that this election would be any different.
Some would say the loss of Sheffield City Council and other Northern Territories was inevitable given the MPs unpopularity, but to those who held minority oppositions, who were lib dems but much more; community wardens, forum chairs, trustees and other hardworking volunteers, did not expect a lateral effect from National opinion.
Price of Government
Perhaps this has not happened to the Lib Dems on such a grand scale because they have never held this sort of position in government.
All of a sudden, their local-level popularity is focused on more than just how many recycling boxes they can sort out and how many people they know by name. The "politics" of the situation has caught up with them and it has not been kind.
Government's Price
The question remaining, as Conservatives steam ahead in the polls and Lib Dems fall into third, fourth and fifth place, is what effect will the devastation on the grass roots have?
Some are calling for Clegg's blood, but this is unlikely, despite posturing by other MPs. The Lib Dems appear to be bound to the coalition with no chance of escape.
Will the network of community focused lib dems crawl away then? Will they, as Milliband prompts, give up on the phoenix and sign up to the rose? Or perhaps the centre-right will chose the scribble on a stick.
Or, as is more likely, the shattered parties will regroup after a defragment, and plan more effectively for the next one.
Shattered Ideologies
The analogy I used as the Lib Dems went from opposition to fourth place in our Council was to sculpt Mount Rushmore using only a toothpick. Sometimes it doesnt matter how much you enjoy something, if you are getting no-where, it is tempting to give up.
And indeed, some may.
But realistically, the Liberal Democrats are stronger than that. They have gone from being the ashes to being the phoenix, and like the phoenix, they can rise again.
If there is one redeeming feature in local grass roots - it is the dedication and loyalty to their values that prevails. The Lib Dems are not Labour, they are not Conservative and they are not Green. They are built on a structure of premises on Liberalism and Democracy, and, most keenly, they are tenacious. Or they would jump ship with ease.
Perseverance, tenacity and a dedication to core values will maintain the majority of the party in spite of casualties.
Greek Myths
I far prefer the image of the phoenix rising again, but it should be noted there is an alternative Greek Myth Analogy.
Prometheus stole fire from the Gods. In this comparison, the Lib Dems attempted to share power with the Tories. They lapped with the Gods and they have been punished like Gods. They may be bound to an eternal hell, with not a phoenix but an eagle pecking their liver on a daily basis, as punishment for their audacity.
Or perhaps, an even better, less bird-focused observation would be that of Sparta. Perhaps the Lib dems, with their dedication to value and grass roots, are like Spartacus rising up to challenge the rich and the noble over their oppression. And perhaps you have to lose a few battles before you win the war.
3 May 2011
One Last Vote Yes to AV Push
There are some very astute points made by Armando Iannucci in today's Evening Standard.
'AV is only as complicated as making toast' was my particular favourite.
He, quite rightly, denounces exaggerations made by each side, saying politics has dissolved into 'flinging custard pies at each other'.
In spite of his witty criticism, he still believes people should vote Yes on Thursday.
Social Malaise
With the general election last year came an epidemic of inertia over the British Public with regards to politics.
The failure to achieve a majority for any party has left a country dissolute, feeling leaderless and provided a sense of fait accompli to anything the coalition puts through.
With economic issues that aren't quite a recession, people respond rather like clouds that aren't quite rain. They are tuned out and consider the future relatively hopeless.
However, this malaise is not bad enough to stir passion at the hint of change. The revolutionary spirit has been ground down by 12 months of public sector cuts and private sector price rises.
Had the referendum been offered in 2010, when people were enraged by moats, wisteria and holidays on expenses, we would be seeing a very different approach to the changing of politics.
But the time has dragged, and while the Yes camp have attempted to recapture that spark to rejuvenate the possibility of change, it has fallen on deaf ears.
The Cracks
There are, however, cracks in this self protective shell that seems so anti change. The young.
It is the seizing of the digital media industry and the youth not yet jaundiced by years of working routine who have cried out and protested and demonstrated. As they have grown, from Bebo to UK Uncut, so has hope, around politically motivated youngsters with the energy of the young as well as moral conviction.
They may lack experience, wisdom or a wider understanding of the political landscape, but they hold in their hands the opportunity to change the entire face of politics in Britain.
This is not just a referendum on a voting system
I believe in power to the people. If the young who have seized upon social injustices and campaigned so rigorously against them, were to have the power of swinging the referendum put in their hands, they would not stop there. The tenacity the youth have shown would propel us to a new level of engagement in politics.
While they may not, as Iannucci points out, make an enormous change, the subtle shift in the balance of power could be enough to engage a new generation of politicians determined to make a difference
So take the initiative to vote Yes to AV on Thursday
Objectivity of Justice in the Death of Bin Laden
Most left wing commentaries consider firstly the demonstrations of joy in America distasteful, and the killing of Obama not a delight but one form of resolution.
As Geoffrey Robinson comments in the i paper, Bin Laden should have been put on trial.
Even I, in my cynicism, listened to Obama's speech and wondered if the American version of mission accomplished was intended to be death. When he ordered the millitary make locating Bin Laden a priority, did he in fact mean the death of Bin Laden is a priority.
It is clear from Obama's speech he ordered capture or death, but this is (relatively) easy to state retrospectively.
Osama Bin Laden's death could be viewed as an appropriate ending, he started a 'war' with slaughter and it ended with slaughter.
But a trial, whcih Robertson argues would have put more nails in the coffin of Al Queda, would have been farcical at best. There is no objectivity to be had, and it would have inflamed the West and the East as the dance was played out.
Of course Osama could not be found innocent, by any judge. But by having him proclaiming fundementalist justification, he would have increased his messaniac range and sparked more support, extending the end of the decade of terror.
This is largely what happened with the trial of Saddam, and his death at the end simply provided further martyrdom.
However, I would still prefer justice in court to a video camera death, which still leaves a nasty taste in my throat as America rejoices.
--
Sent from my mobile device
The Whipping Frenzy of AV
A lot of people are predicting the end of Ed Milliband if the referendum on the alternative vote falls on Thursday.
It should be noted that out of the three main political parties, only Cameron has got his house in order.
Clegg is regarded by the discontented in the yellow camp of being a poor leader, due to his and his whips' inabiity to get a solid line from his party, on AV or anything else. The papers may not say it directly, but they circle him like vultures.
Milliband also prevails as unable to command his party. The 'old school' Labour MPs, the ones whose names are the most familiar, Prescott, Becket and Blunket, are not only demonstrating their discontent with AV, but also with their party's leader.
One wonders why such a revolt did not occur under Blair or Brown.
After all, Labour proposed AV in their '97 manifesto, and there were no platform disputes then.
However, it should be noted, the same Labour dinosaurs that were voting for Dave Milliband in the leadership contest, and were thwarted (ironically) by AV.
The Unions, then as well as now, hold the balance of power in AV. But there was less in-fighting in the Red camp then, and one wonders if Ed is any better at whipping the Unions than he is at whipping his MPs.
There is still everything to play for.
--
Sent from my mobile device
2 Apr 2011
My Submissions to BBC Radio 4 Any Questions
1. Is the news that the Daily and Sunday Sport are going into receivership an indirect win for gender equality in the UK?
I for one am delighted that my newsagents will not be adorning borderline pornography in the Newspaper aisles, now I can only hope for the same fate to become of Nuts, GQ etc.
2. When we impose democratic regime on other countries, does this include lack of tolerance of freedom of political expression?
As per the attacks on UN Workers in Afghanistan yesterday, we are imposing a democratic regime on Middle Eastern Countries but that should not contravene religious expression, and when such religious expression causes such dire human rights breaches, we must reexamine the social regulations we are thrusting upon countries.
I have concerns that History will look back on the Western imposition of democracy on Middle Eastern Nations rather like we now look back on the British Empire imposing Christianity on the Chinese.
Even though we consider that "democracy is not an ideal political system, but it's better than the alternatives".
I for one am delighted that my newsagents will not be adorning borderline pornography in the Newspaper aisles, now I can only hope for the same fate to become of Nuts, GQ etc.
2. When we impose democratic regime on other countries, does this include lack of tolerance of freedom of political expression?
As per the attacks on UN Workers in Afghanistan yesterday, we are imposing a democratic regime on Middle Eastern Countries but that should not contravene religious expression, and when such religious expression causes such dire human rights breaches, we must reexamine the social regulations we are thrusting upon countries.
I have concerns that History will look back on the Western imposition of democracy on Middle Eastern Nations rather like we now look back on the British Empire imposing Christianity on the Chinese.
Even though we consider that "democracy is not an ideal political system, but it's better than the alternatives".
14 Mar 2011
Conspiracy and Pacifism: Libya
I was appalled to read in The Evening Standard tonight about potential lobbying by the British Government to allow the EU to provide Libyan Residents with weapons.
The ever-present war in the media at the moment is constant chipping at the well being of civilisation. The 24 hour news culture of western society is presenting all conflicts in the Middle East as battles of democracy, adopting a polarised understanding of conflict. This is, I am sure, intended to make it palatable for the general public, but also translates into a sensationalist and hyperreal interpretation of a conflict of which we, in reality, know very little about.
I am not defending dictators, I am simply stating that media representation of war is very different from the reality and history that has led to the current situations.
And handing out weapons is not a solution.
If there are children fighting in the play ground, does the teacher say "punch each other til one of you wins"?
Of course not. The teacher separates the fighters, discusses independently and then mediates, attempting to form an objective and external presence that will allow a resolution to be reached.
At the moment, Britain is behaving like the school kids jeering the fight from the sidelines. And jumping in to assist whomever they support.
I genuinely do not believe that arms resolve anything. It is pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.
Media Manipulation
The Hyperreal is a fascinating topic and we are seeing it employed this year in a form of persuasion that I haven't observed before.
One observation of Vietnam was the way in which every moment was potentially televised, and as a result the public grew in unease and eventually demonstration against the atrocities. Here the media was constructed and worked against the people.
However, the opposite is happening with Libya.
We are being shown furious clips, disjointed hand camera work and reporting messages from Twitter. This all contributes to a perception of extreme terror and helplessness. Shown on 24hr news, the public is inevitably persuaded that these clips are the truth, and therefore all contrary accounts must be incorrect or lunacy.
Again, I am not justifying genocide or slaughter, but do we have all of the facts presented to us?
Or are the public being hand fed an interpretation of conflict that endears them to justifying invasion, committing ground troops and other, spectacular heroic gestures?
Iraq and the Great Comparison
The acrimonious disputes over Iraq waged in Britain for a long time. The general concept is that the archetypal left were, and are, anti the invasion, for they were informed that the motivation was weapons of mass destruction, and persuaded it was really oil.
The ongoing Hague hearings will have no significant outcome, no more than an internal review, but they dredge up the bitterness at every turn, the significant lack of evidence of WMDs.
So, with my marketing head on, how would I want to persuade Britain that war with a country that had the single largest oil export market was both justified and necessary?
Well, as it was the "left" I would need to convince, I would have to appeal to a sense of justice, democracy and fairness. A persuader of great need, that the left can empathise with and justify.
And a consistent, relentless media campaign that puts across a tangible message of good and evil, like some obscure role-play game, would be the perfect tool.
Dear reader, I am not assuming this is an enormous conspiracy theory. I am very much aware that there is real conflict in operation. However, I do not believe in coincidence, horoscopes or fate. I do believe in opportunism, risk taking and gambling as methods of human manipulation.
