Friday, 27 April 2012
A Green Fuuture for #Hull, Embracing #Renewables & Elected Mayors
(Originally published via Hull Republic) http://hullrepublic.tumblr.com/
Where once mighty ocean going vessels jostled for position alongside St Andrews dock, there’s now only rubble, rusting trolleys and the buried remnants of another world, where fishing was king, and where Hull truly did leave others in its wake.
Over time, more of our industries have choked and expired, with the city now struggling under the weight of generations who have been without work for far too long, children born into benefit dependency, with all the healthcare issues and legacy of poor education that goes hand in hand with an end to aspiration. We live in the regenerative shadows of Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. We are continually disregarded, with the exception of St Stephens, as our infrastructure crumbles.
Our city has two overriding problems; firstly, we have for years lacked any form of visionary political leadership. People are disenchanted with politics. They do not see how it can bring the change they want, because they see how their views are ignored by the political class.
Secondly, the legacy of Thatcher and New Labour has resulted in our industries fading away and dying, leaving generations of working people with no job, and legions of youngsters with no hope.
Both problems are interconnected, and both need to be tackled simultaneously, if we are to provide our young with the chance to experience achievement, political engagement, and self-worth.
What we need to do is to reinvigorate our local government by increasing democratic accountability. Whilst the majority of Councillors are good people working for the community, there are inevitably some who rely on antipathy to remain in office. The city electorate as a whole has no control over who is leader of the council. This demotivating factor goes a long way to making people feel powerless to bring about change via the ballot box.
One way to counter this is through a Directly Elected Mayor. I believe that this would increase participation in elections and provide a unified and cohesive, accountable vision and strategy for the city. It would give voters the power to bring real change. If the mayor isn’t up to the job, he or she can be voted out.
It gives people a reason to take ownership of local governance, as well as challenging the parties and candidates to formulate radical and robust strategies for the city’s future, bringing to and end the stagnation from which we have all suffered. Hull desperately needs to attract fresh opportunity through new technologies. The ‘green’ sector is flourishing, and our city is the perfect new home for such industry. We need strong, vocal political leadership in order to raise our voice above the clamour of hopeful locations vying for the revenues and jobs these industries create.
The best way to do this is to market Hull as a ‘blank canvass’. We have legions of people, desperate to learn, desperate to earn, desperate to escape benefit dependency and to respect themselves once more. We have large swathes of disused land, ripe for modernisation, the foundations of great infrastructure, with maritime links, and what could be an excellent rail link to the nation and road network leading to the Humber Bridge and beyond if we could harness the political will to implement a strong, united claim for investment.
The battle to bring vital new business in the form of environmentally friendly technology will be all the harder when led by an outdated and increasingly irrelevant council system which survives on the antipathy of disillusioned and bereft voters. We need a strong, passionate and visionary voice for Hull. We need someone to lead us in our struggle for a new legacy for our young, and our disenfranchised working classes. We need someone upon whom we can all exercise the ultimate sanction if they fail to live up to our expectations. The city’s electorate needs to be taken on an exciting journey of opportunity, of new industry, of tangible investment in roads and facilities, to a place where there is a chance of a job, and a reason to lift their gaze from the floor.
Whitehall has shown time and again that it neither cares for Hull, nor is it willing to part with the cash for investment we need. The city must therefore, be its own cheerleader, architect, and navigator on a journey to the future we all want and deserve. That can only be achieved through direct accountability, and the scrutiny of a motivated electorate.
The first step on that exciting journey must start with embracing a new age. To cherish our past is essential, but we must throw open our doors to these exciting new technologies, as well as our minds to the possibility that an elected mayor just might give us a say on where our great city is heading after all.
Thanks for reading.
Karl Davis for HullRePublic.
HullRePublic would like to thank Karl for his thought-provoking post and look forward to working with him again in the future. So what do you think? Should Hull have elected Mayors? Leave us a comment. Get in touch. Share. Make the Change.
Karl Davis is a train driver and trade union activist, having held a number of elected positions within the train driver’s union, ASLEF and the TUC. Karl lives in Hull, East Yorkshire, and is married with a young son.
A Labour party member and community campaigner, Karl is a member of Labour’s Future Candidate’s Programme, and has played pivotal roles in numerous local campaigns on the issues of housing, corporate manslaughter, Health & Safety for agency workers, Trawlermen’s issues, and also acted as Secretary to the families of the crew of MV Gaul, a Hull based fishing vessel lost in mysterious circumstances in the Barents Sea in 1974. Karl assisted in organising and co-ordinating the campaign to successfully pressure the government into re-opening the Formal Inquiry into the vessel’s loss.
Karl is a keen writer, regularly contributing articles to publications, including Guardian (Comment is Free), The Progressive Journal of London and The ASLEF Journal, amongst others. He has appeared on numerous local BBC News outlets connected with a multitude of issues, and engages in public speaking in support various causes. He is currently collaborating with the Universities of Brighton & Bournemouth respectively, on a new book aimed at mental health professionals treating those affected by suicide.