And what I see appears to be an opportune manipulation when the moment arose. A gamble, yes, but many gambles pay off. Especially if you coordinate it well enough.
And, to provide some element of persuasion for those of you who think I am a crackpot, please ask yourselves why we are not demanding a no-fly zone on Bahraim. Or The Ivory Coast. Or Somalia. Or, indeed, any other country where there is dramatic and life threatening civil war, dictators, raw battles for life and death and many, many pleas of democracy.
The ever-present war in the media at the moment is constant chipping at the well being of civilisation. The 24 hour news culture of western society is presenting all conflicts in the Middle East as battles of democracy, adopting a polarised understanding of conflict. This is, I am sure, intended to make it palatable for the general public, but also translates into a sensationalist and hyperreal interpretation of a conflict of which we, in reality, know very little about.
I am not defending dictators, I am simply stating that media representation of war is very different from the reality and history that has led to the current situations.
And handing out weapons is not a solution.
If there are children fighting in the play ground, does the teacher say "punch each other til one of you wins"?
Of course not. The teacher separates the fighters, discusses independently and then mediates, attempting to form an objective and external presence that will allow a resolution to be reached.
At the moment, Britain is behaving like the school kids jeering the fight from the sidelines. And jumping in to assist whomever they support.
I genuinely do not believe that arms resolve anything. It is pouring petrol on a smouldering fire.
Media Manipulation
The Hyperreal is a fascinating topic and we are seeing it employed this year in a form of persuasion that I haven't observed before.
One observation of Vietnam was the way in which every moment was potentially televised, and as a result the public grew in unease and eventually demonstration against the atrocities. Here the media was constructed and worked against the people.
However, the opposite is happening with Libya.
We are being shown furious clips, disjointed hand camera work and reporting messages from Twitter. This all contributes to a perception of extreme terror and helplessness. Shown on 24hr news, the public is inevitably persuaded that these clips are the truth, and therefore all contrary accounts must be incorrect or lunacy.
Again, I am not justifying genocide or slaughter, but do we have all of the facts presented to us?
Or are the public being hand fed an interpretation of conflict that endears them to justifying invasion, committing ground troops and other, spectacular heroic gestures?
Iraq and the Great Comparison
The acrimonious disputes over Iraq waged in Britain for a long time. The general concept is that the archetypal left were, and are, anti the invasion, for they were informed that the motivation was weapons of mass destruction, and persuaded it was really oil.
The ongoing Hague hearings will have no significant outcome, no more than an internal review, but they dredge up the bitterness at every turn, the significant lack of evidence of WMDs.
So, with my marketing head on, how would I want to persuade Britain that war with a country that had the single largest oil export market was both justified and necessary?
Well, as it was the "left" I would need to convince, I would have to appeal to a sense of justice, democracy and fairness. A persuader of great need, that the left can empathise with and justify.
And a consistent, relentless media campaign that puts across a tangible message of good and evil, like some obscure role-play game, would be the perfect tool.
Dear reader, I am not assuming this is an enormous conspiracy theory. I am very much aware that there is real conflict in operation. However, I do not believe in coincidence, horoscopes or fate. I do believe in opportunism, risk taking and gambling as methods of human manipulation.
And what I see appears to be an opportune manipulation when the moment arose. A gamble, yes, but many gambles pay off. Especially if you coordinate it well enough.
And, to provide some element of persuasion for those of you who think I am a crackpot, please ask yourselves why we are not demanding a no-fly zone on Bahraim. Or The Ivory Coast. Or Somalia. Or, indeed, any other country where there is dramatic and life threatening civil war, dictators, raw battles for life and death and many, many pleas of democracy.
24 Feb 2011
Clarifying My Pacifist Views on the Collective Events in the Middle East
I am inclined to add "Pacifist" to my tag line. Yet, if you had asked me before this week, I would have been inclined to say I had no opinion.
Watching Civil War
The "domino effect" we have seen this year, a running commentary making 24hr news more like a dystopic thriller, has become both hyper real and surreal.
However, my refining of my own opinion has been shaped by this occurrence. It is an abomination to a utilitarian, to consider mass pain and suffering in countries, it appears to negate the greatest good, but that is simply me being risk averse when looking at society.
I disagree with the arms trade in principle, it is too great a risk. But arms is a global economy, and speculation has been made about how many arms the UK supplied to Gadaffi, and to Mubarack and to any other "regimes" that may fall in the next year.
But even though there is severe human rights abuse being reported, I am uncomfortable with the idea of invasion, conquering, putting right or which ever spin the army who does so chooses to use.
The danger to me is firstly, the political elements of war. We saw in Iraq, which the majority of people opposed, the political motivation superseding a social welfare need. The politicians may have claimed people's rights were a motivation, they may have sort justification in Sadam's oppression of the people, but the reality is our politicians were motivated by Oil. Or capitalism, as an overarching premise.
We now see horrendous abuses of human rights, far worse than Iraq, but not quite on a Polpot level, and information reveals that Libya is the largest exporter of crude oil in the world.
And, all of a sudden, the people who waxed lyrical philosophies of democracy about Egypt, but did very little, are travelling around the middle east, meeting with the UN and flying troops to Malta.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's pure cynicism.
I abhor human rights violations, but ultimately, the idea of breaching morals with invasion and conquering, almost appals me more.
Ministry of Truth
There has been a subtle shifting in the nuance of the term "protest".
The word is defined as
However, the colloquial interpretation has shifted.
When students protested, older (and wiser) people compared them to those who protested over human rights in the 1960's. Pejoratively.
Now we see the true levels of protest in the Middle East, in this so called domino effect, as a ripple of democracy spreads and people challenge their autocratic leaders.
The changing of a word's meaning is frightening, and can create a pattern of emulation. Words take on new meanings in dialect, but those words then inspire actions, motivate and inspire people to embrace and utilise the new meanings of the words. If protest no longer means civil, if protest now means challenging oppression, what does that mean for protest in countries without oppression on such a grand scale?
Setting Up Custom and Practice
The person who set themselves on fire in Tunisia established the same act to commence the Egyptian revolution, and then in Libya, and Yemen and a handful more. While it is not a rule, it is logical to preclude all demonstrations with self harm to establish a point. Harm to myself is less important, is less severe, than a democracy for the nation.
By such a grandiose stance, there is an established baseline for any protest to be considered "seriously" in the future.
Now the TUC protests in March, what is the likely outcome?
We have already seen an escalation of activity by students and by #ukuncut; and an escalation of police tactics in response. A spate of arrests and civil cases.
What precedent does this set for UK protests in 2011? Especially with the Middle East providing a structure to follow.
Selling Arms
There are several things that strike me about Cameron selling arms in the Middle East at the moment. First, the inappropriateness of the act, second, his strategic intention and third, his sheer temerity.
When someone told me Cameron was touring the Middle East with arms dealers, I thought it was a joke. Of all the insensitive actions..!
It translates to protesters as "UK is supplying dictators with arms" and to alleged dictators "UK is supplying protesters with arms".
To countries not experiencing protests on this scale, the UK becomes a potential avenue of support. To countries outside of the middle east, they see the UK as a major player in a potential globalised war.
This is Cameron's motivation. And, quite simply, identifies exactly where he stands politically in the uprisings. Cameron appears to consider that if he shows part of his hand, he can buddy up with who ever invades and gets the oil returns once the country has been regimentalised to a format of democracy he preaches.
That makes him no better than Blair. An Amoral Opportunist.
Worse, is his attitude. He is not apologising. He is not defending his actions. He is sauntering out to the Middle East and saying, hey, look at the UK. This is, admittedly, a common Tory Trait.
In the coalition, we see the Lib Dems apologising, justifying and working to make up ground, while the Conservatives march ahead without so much as an apology for their actions.
This attitude implies a lack of responsibility. The Lib Dems identify with democracy, utilitarianism and the consequences of their actions. The Tories do not, and, especially in relation to the Middle East, is a concerning trait.
Moss on a Rolling Stone
People have asked for my opinion. When I read Libya was the largest exporter of crude oil, I predicted other countries would be sniffing around this like dogs around a bitch in heat. I was right.
However, I'm not Edgar Cacaye, but I would anticipate historians will not be able to see the start of what happens clearly. Rather like the cold war, we are in the midst of events of grave proportions, where things are escalating at such a rate and this is just a the beginning stage. Where it will end, I can't say, but I fear war and unfair treatment, and I would anticipate, reluctantly, we will see both in the next few years as a result of the protests in Tunisia.
Watching Civil War
The "domino effect" we have seen this year, a running commentary making 24hr news more like a dystopic thriller, has become both hyper real and surreal.
However, my refining of my own opinion has been shaped by this occurrence. It is an abomination to a utilitarian, to consider mass pain and suffering in countries, it appears to negate the greatest good, but that is simply me being risk averse when looking at society.
I disagree with the arms trade in principle, it is too great a risk. But arms is a global economy, and speculation has been made about how many arms the UK supplied to Gadaffi, and to Mubarack and to any other "regimes" that may fall in the next year.
But even though there is severe human rights abuse being reported, I am uncomfortable with the idea of invasion, conquering, putting right or which ever spin the army who does so chooses to use.
The danger to me is firstly, the political elements of war. We saw in Iraq, which the majority of people opposed, the political motivation superseding a social welfare need. The politicians may have claimed people's rights were a motivation, they may have sort justification in Sadam's oppression of the people, but the reality is our politicians were motivated by Oil. Or capitalism, as an overarching premise.
We now see horrendous abuses of human rights, far worse than Iraq, but not quite on a Polpot level, and information reveals that Libya is the largest exporter of crude oil in the world.
And, all of a sudden, the people who waxed lyrical philosophies of democracy about Egypt, but did very little, are travelling around the middle east, meeting with the UN and flying troops to Malta.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's pure cynicism.
I abhor human rights violations, but ultimately, the idea of breaching morals with invasion and conquering, almost appals me more.
Ministry of Truth
There has been a subtle shifting in the nuance of the term "protest".
The word is defined as
1. To express strong objection.
2. To make an earnest avowal or affirmation.
However, the colloquial interpretation has shifted.
When students protested, older (and wiser) people compared them to those who protested over human rights in the 1960's. Pejoratively.
Now we see the true levels of protest in the Middle East, in this so called domino effect, as a ripple of democracy spreads and people challenge their autocratic leaders.
The changing of a word's meaning is frightening, and can create a pattern of emulation. Words take on new meanings in dialect, but those words then inspire actions, motivate and inspire people to embrace and utilise the new meanings of the words. If protest no longer means civil, if protest now means challenging oppression, what does that mean for protest in countries without oppression on such a grand scale?
Setting Up Custom and Practice
The person who set themselves on fire in Tunisia established the same act to commence the Egyptian revolution, and then in Libya, and Yemen and a handful more. While it is not a rule, it is logical to preclude all demonstrations with self harm to establish a point. Harm to myself is less important, is less severe, than a democracy for the nation.
By such a grandiose stance, there is an established baseline for any protest to be considered "seriously" in the future.
Now the TUC protests in March, what is the likely outcome?
We have already seen an escalation of activity by students and by #ukuncut; and an escalation of police tactics in response. A spate of arrests and civil cases.
What precedent does this set for UK protests in 2011? Especially with the Middle East providing a structure to follow.
Selling Arms
There are several things that strike me about Cameron selling arms in the Middle East at the moment. First, the inappropriateness of the act, second, his strategic intention and third, his sheer temerity.
When someone told me Cameron was touring the Middle East with arms dealers, I thought it was a joke. Of all the insensitive actions..!
It translates to protesters as "UK is supplying dictators with arms" and to alleged dictators "UK is supplying protesters with arms".
To countries not experiencing protests on this scale, the UK becomes a potential avenue of support. To countries outside of the middle east, they see the UK as a major player in a potential globalised war.
This is Cameron's motivation. And, quite simply, identifies exactly where he stands politically in the uprisings. Cameron appears to consider that if he shows part of his hand, he can buddy up with who ever invades and gets the oil returns once the country has been regimentalised to a format of democracy he preaches.
That makes him no better than Blair. An Amoral Opportunist.
Worse, is his attitude. He is not apologising. He is not defending his actions. He is sauntering out to the Middle East and saying, hey, look at the UK. This is, admittedly, a common Tory Trait.
In the coalition, we see the Lib Dems apologising, justifying and working to make up ground, while the Conservatives march ahead without so much as an apology for their actions.
This attitude implies a lack of responsibility. The Lib Dems identify with democracy, utilitarianism and the consequences of their actions. The Tories do not, and, especially in relation to the Middle East, is a concerning trait.
Moss on a Rolling Stone
People have asked for my opinion. When I read Libya was the largest exporter of crude oil, I predicted other countries would be sniffing around this like dogs around a bitch in heat. I was right.
However, I'm not Edgar Cacaye, but I would anticipate historians will not be able to see the start of what happens clearly. Rather like the cold war, we are in the midst of events of grave proportions, where things are escalating at such a rate and this is just a the beginning stage. Where it will end, I can't say, but I fear war and unfair treatment, and I would anticipate, reluctantly, we will see both in the next few years as a result of the protests in Tunisia.
11 Feb 2011
Apparent Victories Are Simply Short Changing the Public
I am fascinated by the Coercive techniques we are seeing used by the Tory-led coalition government.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
Initially, I have been aggravated by kneejerk political reactions by David Cameron. His "Knife crime" policy reversal in light of tabloid pressure is a typical example.
Pre election predications on Knife Crime had the Tories arguing for custodial sentences. Yet these were abandoned under the coalition agreement (and, as one tweeter acknowledged, there were no demonstrations in London over this pledge breaking).
However, in a week of reactive responses to political situations, it is interesting to see coercian tactics subtly implemented accross the UK.
Bankers Bonuses
The Mirror headline "Cameron Caves in Over Bankers Bonuses" is epitome of a u turn in political terms.
While the Murdoch press were keenly promoting this positive spin, there is a clear message being presented to the people. They have been awarded a victory. A win, a success.
But what exactly have they won? As the more eloquent and articulate members of journalism and blogosphere are identifying, the system on Bankers Bonuses proposed this week is
Lord Oakshott presented a coherent argument, identifying the flaws in the plan. Yet he was quietly removed from the front lines by the Coalition, and while Vince Cable continues to admonish a war on bankers, faith in grass roots is very low and his comments have gone unmentioned in most mainstream press.
You see, if you threaten to do nothing, and then offer a little something, most people will take the little something as a win, not realising they had the power to negotiate the full deal.
Duped over Forrests
Bankers Bonuses, which caused vitriolic rows on BBC Question TIme last night is not the only apparent U Turn that has used this method. We see today an apparent change of heart over forrests.
Cameron proposed selling forrests off to private companies to raise funds. The greener populus exploded in venom, hashtags and questions at Prime Minister's Question Time.
As many politicians commented, the procedure was open to "consultation". A word which is more about fait accompli than anything else.
Consultation, which may have shown 100% of people against the sales, is now quietly being run after announcements today Some Forrest Sales will be Halted.
The key word there is "some". The public will quietly roll over and stop their moaning, and 85% of forrests will still be sold. Without the public outcry, the consultation will be barely responded to and there will be no legal basis for challenging the sale on these grounds.
So the public get a little bit of cake, when they could have had the whole thing.
What will we see in the next four years? A half hearted reform of the schools system? How about a quiet overturn on petrol prices?
Distraction
Not only do these coercive techniques quieten public noise, but they allow large scale reform to go ahead practically unchallenged.
While people were celebrating Osbourne's apparent change of mind on Bankers Bonuses, they missed the small announcement petrol prices would go up by 5p per litre in April.
While we celebrate over saving minimal forrests, we may be missing out on shocking proposals to leave the COnvention of Human Rights, or on Gove's disasterous court defeat over Building for Schools cancellations.
Of course, Mubarak's resignation is a significant event most people will be watching. But be aware that you may also be missing out on democratic opportunity to overturn unfair policy and legislation, and, ultimately, you should never settle for half servings in the name of victory.
6 Feb 2011
Egypt and Euphemisms for Western Invasion
One can hardly avoid the uprising in Egypt in the last week.
However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.
Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.
However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.
Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.
Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.
Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.
I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.
Liberalism v Democracy
To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.
I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.
But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.
As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.
Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.
Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?
Euphemisms,
Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.
And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.
If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.
Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.
A Final Note
I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.
However, I have serious objections to the strategic and motivated comments by the West.
Tony Blair, the most ironically titled man in the world as Middle East Peace Envoy, has been rendered to the back shelves of Radio 5 Live "taxi driver opinion" debates on the matter, which is more than he deserves.
However, Obama has been waxing lyrical in an attempt to win another Nobel for speculation, which, in my opinion, is simply preparing strategic and dangerous posturing.
Naturally, Europe cannot help but get their diplomats involved. And with this meeting comes a dangerous step.
Perhaps I am cynical. But we have seen too many invasions into other countries by the West with a hidden agenda, based on spurious justification of Human Rights, or some other politically motivated plan, which ultimately results in aggressive, nonsensical and aggressive wars.
Ultimately, the West has no place in designing another country's sociopolitical scope. We have no mandate to waltz in and enforce rules we live by. In this case, we are no better than the Europeans invading Easter Island, or the British enforcing Christianity on the Chinese.
I appreciate the need for diplomacy and fingers on the pulse. But I live in fear that we will stick our noses in, like NIMBYs, to ensure we reap any benefit that is to be had.
Liberalism v Democracy
To digress, this is the great conundrum of Liberal Democracy.
I believe in people power, I believe people will decide. If people are imposed upon with a overtly strict regime, people uprise. As we have seen in Tunisia, in Iran, in many other countries in the Middle East.
But I am too liberal to enforce democracy on people.
As the saying goes, Democracy may not be the best political system, but it is better than the alternatives.
Once upon a time, the West felt Christianity was the way to live, and implemented accordingly, dangerously ploughing through culture and societies accross the world. The surreptious aim, of course, was a Roman style obliteration of descent from the norm. Empire building. Fundementalism, if you like.
Is democracy the 21st Century's "fundementalism" in the West?
Euphemisms,
Getting back on track, individual countries should have no mandate for interfering in social regimes, unless those regimes are great oppressions of human rights.
And even then, it is the UN that should tackle and address the issue.
If human rights were realy the motivation in "diplomatic talks" (today's new euphenism), then US would have had such over Polpot, over Mugabe and over many, many other crises accross the globe.
Which brings me to believe that such talks are motivated by an entirely different mandate, and threaten to bring more harm to the middle east as it seeks to shape it's self, than they could acheive on their own.
A Final Note
I completely support the uprising in Egypt, where it is peaceful. However, while I watch, I do not interfere.
7 Jan 2011
How Britain is Failing Their Older People - Sheltered Housing
Resident Wardens have been removed from rented Sheltered Housing and this has left vulnerable, elderly residents to suffer serious consequences
In reading this please bear in mind that approximately 70% of the residents of rented Sheltered Housing are in receipt of Housing Benefit. The remaining 30% are what is termed “self funding”. Problems are arising in the Housing Benefit group and they have a knock on effect for all residents.
Prior to 2003, for those in receipt of Housing Benefit it also paid for the services of the Warden.
In 2002 the Government took out a Judicial Review to determine if it was legal to pay for the Warden from Housing benefit. The answer was it was not. In response the Government split the housing benefit for residents, one portion still paid in Housing Benefit for what is termed “bricks and mortar” . The other portion was called “support services”. This latter portion was re-located into the Supporting People budgets
There are approximately 149 Supporting People commissioners across the country and they are usually located with local government. Inter alia, their remit includes drug addicts and people with learning difficulties. The services provided by Supporting People are needs based, aimed at a specific problem which, when solved, they moves on. This brings Supporting People Commissioners into conflict with Sheltered Housing which is a tenure based support service and is for the life of the tenant.
Rather than amending the Supporting People needs based remit, to accommodate Sheltered Housing, the alternative solution of attempting to engineer Sheltered Housing resident needs to fall into line with Supporting People has become the only option.
Initially Sheltered Housing was ring fenced within the Supporting People budget, but this ceased in 2010 and Sheltered Housing became a part of the annual bidding wars for funds within specific local authorities.
There is a possibility that Housing Providers can opt out of supplying a Warden a service altogether. In the event Supporting People can provide what is termed 'Floating Support'.
This is not an alternative Warden service but is a community wide service. Many residents do not qualify according to the qualifying criterion set by Supporting People and receive no visits at all. In most cases Floating Support is provided on the basis of , usually, a visit once a week, once every two weeks, or once a month. As mentioned before it is only needs based and it is not envisaged that this type of support would be for a period of more than two years.
The contract to furnish Floating Support does not necessarily belong to the providers of Sheltered Housing, it can now be contracted outside of ownership.
Trickery is being used in asking residents to fill in a Support Plan, without discussing the full implications, and this is later used to reduce Supporting People reimbursements to Housing Providers.
Sheltered Housing UK say that residents made their own Support Plan, which consisted of the service on offer to them when they opted to live in Sheltered Housing, and this support is a part of their contract.
Usually Floating Support is managed on a staff rota system, thus its operatives never get to know the people they are dealing with. In Kent, we have heard of one such operative who had one hundred visits per day. Locally they call it the knock and run service.
People who moved into Sheltered Housing, and, according to our statistics many have sold up or given up their own home because they expected the security of a Warden, have virtually been stabbed in the back and they are not normally of sufficient wealth, or health to reverse their choice now.
The providers of Sheltered Housing who, hitherto, gleaned Housing Benefit for the provision of Wardens from the 70% of their residents who received it, have suffered a loss of income. Their response has been to remove or curtail their Warden service, against the wishes of a majority of their residents.
Section 105 of the Housing Act, 1985 calls upon social landlords to hold consultations with their residents before they make changes to the management of the properties they live in. Many Housing Providers did not consult at all, going ahead and removed, or changed Warden duties to suit their profit expectations.
Consultations, on face value many take to mean that some kind of democratic process has, or is to take place, and they are wrong. Consultations cannot be legally enforced, and there is suspicion that some Housing Providers have held them to satisfy the Housing Act, as above, but have absolutely no intention of acceding to any residents views, unless they coincide exactly with the plan they have in mind.
There have been many Parliamentary Questions put by MPs in the past and; to each the Government field the same answer:- The Government cannot control local government and it is up to Local Government Supporting People, and the complainant must approach them.
This is a slight of hand, a fork of tongue, and buck passing. It was the previous Government, but compounded by the present coalition, which produced this legislation and neither of them carried out any impact assessment when they passed the support element of Sheltered Housing over to local area Supporting People, nor did they exercise a common duty of care.
Moreover, Supporting People is funded from central taxation, so it follows that Central Government, have every right to determine how that money is spent, indeed they have a duty to see how it is spent.
In the past, three of these cases have been taken to a Judicial Review, Eastbourne, Barnet, Portsmouth, and each was found against the Housing Provider. Judicial Reviews per se are investigations into the procedural processes which took place, and where these processes are found to be legally incorrect, the Judge can order that they be put right by going back to the beginning. Which was done, but that does not prevent the adjudged against from getting the procedures right and returning to their previous intention.
How the battle is being waged
The Sheltered Housing UK Association was formed at the end of 2008 when it was realised that individual Sheltered Homes throughout the UK were isolated and were being picked off one by one. The objective was to unite them so that they could be informed and form a counter pressure group to the political events which were affecting them.
At the moment we have 43, cross party, Members of Parliament who support us. Both Geoffrey Cox QC, MP, and Margot James, MP, at different times, have obtained Adjournment Debates in the House of Commons on the subject of Wardens in Sheltered Housing.
Last year we presented a 15,188 signature to No 10 Downing Street, calling upon the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown to save Wardens in Sheltered Housing. The number of signatures we obtained were only limited by the number of people fit enough to undertake the task for collecting them. In some places people actually queued to sign the petition. There have been two other demonstrations outside of Parliament and No 10 Downing Street.
We have had letters in The Times Newspaper and articles in The Observer, Independent, Times On Saturday and The Sunday Express; and we are supported by the, targeted at the elderly, magazines 'Yours', and 'The Mature Times'.
We carried out a national survey of residents needs and requirements in Sheltered Housing.
97% said they only moved into Sheltered Housing because of the anticipated Warden service.
91% said they would never have moved in at all if they had known that they would take the Warden away after they had moved in. Most had given up larger than needs housing, sold or rented, to move into Sheltered Housing.
Our Vice Chairman, as a constituent, of David Cameron, sought a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister in October 2010, and the 118 stalled Court cases was discussed, at which the Prime Minister seemed concerned. On other matters he agreed to speak with the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities , Eric Pickles MP and, or, Grant Shapps MP, the Minister for Housing on a possible meeting.
This meeting did not occur, and eventually a letter from Grant Schapps to the Prime Minister was copied to our Vice Chairman saying that Sheltered Housing was traditionally funded through Supporting People.
So apparently the Housing Minister was unaware that Sheltered Housing had been traditionally funded through Housing Benefit but more recently levered into the Supporting People budgets. Thus, demonstrated that not only the Housing Minister short on facts, but the Prime Minister has been misled too ! Since then our Vice Chairman has twiced E-mailed David Cameron in connection with his letter, but has not been dignfied with a response.
Cause and Effect
Many said that, where the Warden had been removed, the activities in their Sheltered Housing complex virtually ceased and the residents had become insular.
Deaths may occur in Sheltered Housing at any time, and in any given circumstances.
But, notably a few have occurred where, had there have been an alert site-specific Warden, who is aware of residents habits and normal demeanour, they could have been prevented.
There is no telling how long some of those people remained alive on the floor of their flat before they died alone. In one of the most recent of cases a trail of maggots led to the body being found.
The longest that we heard of a resident on the floor, yet did survive, was four days. How does the Health and Safety Executive stand on this? Clearly if a service is reduced and death comes as a result, then the Health and Safety Executive should be involved.
Along the way we came across solicitor Yvonne Hossack, whom we invited to take on the cases which were presented to us. It is she who brought and won the first three Judicial Reviews.
From the end of 2008, through 2009, we gathered cases where residents wished to bring their housing provider to Court for removing their Warden against their wishes and passed them on to Hossacks. By early 2010 these numbered c.118 cases and this has since grown to c.150 cases from across the country. The sheer magnitude of dissatisfaction is staggering. The c.118 cases were presented to Legal Aid system in early 2010 and were now for 'breach of contract', rather than Judicial Reviews
The distribution of Legal Aid, Family section, is made geographically and a minor fault had been made in submitting the applications by Hossacks, rsulting in the applications being all made out as if they pertained to the Wiltshire budget.
An easy and correctable mistake. A terse letter from the Legal Services Commission, in about late September, noted this and responded that all the cases had been rejected save the one for Wiltshire. In other words there was just one word wrong in the remaining 117 Applications. Their letter continued 'There is no appeal against this decision'.
We found the assumptive divine right implied in this latter wording is unbelievable.
The Legal Services Commission are a public body and they have no powers whatsoever to state that the public cannot appeal against their decisions. They are paid by the taxpayer, and likewise accountable to the tax payer.
The Sheltered Housing UK consequently embarked on a petition to them noting, within it, that residents were aware that murderers, foreign terrorists, prisoners and villains were all entitled and apparently received Legal Aid, even for the right to be called 'Mr' in prison. Yet, these 2000 residents and 117 cases had been rejected, and for the flimsiest of reasons. We pointed out that they, the LSC, had the telephone, fax and the internet to seek corrections to the Applications, and a bottle of Tippex did not cost a lot. A little applied common sense costs nothing at all !
Under the Freedom of Information Act I asked the LSC how many other solicitors applications had they rejected on the basis of a word wrong in the document and with the added words there is no appeal against this decision. I asked them for their response to the petition as well. Their reply was that the petition letters they had received from residents across the country would make no difference to their decision and they declined to answer the other FOI questions on the basis that they were sub-judice and could harm their commercial operations to reveal them.
Commercial operations ? They are a public body, any operations they indulge in are de facto 'public operations'.
--
This briefing is provided by Sheltered Housing UK Association, Registered Charity Number 1137806
In short, we are failing our older people.
More than 500,000 people in the UK reside in Sheltered Housing.
In 2012, there will be more people aged 50 or above than under. These people may need the temporary and reassuring care of a warden, a cost saving measure in comparison to individual care budgets, and shown by studies to reduce the need for and subsequent time spent in a Care Home.
People who move in to Sheltered Housing often come from Council Housing, thereby freeing up two, three and four bedroom houses for the 2 year + waiting lists of families needing somewhere to live.
People who move into Sheltered Housing are less isolated than those who live alone or in changing neighbourhoods. Their mental health, their well being, and their capabilities increase with the reassuring presence of a warden in Shelteres Housing.
But Older People are not demonstrators. They cannot invade Conservative Headquarters and throw fire extinguishers to make their points. They have health problems to worry about.
And yet our country is denying them resident wardens on a technicality.
And as a result, those approaching old age are refusing sheltered housing due to the lack of wardens, which is costing the government more in Supporting People grants, in wasting properties that could house families and in shifting costs to other agencies.
When a fire alarm goes off in a Sheltered Unit now, instead of the Warden recognising it is Mrs Smith burning her toast, the fire engine has to come out.
If Mr Brown takes a fall, he has to call an ambulance. If he can get to the phone of course.
We need more support to help support these people and stop treating our Older People as if they are invisible.
Sheltered Housing UK is seeking donations to help fund cases, seeking people to help collect FOI requests from their local authorities and to help us continue to reach out to people in Sheltered Housing.
In reading this please bear in mind that approximately 70% of the residents of rented Sheltered Housing are in receipt of Housing Benefit. The remaining 30% are what is termed “self funding”. Problems are arising in the Housing Benefit group and they have a knock on effect for all residents.
Prior to 2003, for those in receipt of Housing Benefit it also paid for the services of the Warden.
In 2002 the Government took out a Judicial Review to determine if it was legal to pay for the Warden from Housing benefit. The answer was it was not. In response the Government split the housing benefit for residents, one portion still paid in Housing Benefit for what is termed “bricks and mortar” . The other portion was called “support services”. This latter portion was re-located into the Supporting People budgets
There are approximately 149 Supporting People commissioners across the country and they are usually located with local government. Inter alia, their remit includes drug addicts and people with learning difficulties. The services provided by Supporting People are needs based, aimed at a specific problem which, when solved, they moves on. This brings Supporting People Commissioners into conflict with Sheltered Housing which is a tenure based support service and is for the life of the tenant.
Rather than amending the Supporting People needs based remit, to accommodate Sheltered Housing, the alternative solution of attempting to engineer Sheltered Housing resident needs to fall into line with Supporting People has become the only option.
Initially Sheltered Housing was ring fenced within the Supporting People budget, but this ceased in 2010 and Sheltered Housing became a part of the annual bidding wars for funds within specific local authorities.
There is a possibility that Housing Providers can opt out of supplying a Warden a service altogether. In the event Supporting People can provide what is termed 'Floating Support'.
This is not an alternative Warden service but is a community wide service. Many residents do not qualify according to the qualifying criterion set by Supporting People and receive no visits at all. In most cases Floating Support is provided on the basis of , usually, a visit once a week, once every two weeks, or once a month. As mentioned before it is only needs based and it is not envisaged that this type of support would be for a period of more than two years.
The contract to furnish Floating Support does not necessarily belong to the providers of Sheltered Housing, it can now be contracted outside of ownership.
Trickery is being used in asking residents to fill in a Support Plan, without discussing the full implications, and this is later used to reduce Supporting People reimbursements to Housing Providers.
Sheltered Housing UK say that residents made their own Support Plan, which consisted of the service on offer to them when they opted to live in Sheltered Housing, and this support is a part of their contract.
Usually Floating Support is managed on a staff rota system, thus its operatives never get to know the people they are dealing with. In Kent, we have heard of one such operative who had one hundred visits per day. Locally they call it the knock and run service.
People who moved into Sheltered Housing, and, according to our statistics many have sold up or given up their own home because they expected the security of a Warden, have virtually been stabbed in the back and they are not normally of sufficient wealth, or health to reverse their choice now.
The providers of Sheltered Housing who, hitherto, gleaned Housing Benefit for the provision of Wardens from the 70% of their residents who received it, have suffered a loss of income. Their response has been to remove or curtail their Warden service, against the wishes of a majority of their residents.
Section 105 of the Housing Act, 1985 calls upon social landlords to hold consultations with their residents before they make changes to the management of the properties they live in. Many Housing Providers did not consult at all, going ahead and removed, or changed Warden duties to suit their profit expectations.
Consultations, on face value many take to mean that some kind of democratic process has, or is to take place, and they are wrong. Consultations cannot be legally enforced, and there is suspicion that some Housing Providers have held them to satisfy the Housing Act, as above, but have absolutely no intention of acceding to any residents views, unless they coincide exactly with the plan they have in mind.
There have been many Parliamentary Questions put by MPs in the past and; to each the Government field the same answer:- The Government cannot control local government and it is up to Local Government Supporting People, and the complainant must approach them.
This is a slight of hand, a fork of tongue, and buck passing. It was the previous Government, but compounded by the present coalition, which produced this legislation and neither of them carried out any impact assessment when they passed the support element of Sheltered Housing over to local area Supporting People, nor did they exercise a common duty of care.
Moreover, Supporting People is funded from central taxation, so it follows that Central Government, have every right to determine how that money is spent, indeed they have a duty to see how it is spent.
In the past, three of these cases have been taken to a Judicial Review, Eastbourne, Barnet, Portsmouth, and each was found against the Housing Provider. Judicial Reviews per se are investigations into the procedural processes which took place, and where these processes are found to be legally incorrect, the Judge can order that they be put right by going back to the beginning. Which was done, but that does not prevent the adjudged against from getting the procedures right and returning to their previous intention.
How the battle is being waged
The Sheltered Housing UK Association was formed at the end of 2008 when it was realised that individual Sheltered Homes throughout the UK were isolated and were being picked off one by one. The objective was to unite them so that they could be informed and form a counter pressure group to the political events which were affecting them.
At the moment we have 43, cross party, Members of Parliament who support us. Both Geoffrey Cox QC, MP, and Margot James, MP, at different times, have obtained Adjournment Debates in the House of Commons on the subject of Wardens in Sheltered Housing.
Last year we presented a 15,188 signature to No 10 Downing Street, calling upon the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown to save Wardens in Sheltered Housing. The number of signatures we obtained were only limited by the number of people fit enough to undertake the task for collecting them. In some places people actually queued to sign the petition. There have been two other demonstrations outside of Parliament and No 10 Downing Street.
We have had letters in The Times Newspaper and articles in The Observer, Independent, Times On Saturday and The Sunday Express; and we are supported by the, targeted at the elderly, magazines 'Yours', and 'The Mature Times'.
We carried out a national survey of residents needs and requirements in Sheltered Housing.
97% said they only moved into Sheltered Housing because of the anticipated Warden service.
91% said they would never have moved in at all if they had known that they would take the Warden away after they had moved in. Most had given up larger than needs housing, sold or rented, to move into Sheltered Housing.
Our Vice Chairman, as a constituent, of David Cameron, sought a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister in October 2010, and the 118 stalled Court cases was discussed, at which the Prime Minister seemed concerned. On other matters he agreed to speak with the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities , Eric Pickles MP and, or, Grant Shapps MP, the Minister for Housing on a possible meeting.
This meeting did not occur, and eventually a letter from Grant Schapps to the Prime Minister was copied to our Vice Chairman saying that Sheltered Housing was traditionally funded through Supporting People.
So apparently the Housing Minister was unaware that Sheltered Housing had been traditionally funded through Housing Benefit but more recently levered into the Supporting People budgets. Thus, demonstrated that not only the Housing Minister short on facts, but the Prime Minister has been misled too ! Since then our Vice Chairman has twiced E-mailed David Cameron in connection with his letter, but has not been dignfied with a response.
Cause and Effect
Many said that, where the Warden had been removed, the activities in their Sheltered Housing complex virtually ceased and the residents had become insular.
Deaths may occur in Sheltered Housing at any time, and in any given circumstances.
But, notably a few have occurred where, had there have been an alert site-specific Warden, who is aware of residents habits and normal demeanour, they could have been prevented.
There is no telling how long some of those people remained alive on the floor of their flat before they died alone. In one of the most recent of cases a trail of maggots led to the body being found.
The longest that we heard of a resident on the floor, yet did survive, was four days. How does the Health and Safety Executive stand on this? Clearly if a service is reduced and death comes as a result, then the Health and Safety Executive should be involved.
Along the way we came across solicitor Yvonne Hossack, whom we invited to take on the cases which were presented to us. It is she who brought and won the first three Judicial Reviews.
From the end of 2008, through 2009, we gathered cases where residents wished to bring their housing provider to Court for removing their Warden against their wishes and passed them on to Hossacks. By early 2010 these numbered c.118 cases and this has since grown to c.150 cases from across the country. The sheer magnitude of dissatisfaction is staggering. The c.118 cases were presented to Legal Aid system in early 2010 and were now for 'breach of contract', rather than Judicial Reviews
The distribution of Legal Aid, Family section, is made geographically and a minor fault had been made in submitting the applications by Hossacks, rsulting in the applications being all made out as if they pertained to the Wiltshire budget.
An easy and correctable mistake. A terse letter from the Legal Services Commission, in about late September, noted this and responded that all the cases had been rejected save the one for Wiltshire. In other words there was just one word wrong in the remaining 117 Applications. Their letter continued 'There is no appeal against this decision'.
We found the assumptive divine right implied in this latter wording is unbelievable.
The Legal Services Commission are a public body and they have no powers whatsoever to state that the public cannot appeal against their decisions. They are paid by the taxpayer, and likewise accountable to the tax payer.
The Sheltered Housing UK consequently embarked on a petition to them noting, within it, that residents were aware that murderers, foreign terrorists, prisoners and villains were all entitled and apparently received Legal Aid, even for the right to be called 'Mr' in prison. Yet, these 2000 residents and 117 cases had been rejected, and for the flimsiest of reasons. We pointed out that they, the LSC, had the telephone, fax and the internet to seek corrections to the Applications, and a bottle of Tippex did not cost a lot. A little applied common sense costs nothing at all !
Under the Freedom of Information Act I asked the LSC how many other solicitors applications had they rejected on the basis of a word wrong in the document and with the added words there is no appeal against this decision. I asked them for their response to the petition as well. Their reply was that the petition letters they had received from residents across the country would make no difference to their decision and they declined to answer the other FOI questions on the basis that they were sub-judice and could harm their commercial operations to reveal them.
Commercial operations ? They are a public body, any operations they indulge in are de facto 'public operations'.
--
This briefing is provided by Sheltered Housing UK Association, Registered Charity Number 1137806
In short, we are failing our older people.
More than 500,000 people in the UK reside in Sheltered Housing.
In 2012, there will be more people aged 50 or above than under. These people may need the temporary and reassuring care of a warden, a cost saving measure in comparison to individual care budgets, and shown by studies to reduce the need for and subsequent time spent in a Care Home.
People who move in to Sheltered Housing often come from Council Housing, thereby freeing up two, three and four bedroom houses for the 2 year + waiting lists of families needing somewhere to live.
People who move into Sheltered Housing are less isolated than those who live alone or in changing neighbourhoods. Their mental health, their well being, and their capabilities increase with the reassuring presence of a warden in Shelteres Housing.
But Older People are not demonstrators. They cannot invade Conservative Headquarters and throw fire extinguishers to make their points. They have health problems to worry about.
And yet our country is denying them resident wardens on a technicality.
And as a result, those approaching old age are refusing sheltered housing due to the lack of wardens, which is costing the government more in Supporting People grants, in wasting properties that could house families and in shifting costs to other agencies.
When a fire alarm goes off in a Sheltered Unit now, instead of the Warden recognising it is Mrs Smith burning her toast, the fire engine has to come out.
If Mr Brown takes a fall, he has to call an ambulance. If he can get to the phone of course.
We need more support to help support these people and stop treating our Older People as if they are invisible.
Sheltered Housing UK is seeking donations to help fund cases, seeking people to help collect FOI requests from their local authorities and to help us continue to reach out to people in Sheltered Housing.
28 Dec 2010
Why I Loathe The X Factor - A Christmas Special
I'll be honest. I loathe the X Factor and everything it stands for.
The X Factor is simply a modern paradigm of Social Control.
It's bad for society, bad for morality, bad for politics and democracy and just plain insulting.
The X Factor embodies the ultimate acheivements of a Marcuse scheme of social control by informal means in capitalist consumer society.
Material Social Control
To explain, Marcuse argued that;
Therefore, to relax now translates into, eg, "a coffee", but what brand of coffee? Where? Your needs are defined by an industrial revolution of false hopes and requirements.
Think of the teenager who simply must have the Iphone 4, or the latest computer game?
And this translates in to kidulthood and adulthood how one should dress (Next, not New Look), how one's home must be (is your sofa leather?) and one's aspirations in life.
This is where the X Factor comes in.
The show developes false needs based on aspriations - I want to be a "star", talent is irrelevant as long as I have the requisite gender stereotype clothes, hair style and personality. I can acheive this by subscribing to this concept.
It also creates false benchmarks with which to measure ones self. Can I sing in tune? Am I over a size 10 or 32" waist? Do I know the "lingo"? Are my nails manicured?
And so on.
This, in turn, translates into wider social control.
All of a sudden, the populus, the conformists and the anticonformists can be predicted by the series on the television. Behaviour is conditioned by people's desire to be in or avoid such dumbed down presentations.
Teenagers are so fixated on their modern technology, their appropriate clothing and their image that they negate the ability to think laterally or logically.
This has led to huge debts (the kids who think they are destined to becoem stars and live a life style in accordance because debt does not matter).
Now social aspirations are completely out of tangent with social needs. Do we have enough plumbers? No. No one has an aspiration to be a plumber as they are too busy ensuring they look right when they sing so if they get to an audition, they can ensure they will get through.
When social aspirations are shaped intentionally or unintentionally, the general rules of society must be effected. If people are no longer aspiring to hold a job in order to purchase the house, raise a family, retire; and simply waiting for the next opportunity to become famous, and this becomes the status quo, society will slowly but surely rot.
Consequently, actions and behaviour are conducted without true responsibility, where repercussions mitigated by false needs.
Eroding Morality
This is further illustrated by the fact; where acceptable social behaviour is influenced and shaped by the behaviour of those on the show.
Emotional immaturity is condoned by the show. The ones who cannot sing, who throw tantrums when they cannot hit the right note, or where they are berated by jobsworth judges, may create an amusing experience for viewers, but they also condition a "diva" style behaviour that is normalised and translated in to day to day life.
The acrimonious and sarcastic put downs do little to further human endeavours either. This behaviour, which would translate into harassment and intimidation in the Employment Tribunal, is suddenly how one should aspire to behave in a role of power and management.
Therefore we get division in socially controlled behaviours; one is either a nasty, malicious and derogative superior, or a hopeful, grateful and well groomed subordinate.
Neither seem to provide a particularly congenial behaviour set.
Gratifying the Public
One thing that strikes me is the similarities between alleged cultural shows such as the Factor and the Gladiators of the Roman Empire.
The ubiquitous gladiators of the Colosseum were allegedly funded as a form of social responsibility by the rich to entertain the masses. This was known as munera.
Rather like the golden era in the 70s when families would religiously attend football matches are to watch "their team" on a weekly basis; the routine display of the successful and the Carnival of the unsuccessful within the ex-factor provides a striking resemblance to the routine entertainment of the people in Ancient Rome.
The freak show of those who cannot sing and are not athletically acceptable presents us with the ultimate entertainment through which we can identify both our need and our failures.
And of course, all of the time it is on, we are more interested in seeing who will and will not succeed in what the apparent benevolent rich are up to in controlling our future.
Which, while it may not have been the intention of those in authority, is a rather convenient truth in ensuring the masses are not dissatisfied enough to riot, demonstrate or vote them out.
And don't even get me on to the dangers it presents to equality, feminism and class divide!
The X Factor is simply a modern paradigm of Social Control.
It's bad for society, bad for morality, bad for politics and democracy and just plain insulting.
The X Factor embodies the ultimate acheivements of a Marcuse scheme of social control by informal means in capitalist consumer society.
Material Social Control
To explain, Marcuse argued that;
"an "advanced industrial society" created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought"
Therefore, to relax now translates into, eg, "a coffee", but what brand of coffee? Where? Your needs are defined by an industrial revolution of false hopes and requirements.
Think of the teenager who simply must have the Iphone 4, or the latest computer game?
And this translates in to kidulthood and adulthood how one should dress (Next, not New Look), how one's home must be (is your sofa leather?) and one's aspirations in life.
This is where the X Factor comes in.
The show developes false needs based on aspriations - I want to be a "star", talent is irrelevant as long as I have the requisite gender stereotype clothes, hair style and personality. I can acheive this by subscribing to this concept.
It also creates false benchmarks with which to measure ones self. Can I sing in tune? Am I over a size 10 or 32" waist? Do I know the "lingo"? Are my nails manicured?
And so on.
This, in turn, translates into wider social control.
All of a sudden, the populus, the conformists and the anticonformists can be predicted by the series on the television. Behaviour is conditioned by people's desire to be in or avoid such dumbed down presentations.
Teenagers are so fixated on their modern technology, their appropriate clothing and their image that they negate the ability to think laterally or logically.
This has led to huge debts (the kids who think they are destined to becoem stars and live a life style in accordance because debt does not matter).
Now social aspirations are completely out of tangent with social needs. Do we have enough plumbers? No. No one has an aspiration to be a plumber as they are too busy ensuring they look right when they sing so if they get to an audition, they can ensure they will get through.
When social aspirations are shaped intentionally or unintentionally, the general rules of society must be effected. If people are no longer aspiring to hold a job in order to purchase the house, raise a family, retire; and simply waiting for the next opportunity to become famous, and this becomes the status quo, society will slowly but surely rot.
Consequently, actions and behaviour are conducted without true responsibility, where repercussions mitigated by false needs.
Eroding Morality
This is further illustrated by the fact; where acceptable social behaviour is influenced and shaped by the behaviour of those on the show.
Emotional immaturity is condoned by the show. The ones who cannot sing, who throw tantrums when they cannot hit the right note, or where they are berated by jobsworth judges, may create an amusing experience for viewers, but they also condition a "diva" style behaviour that is normalised and translated in to day to day life.
The acrimonious and sarcastic put downs do little to further human endeavours either. This behaviour, which would translate into harassment and intimidation in the Employment Tribunal, is suddenly how one should aspire to behave in a role of power and management.
Therefore we get division in socially controlled behaviours; one is either a nasty, malicious and derogative superior, or a hopeful, grateful and well groomed subordinate.
Neither seem to provide a particularly congenial behaviour set.
Gratifying the Public
One thing that strikes me is the similarities between alleged cultural shows such as the Factor and the Gladiators of the Roman Empire.
The ubiquitous gladiators of the Colosseum were allegedly funded as a form of social responsibility by the rich to entertain the masses. This was known as munera.
Rather like the golden era in the 70s when families would religiously attend football matches are to watch "their team" on a weekly basis; the routine display of the successful and the Carnival of the unsuccessful within the ex-factor provides a striking resemblance to the routine entertainment of the people in Ancient Rome.
The freak show of those who cannot sing and are not athletically acceptable presents us with the ultimate entertainment through which we can identify both our need and our failures.
And of course, all of the time it is on, we are more interested in seeing who will and will not succeed in what the apparent benevolent rich are up to in controlling our future.
Which, while it may not have been the intention of those in authority, is a rather convenient truth in ensuring the masses are not dissatisfied enough to riot, demonstrate or vote them out.
And don't even get me on to the dangers it presents to equality, feminism and class divide!
26 Dec 2010
2010 Highlights
A few highlights for 2010; everyone else is doing it;
#Leadership Debates
One of the initial steps in political reform; the Leadership Debates have helped to cross the bridge between conspicuous consumption and politics and engage and inspire new generations and emancipate society from the grasps of those autonomous purchases that repress us.
# Demonstrations;
After the huge blow to the ego of genuine demonstrators, when Blair ignored Iraq war protests, there was a period when protests, political engagement and demonstration was seen as moot. Yet this year has seen the Climate Camp and the student demonstrations. You cannot condone violence, but you can admire the re-engagement of the electorate to pronounce what they feel strongly about.
# The foundational footsteps of new politics;
With a coalition of Tories and Lib Dems (who'da thought it?), the proposed referendum of the voting system, the reviews of the House of Lords, the riots, the #ukuncut phenomenum, the Tea Party movement, we are seeing a truly amazing year of political activity and awareness that I hope will set grass roots and grow from the simple acorn it has been.
# Global Disasters
There was a time when Climate Change denyers were winning the war. But with a year that has comprised of volcanos, floods, freak weather, earthquakes and forrest fires, as well as record snow in the UK, people are coming around to the idea of a greener world and the sheer need for a carbon reduction. Now to avoid complacency!
# Wikileaks
With a new regard for transparency, Wikileaks has helped to sell the idea of accessibility within democracy. Long may it reign!
# A New Relgious Regard
The Pope redefining Catholicism with a single blow, condoning the use of condoms, homosexuality and promiscuous behaviour. Even for a humanist like me, this is beyond amazing and will entertain me for years to come.
#Leadership Debates
One of the initial steps in political reform; the Leadership Debates have helped to cross the bridge between conspicuous consumption and politics and engage and inspire new generations and emancipate society from the grasps of those autonomous purchases that repress us.
# Demonstrations;
After the huge blow to the ego of genuine demonstrators, when Blair ignored Iraq war protests, there was a period when protests, political engagement and demonstration was seen as moot. Yet this year has seen the Climate Camp and the student demonstrations. You cannot condone violence, but you can admire the re-engagement of the electorate to pronounce what they feel strongly about.
# The foundational footsteps of new politics;
With a coalition of Tories and Lib Dems (who'da thought it?), the proposed referendum of the voting system, the reviews of the House of Lords, the riots, the #ukuncut phenomenum, the Tea Party movement, we are seeing a truly amazing year of political activity and awareness that I hope will set grass roots and grow from the simple acorn it has been.
# Global Disasters
There was a time when Climate Change denyers were winning the war. But with a year that has comprised of volcanos, floods, freak weather, earthquakes and forrest fires, as well as record snow in the UK, people are coming around to the idea of a greener world and the sheer need for a carbon reduction. Now to avoid complacency!
# Wikileaks
With a new regard for transparency, Wikileaks has helped to sell the idea of accessibility within democracy. Long may it reign!
# A New Relgious Regard
The Pope redefining Catholicism with a single blow, condoning the use of condoms, homosexuality and promiscuous behaviour. Even for a humanist like me, this is beyond amazing and will entertain me for years to come.
22 Sept 2010
Councillor versus Parliamentary Candidate
An interesting dilemma was presented to me this week at the Liberal Democrat Conference. That if you become a councillor in your local area you will find it near on impossible to be elected to as a Parliamentary candidate because of social perceptions of councillors versus MPs.
In addition to this, if you are an elected councillor, you will find it hard to be selected for another seat in a different area because you have commitments to a separate constituency.
Why do social perceptions differ?
People associate different things were different people. Perceptions can be based on the de individualisation of uniforms, the spoken word, the received business card or the way in which they consume their meals.
Most people work out by the time they are in their mid-20s that multicoloured hair and facial piercings are not generally acceptable if you want to be a member of public office or in a professional career. But that these perceptions go deeper and have an effect on the capability of you to represent your public.
If you're campaigning over a long period for a local seat, you will ensure that you know your public highway law well, the contracting businesses of the borough council, local issues and the relevant local interest clubs.
If you're campaigning for a Parliamentary seat, you may be more inclined to pay attention to national issues and interrelate them to local issues. Identify global warming is a huge issue and refer it to the wind turbine building proposals in the relevant borough of your constituency.
People are perhaps not so inclined to hear national arguments from local politicians and or intricate local oddments from national politicians. This is predominately why people will vote a political colour rather than for a specific person in General Elections.
This probably has a significant effect on Liberal Democrats, who are exceptionally good at grass-roots campaigning, knocking on doors and making things happen locally but fail to command the same level of respect on a national level.
I genuinely believe after the expensive scandals, that more people felt more comfortable voting for the Liberal Democrats because of that element of “realism”. Because they met the candidate on the local high street, knocking at the door or at local events. This means that there is an element of personalisation In the candidate they had met, whom they can then decide or allocate a relevant level of the integrity until proven otherwise.
I'd be interested to see statistical representation of those who have been campaigning as councillors or council candidates and then switched to Parliamentary candidate campaigning to see if the argument holds much weight.
The role of the MP should be bought at local level and this is something that will be greatly facilitated by the boundary changes in the AV referendum in May. Our current constituency is one of the largest in the country which makes it very very difficult for a Parliamentary candidate to meet everyone.
Everyone should be entitled to meet and talk with their MP: that this is the essence of democracy. They should not be limited to glimpses of that person on the television or in the local paper or behind electric gates or paparazzi lenses.
The ultimate discussion is the; which one do you focus on?
It does, I suppose, depend on your interest in representing the public. A councillor is able to address on the ground issues, from assisting to resolve antisocial behaviour through to organising regular bin collections. In a two tier local government, a county council will provide you with the opportunity to help resolve traffic issues and contribute to local education authorities.
But as an MP you can address national issues as well as local issues, championing causes on a much larger scale and provide a voice to the people in an entirely different form.
It really depends on where you want to make society better and how you want to represent your people. I would suggest it is much harder for an MP to represent the views of 100,000 people accurately than for a council ward of 1000 to be represented.
With the looming elections and looming selections, this is a decision I will have to make.
I would be interested in other people's opinions
In addition to this, if you are an elected councillor, you will find it hard to be selected for another seat in a different area because you have commitments to a separate constituency.
Why do social perceptions differ?
People associate different things were different people. Perceptions can be based on the de individualisation of uniforms, the spoken word, the received business card or the way in which they consume their meals.
Most people work out by the time they are in their mid-20s that multicoloured hair and facial piercings are not generally acceptable if you want to be a member of public office or in a professional career. But that these perceptions go deeper and have an effect on the capability of you to represent your public.
If you're campaigning over a long period for a local seat, you will ensure that you know your public highway law well, the contracting businesses of the borough council, local issues and the relevant local interest clubs.
If you're campaigning for a Parliamentary seat, you may be more inclined to pay attention to national issues and interrelate them to local issues. Identify global warming is a huge issue and refer it to the wind turbine building proposals in the relevant borough of your constituency.
People are perhaps not so inclined to hear national arguments from local politicians and or intricate local oddments from national politicians. This is predominately why people will vote a political colour rather than for a specific person in General Elections.
This probably has a significant effect on Liberal Democrats, who are exceptionally good at grass-roots campaigning, knocking on doors and making things happen locally but fail to command the same level of respect on a national level.
I genuinely believe after the expensive scandals, that more people felt more comfortable voting for the Liberal Democrats because of that element of “realism”. Because they met the candidate on the local high street, knocking at the door or at local events. This means that there is an element of personalisation In the candidate they had met, whom they can then decide or allocate a relevant level of the integrity until proven otherwise.
I'd be interested to see statistical representation of those who have been campaigning as councillors or council candidates and then switched to Parliamentary candidate campaigning to see if the argument holds much weight.
The role of the MP should be bought at local level and this is something that will be greatly facilitated by the boundary changes in the AV referendum in May. Our current constituency is one of the largest in the country which makes it very very difficult for a Parliamentary candidate to meet everyone.
Everyone should be entitled to meet and talk with their MP: that this is the essence of democracy. They should not be limited to glimpses of that person on the television or in the local paper or behind electric gates or paparazzi lenses.
The ultimate discussion is the; which one do you focus on?
It does, I suppose, depend on your interest in representing the public. A councillor is able to address on the ground issues, from assisting to resolve antisocial behaviour through to organising regular bin collections. In a two tier local government, a county council will provide you with the opportunity to help resolve traffic issues and contribute to local education authorities.
But as an MP you can address national issues as well as local issues, championing causes on a much larger scale and provide a voice to the people in an entirely different form.
It really depends on where you want to make society better and how you want to represent your people. I would suggest it is much harder for an MP to represent the views of 100,000 people accurately than for a council ward of 1000 to be represented.
With the looming elections and looming selections, this is a decision I will have to make.
I would be interested in other people's opinions
12 Apr 2010
Legal Aid and a Lack of Integrity
I was aghast when I heard the news on the radio this evening that MPs on fraud charges are entitled to legal aid.
Along, no doubt, with 90% of the Country, something Cameron latched on to with alacrity. With the speed of a Daily Mail reporter and just as little finesse.
However, some basic research into the story provides a (fairly) reasonable explanation.
Currently Legal Aid in the UK is not "means tested" as the benefits system is.
Rather than it being based on equitable assets, income and outgoings, the principle behind allowing David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine to claim legal aid defense is that they may be at risk of losing their liberty.
And the liberal in me cries out, they have not been tried yet.
Article 6, the Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of the British Legal System.
Yet the Britsh Public, and so the British Media, are quick to judge in the advent of the Expenses scandal.
Audacity
But I am still thrown by the audacity of the Labour MPs to even complete the form for legal aid.
Given that the "Interests of Justice" test is being phased out in favour of a means tested test, it is even more audacious of MPs on a minimum of £64,766 to effectively plead inability to fund their own legal expenses.
On a basic salary of £856.20 per week after tax, it makes a mockery of the Labour government that has left 40% of pensioners living in poverty.
This is without even considering that the attempted to escape all charges by claiming Parliamentary privilege at the beginning of the year.
With the disillusioned and angry electorate, they seem to be flaunting their lack of integrity in the face of the British public.
This is the reason predominantly at the outrage over the revelations made today, but we must keep in mind that they have been convicted of fraud, by the legal definition, anyway.
Along, no doubt, with 90% of the Country, something Cameron latched on to with alacrity. With the speed of a Daily Mail reporter and just as little finesse.
However, some basic research into the story provides a (fairly) reasonable explanation.
Currently Legal Aid in the UK is not "means tested" as the benefits system is.
Rather than it being based on equitable assets, income and outgoings, the principle behind allowing David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine to claim legal aid defense is that they may be at risk of losing their liberty.
And the liberal in me cries out, they have not been tried yet.
Article 6, the Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of the British Legal System.
Yet the Britsh Public, and so the British Media, are quick to judge in the advent of the Expenses scandal.
Audacity
But I am still thrown by the audacity of the Labour MPs to even complete the form for legal aid.
Given that the "Interests of Justice" test is being phased out in favour of a means tested test, it is even more audacious of MPs on a minimum of £64,766 to effectively plead inability to fund their own legal expenses.
On a basic salary of £856.20 per week after tax, it makes a mockery of the Labour government that has left 40% of pensioners living in poverty.
This is without even considering that the attempted to escape all charges by claiming Parliamentary privilege at the beginning of the year.
With the disillusioned and angry electorate, they seem to be flaunting their lack of integrity in the face of the British public.
This is the reason predominantly at the outrage over the revelations made today, but we must keep in mind that they have been convicted of fraud, by the legal definition, anyway.
29 Mar 2010
A Superb Show That We will Reap Little Benefit from
In spite of what was considered on Twitter, The Guardian and Channel 4 opinion polls as a resounding success for Vince Cable, the BBC has seized control of the agenda once again by almost completely ignoring the Liberal Democrats.
I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.
They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.
Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.
An Analysis of the Transcribe
Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.
The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.
"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"
Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.
In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".
Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".
As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.
The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.
Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.
Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.
Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.
Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".
Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.
The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!
Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.
As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.
Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.
Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.
While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;
"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."
Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?
The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.
The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions
I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.
And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.
And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.
The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.
But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.
I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.
They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.
Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.
An Analysis of the Transcribe
Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.
The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.
"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"
Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.
In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".
Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".
As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.
The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.
Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.
Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.
Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.
Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".
Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.
The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!
Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.
As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.
Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.
Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.
While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;
"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."
Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?
The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.
The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions
I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.
And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.
And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.
The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.
But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.
28 Mar 2010
Persuading Belief in the Conservative Facade
I don't usually review the columns in the daily papers, but this one in The Telegraph, “The Conservatives have The Vision but not the Nerve", caught my eye and I decided to have a thorough critique.
The gist of the article is that Conservative members are in some way intimidated or inhibited by the media labour and the public and are therefore failed to reveal their policies cohesively or sensibly, when in fact the policies they have are rather good.
In other words, it is an entirely subjective article attempting to persuade the more intelligent voter why voting Conservative is a good thing! Can you hear me champing at the bit?
Upholding My Own Disbelief In the Validity of Tory Policies
Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one.
Personally I would say that the Conservatives are playing down the details of their policies in order to generate the idea that they are demure and humble, lacking in the arrogance, and indeed hubris, that the Conservative Party after usually associated with.
The concept that spending cuts would play a “constructive role” begins to unravel when interviews such as Andrew Lansley MP's on the Today Programme identify an across-the-board 10% spending cut within almost all public services. If spending cuts were truly constructive, and indeed, a compelling vision, then the cuts would differ according to the needs of the various departments. Money would be reinvested according to the needs of people, and they would be determined to cut the bureaucracy and consultancy that dominates public services and wastes so much of this money.
However, given the Andrew Lansley repeatedly used the phrase “spending restraints”, it is clear that the party has no intention of reducing buzzwords, bureaucracy and confabulation within public services.
This in turn indicates that Public services are not going to be more responsive to the real needs of people who use.
As for the state providing an “enabling force”, the Conservative track history on a refusal to allow democratic participation are both at local level and at national level, makes the statement almost laughable. As indeed the campaign Vote for A Change identifies, the Conservative party are keen to push the agenda to vote for change but they are not willing to hold referendums to allow the people to decide to change.
An Innovative Philosophy?
Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.
No, quite simply the reason that we are unaware of this philosophy is because it doesn't exist.
Apparent Fear of Criticism
Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.
The glimpses that have been provided of the Conservative programme have been contradicted at every turn by Conservative Members of Parliament. Such as providing inconsistent arguments for getting people back to work while supporting those who need to be benefits, a desire to invest in during joining the European Union combined with a desire to protect the British public from the European Union.
For a snapshot of these inconsistencies have a look at the Conservative website “Responsibility Agenda”.
The only thing I can determine from this is that the entire party is confused as to where they would go if they were in government.
The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open.
A Tory spokesperson who ha,s ever so cautiously, hinted at a genuinely progressive relationship between the state and the people would probably be considered an epiphany within the centre-right party.
Indeed the ones that have, seemed to have come to this conclusion and joined the Liberal Democrats.
The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour.
And indeed Nick Clegg stated yesterday following the strange political speech stand-off between Brown and Cameron that their election pledges were “vacuous”. This is not a result of a humble Tory MP concerned that their opinions may scare the public, this is because they do have half-hearted convictions, half baked policies and no true substantive difference from Labour's pledges.
And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?
Again, I reiterate, if Cameron and his party had leadership and inspirational qualities, they would not be afraid of any questions, they would appeal to the intelligent voters and they would present substantial arguments in the face of criticism from the press and from the other parties.
A Truly Insulting View of Voters
”You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified.”
I'm just confused by the assumption that this is the real reason for the Tories inability To communicate their election pledges without discrepancies, contradictions or confusion. This has nothing to do with my intelligent, nor any other member of the public's.
Apparently, the crux of the argument is;
Janet Daley goes on to state that the apparent reasons the Conservatives are unable to respond coherently to questions about their policy is because they are aware the “government run things badly”.
If that was truly their position than they would be proclaiming, as indeed the Liberal Democrats are stating, that they would review the way in which the government runs things and how this filters down to public services. If they had confidence in their argument then this would not mean a difficult announcement to make.
“by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results”
If this was truly the case, then I would not have issues in my area is where public services without contracted to the cheapest company thereby causing and perpetuating the suffering of people who require carers. This is the extent of the Tory policy proposals on “coalitions”.
Out contracting services and minimising government input so the government can not be held responsible when people are harmed as a result.
Community Engagement?
”Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.”
Ah. What this convoluted statement actually means is that the Conservatives feel that Britain has become a overly left wing nanny state. And how do they propose to challenge that? Well the arguments they present so contradictory, I genuinely cannot tell.
”Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.”
And at what point disease differentiate from Brown's pledge Fairness in the Community? Indeed, where local public services have been allowed to grant more responsibility communities, we have seen an upward rise in charity is funded entirely by public state grants which, while being run on a not-for-profit basis, are concerned only with the bureaucracy and illogical targets and public services provide.
One example that I continuously come across is Illogical use of volunteers within the public-and- charitable sector. Company-cum-charities are encouraged to let go of the little old lady who gives an hour of her time once a week because the younger person to give four hours and be far more productive. Or the funding that they are granted is so heavily ringed fence that it sits in bank accounts the years until the exact measurement of the grant is decided to be met at the funding can be released.
The only way to prevent this getting worse, and, hopefully repair it, is to allow a greater hold over local public services by the government, to allow the government to supervise the implementation of these ideas and ensure that people are in fact benefiting from community initiatives, engagement and social cohesion.
Privatisation by Any Other Name
”When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.”
The only reason that the party is so “timorous” about these ideas is because they realise that the reality for people who use the pavement everyday is not as simple as saying we will enlist a separate body to provide good quality cheap services.
Anyone who has watched Panorama will be aware of diabolical care services where the business is out-contracted. Or how about the changes to waste collections by Borough services, based on productivity of the neighbourhood?
In a lot of cases central government is the last resort for those campaigning for a return to fair services, as my work with Sheltered Housing UK identifies.
Indeed Janet Daley herself acknowledges that “Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.” But she then goes on to say that Labour's approach has indeed been to this aim. When in fact, the opposite is true. Labour has actually increased opportunity for the poor, aided social deprivation with the introduction of tax credits and support, but at the same time has failed to address its use with local councils and local public services having so much control without any government input. There is also been too much of an emphasis on Labour's Park of providing everyone with the same benefits and matter what their background. This has led to middle-class mothers storing up Child Tax Credits for their summer holidays and rich students investing their student loans in tax-free isas. The only logical way to proceed is to introduce a more thorough means testing, rather than providing everyone with the same, provide those who are in the most need with what they need.
But the Conservatives are not pledging this. The Conservatives are pledging severe cuts across all public services, a fast repayment of debt without foresight or strategic development as to how this will impact on our economy.
Oh That Old Chestnut
Finally, for the article to bring up the embarrassing concept of “class war” that appears to divide both the Media support and the party squeeze tactics, is nothing short of ridiculous.
While there probably is something to be vindictive in the squeeze tactics between the two major parties and the presentation of a two horse race, there is a growing consensus amongst the public that they would like to hear less about whether their MP went to Eton or Joe Bloggs Comprehensive, are more about what they plan and how they plan to do it.
And, ultimately, how society as a whole will benefit.
The gist of the article is that Conservative members are in some way intimidated or inhibited by the media labour and the public and are therefore failed to reveal their policies cohesively or sensibly, when in fact the policies they have are rather good.
In other words, it is an entirely subjective article attempting to persuade the more intelligent voter why voting Conservative is a good thing! Can you hear me champing at the bit?
Upholding My Own Disbelief In the Validity of Tory Policies
Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one.
Personally I would say that the Conservatives are playing down the details of their policies in order to generate the idea that they are demure and humble, lacking in the arrogance, and indeed hubris, that the Conservative Party after usually associated with.
The concept that spending cuts would play a “constructive role” begins to unravel when interviews such as Andrew Lansley MP's on the Today Programme identify an across-the-board 10% spending cut within almost all public services. If spending cuts were truly constructive, and indeed, a compelling vision, then the cuts would differ according to the needs of the various departments. Money would be reinvested according to the needs of people, and they would be determined to cut the bureaucracy and consultancy that dominates public services and wastes so much of this money.
However, given the Andrew Lansley repeatedly used the phrase “spending restraints”, it is clear that the party has no intention of reducing buzzwords, bureaucracy and confabulation within public services.
This in turn indicates that Public services are not going to be more responsive to the real needs of people who use.
As for the state providing an “enabling force”, the Conservative track history on a refusal to allow democratic participation are both at local level and at national level, makes the statement almost laughable. As indeed the campaign Vote for A Change identifies, the Conservative party are keen to push the agenda to vote for change but they are not willing to hold referendums to allow the people to decide to change.
An Innovative Philosophy?
Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.
No, quite simply the reason that we are unaware of this philosophy is because it doesn't exist.
Apparent Fear of Criticism
Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.
The glimpses that have been provided of the Conservative programme have been contradicted at every turn by Conservative Members of Parliament. Such as providing inconsistent arguments for getting people back to work while supporting those who need to be benefits, a desire to invest in during joining the European Union combined with a desire to protect the British public from the European Union.
For a snapshot of these inconsistencies have a look at the Conservative website “Responsibility Agenda”.
The only thing I can determine from this is that the entire party is confused as to where they would go if they were in government.
The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open.
A Tory spokesperson who ha,s ever so cautiously, hinted at a genuinely progressive relationship between the state and the people would probably be considered an epiphany within the centre-right party.
Indeed the ones that have, seemed to have come to this conclusion and joined the Liberal Democrats.
The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour.
And indeed Nick Clegg stated yesterday following the strange political speech stand-off between Brown and Cameron that their election pledges were “vacuous”. This is not a result of a humble Tory MP concerned that their opinions may scare the public, this is because they do have half-hearted convictions, half baked policies and no true substantive difference from Labour's pledges.
And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?
Again, I reiterate, if Cameron and his party had leadership and inspirational qualities, they would not be afraid of any questions, they would appeal to the intelligent voters and they would present substantial arguments in the face of criticism from the press and from the other parties.
A Truly Insulting View of Voters
”You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified.”
I'm just confused by the assumption that this is the real reason for the Tories inability To communicate their election pledges without discrepancies, contradictions or confusion. This has nothing to do with my intelligent, nor any other member of the public's.
Apparently, the crux of the argument is;
Janet Daley goes on to state that the apparent reasons the Conservatives are unable to respond coherently to questions about their policy is because they are aware the “government run things badly”.
If that was truly their position than they would be proclaiming, as indeed the Liberal Democrats are stating, that they would review the way in which the government runs things and how this filters down to public services. If they had confidence in their argument then this would not mean a difficult announcement to make.
“by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results”
If this was truly the case, then I would not have issues in my area is where public services without contracted to the cheapest company thereby causing and perpetuating the suffering of people who require carers. This is the extent of the Tory policy proposals on “coalitions”.
Out contracting services and minimising government input so the government can not be held responsible when people are harmed as a result.
Community Engagement?
”Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.”
Ah. What this convoluted statement actually means is that the Conservatives feel that Britain has become a overly left wing nanny state. And how do they propose to challenge that? Well the arguments they present so contradictory, I genuinely cannot tell.
”Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.”
And at what point disease differentiate from Brown's pledge Fairness in the Community? Indeed, where local public services have been allowed to grant more responsibility communities, we have seen an upward rise in charity is funded entirely by public state grants which, while being run on a not-for-profit basis, are concerned only with the bureaucracy and illogical targets and public services provide.
One example that I continuously come across is Illogical use of volunteers within the public-and- charitable sector. Company-cum-charities are encouraged to let go of the little old lady who gives an hour of her time once a week because the younger person to give four hours and be far more productive. Or the funding that they are granted is so heavily ringed fence that it sits in bank accounts the years until the exact measurement of the grant is decided to be met at the funding can be released.
The only way to prevent this getting worse, and, hopefully repair it, is to allow a greater hold over local public services by the government, to allow the government to supervise the implementation of these ideas and ensure that people are in fact benefiting from community initiatives, engagement and social cohesion.
Privatisation by Any Other Name
”When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.”
The only reason that the party is so “timorous” about these ideas is because they realise that the reality for people who use the pavement everyday is not as simple as saying we will enlist a separate body to provide good quality cheap services.
Anyone who has watched Panorama will be aware of diabolical care services where the business is out-contracted. Or how about the changes to waste collections by Borough services, based on productivity of the neighbourhood?
In a lot of cases central government is the last resort for those campaigning for a return to fair services, as my work with Sheltered Housing UK identifies.
Indeed Janet Daley herself acknowledges that “Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.” But she then goes on to say that Labour's approach has indeed been to this aim. When in fact, the opposite is true. Labour has actually increased opportunity for the poor, aided social deprivation with the introduction of tax credits and support, but at the same time has failed to address its use with local councils and local public services having so much control without any government input. There is also been too much of an emphasis on Labour's Park of providing everyone with the same benefits and matter what their background. This has led to middle-class mothers storing up Child Tax Credits for their summer holidays and rich students investing their student loans in tax-free isas. The only logical way to proceed is to introduce a more thorough means testing, rather than providing everyone with the same, provide those who are in the most need with what they need.
But the Conservatives are not pledging this. The Conservatives are pledging severe cuts across all public services, a fast repayment of debt without foresight or strategic development as to how this will impact on our economy.
Oh That Old Chestnut
Finally, for the article to bring up the embarrassing concept of “class war” that appears to divide both the Media support and the party squeeze tactics, is nothing short of ridiculous.
While there probably is something to be vindictive in the squeeze tactics between the two major parties and the presentation of a two horse race, there is a growing consensus amongst the public that they would like to hear less about whether their MP went to Eton or Joe Bloggs Comprehensive, are more about what they plan and how they plan to do it.
And, ultimately, how society as a whole will benefit.
7 Jan 2010
Tory Married Tax Benefit
Conservatives everywhere may be celebrating the announcement that Cameron intends to identify tax benefits and marriages.
However, this highly discriminating proposal will have a far more significantly negative effect on on society as a whole.
Gender Discrimination
Cameron does not intend to include these benefits to same-sex or gay marriages.
Financial Implications of Not Getting Married
Cameron clearly does not take into the financial savings of not getting married.
the average cost of getting married is the equivalent of putting a deposit on a house.
People who are not registered as couples gain individual benefits based on individual income; pensions, jobseekers, council tax benefit, among others.
Single Parent Families
Cameron also fails to take into account that people whose marriages or relationships break down through no fault of their own are therefore subject to discrimination financially when they try to support the families.
Faith Discrimination
Where we lived in secularised, multicultural society, the concept of marriage is entrenched within Christianity in this country. While this tax saving would benefit people who marry in any faith, it discriminates against people who do not marry because they do not support the religious connotations.
Why should people be entirely entitled to make up their own mind about their religious beliefs, yet be discriminated against for failing to fulfil a religious ceremony to cohabit with a member of the opposite sex?
Ultimately, there are more cohabiting couples in the UK than the married couples and this number is set to increase.
Creating benefits for married people will not increase the number of married couples in the UK when they lose out so much with other benefits and are discriminated against and is not truly reflective of a democratic country.
However, this highly discriminating proposal will have a far more significantly negative effect on on society as a whole.
Gender Discrimination
Cameron does not intend to include these benefits to same-sex or gay marriages.
Financial Implications of Not Getting Married
Cameron clearly does not take into the financial savings of not getting married.
the average cost of getting married is the equivalent of putting a deposit on a house.
People who are not registered as couples gain individual benefits based on individual income; pensions, jobseekers, council tax benefit, among others.
Single Parent Families
Cameron also fails to take into account that people whose marriages or relationships break down through no fault of their own are therefore subject to discrimination financially when they try to support the families.
Faith Discrimination
Where we lived in secularised, multicultural society, the concept of marriage is entrenched within Christianity in this country. While this tax saving would benefit people who marry in any faith, it discriminates against people who do not marry because they do not support the religious connotations.
Why should people be entirely entitled to make up their own mind about their religious beliefs, yet be discriminated against for failing to fulfil a religious ceremony to cohabit with a member of the opposite sex?
Ultimately, there are more cohabiting couples in the UK than the married couples and this number is set to increase.
Creating benefits for married people will not increase the number of married couples in the UK when they lose out so much with other benefits and are discriminated against and is not truly reflective of a democratic country.
13 Dec 2009
Well done Cameron.
Today you have managed to identify a potential policy that may distract from your Conservative MPs moat and bell tower fiasco.
While I applaud the policy that will state that all MPs should the residents of the United Kingdom and pay the respective taxes, my memory is not so sure as to forget the extremes of the expenses scandal, nor the lack of social responsibility and the rich, and in particular the Conservative party, show.
If you were serious on making a "fairer society" then you would have embraced the Liberal Democrat policies of raising aCapital Gains tax, you would not be insisting that older people required sheltered accommodation they would have to fork out of their own pockets, you would have straightforward proposals on reforming the expenses scandals, you would be supporting the taxation on the bankers and insisting on further changes to our society to prevent the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.
Stop providing us with bite sized headlines intended to distract from your own party's failings and attempts to distract from the real news.
Today you have managed to identify a potential policy that may distract from your Conservative MPs moat and bell tower fiasco.
While I applaud the policy that will state that all MPs should the residents of the United Kingdom and pay the respective taxes, my memory is not so sure as to forget the extremes of the expenses scandal, nor the lack of social responsibility and the rich, and in particular the Conservative party, show.
If you were serious on making a "fairer society" then you would have embraced the Liberal Democrat policies of raising aCapital Gains tax, you would not be insisting that older people required sheltered accommodation they would have to fork out of their own pockets, you would have straightforward proposals on reforming the expenses scandals, you would be supporting the taxation on the bankers and insisting on further changes to our society to prevent the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.
Stop providing us with bite sized headlines intended to distract from your own party's failings and attempts to distract from the real news.
28 Nov 2009
Perplexing and Illogical Proceedues #742
Two friend of mine, a married couple, recently moved back from working in Antwerp for a couple of years following the collapse of one of the companies outt there.
Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.
In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.
On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.
This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.
However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.
Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.
She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.
In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.
Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?
Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.
Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.
But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.
In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.
I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.
The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.
However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.
We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.
Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.
In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.
On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.
This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.
However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.
Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.
She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.
In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.
Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?
Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.
Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.
But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.
In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.
I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.
The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.
However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.
We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