Karl is also busily writing his first novel, and posts on twitter as @karldavis1979. His blog can be found at; www.karl-davis.blogspot.com
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
Why I was Pleased With Ed Miliband's Moves on Union Funding
(Originally published in The Progressive Journal of London & an abridged version subsequently published on Liberal Conspiracy)
As an increasingly critical and frustrated Labour party member, I found Ed Miliband’s comments about the thorny issue of party funding today quite pleasing. I’m tired of party advocates squirming in front of TV cameras as Tories bully them into condemning every strike ballot, and launch jibes about the fact that the party is largely funded by organised workers.
It is clear for all to see that the Tories couldn’t give damn about radical reform of our political system and overhaul of its culture of dependency. They only care about turning this debate into an opportunity to further bind the hands of free and democratic trade unions.
The Tories want a cap of £50,000 on donations, and they want to include union donations within that proposed rule. If this were to come into force it could quite literally starve the Labour party out of effective operation as a political voice for working people.
The Tories, consumed by panic at the grassroots and backbench levels at the realisation that they are being led by arrogant incompetents know this. They are keenly aware of the rising tide of derision and hatred cast toward them as a result of misguided and ideological swipes at the welfare state and public sector that the vast majority of the electorate rely on daily. To choke off the natural home of that massed, disenchanted voice would prevent the very real possibility of electoral disaster for them, come 2015.
There lies a lot of merit in Miliband’s proposals. Allowing personal party donations of £5000, and a union levy of £3 per member to be donated to Labour, with individuals also able to donate separately upto the specified £5000 limit would maintain the strong and proud links between the unions, and the party they created over a century ago. It would still generate revenue for the party, as well as maintaining its accountability to organised workers.
In addition to this, it would set the unions a challenge of enthusing and motivating their members to join and donate to Labour, thereby forcing them to up their game and increase their engagement with their members, strengthening the link between union and party, increasing membership, consolidating the democratic mandate for real change that people so badly want, as well as channelling the organisational expertise of trade unions into local communities.
Despite being an interesting ideological joust in an increasingly homogenised political theatre, this issue speaks to a wider topic.
With every policy announcement and benefit reform, with every tax reform and fiscal initiative, this government is showing itself to be more and more feckless, bereft of ideas and glued together only by a collective disdain for the poor, the public sector and the organised left.
The current crisis within which we find ourselves was caused by the very people the Tory party was formed to represent, and it is ignorant to the hands of those who do not feed it. To cater for the interests of the wider populous is not an option because it does not earn money, or win the party votes.
The Tories cannot see a way out of this mess that doesn’t involve scapegoating the poor, the public sector and the organised left, because to do so would render it an enemy of its natural bedfellows, hence the government playing footsy with the banking sector and big business.
Labour must start presenting a coherent strategy for dealing with the structural deficit in a calm, ordered way, as well as preserving the dignity and base living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Overall, we must win the argument of whether there truly is an alternative to this car crash of a government by taking the electorate on a journey of policy guided by principle, aspiration and sound economics.
Ending the party strategy of treating the trade unions like an embarrassing uncle, and instead treating them like respected and loved best friends would be a great start. Looking at ways of channelling investment into regional infrastructure, possibly through future rounds of quantitative easing or a National Infrastructure Bank, revitalising local government by the expansion of elected mayors, as well as maximising the spread of candidates from working class backgrounds would further bolster Labour’s journey back to power by consolidating our mandate to fight for those attacked at their most vulnerable by this foolish government of millionaires.
Every journey begins with the first step: Labour’s first step should be to proudly and publically embrace the cherished link between organised Labour and political advocacy, put an end to the automatic condemnation of organised workers exercising their legal and human right to democratically decide to withdraw labour, and to stop flinching at the wagging finger of the increasingly rabid and Dickensian right, and the editors of The Daily Mail and The Sun.
As an increasingly critical and frustrated Labour party member, I found Ed Miliband’s comments about the thorny issue of party funding today quite pleasing. I’m tired of party advocates squirming in front of TV cameras as Tories bully them into condemning every strike ballot, and launch jibes about the fact that the party is largely funded by organised workers.
It is clear for all to see that the Tories couldn’t give damn about radical reform of our political system and overhaul of its culture of dependency. They only care about turning this debate into an opportunity to further bind the hands of free and democratic trade unions.
The Tories want a cap of £50,000 on donations, and they want to include union donations within that proposed rule. If this were to come into force it could quite literally starve the Labour party out of effective operation as a political voice for working people.
The Tories, consumed by panic at the grassroots and backbench levels at the realisation that they are being led by arrogant incompetents know this. They are keenly aware of the rising tide of derision and hatred cast toward them as a result of misguided and ideological swipes at the welfare state and public sector that the vast majority of the electorate rely on daily. To choke off the natural home of that massed, disenchanted voice would prevent the very real possibility of electoral disaster for them, come 2015.
There lies a lot of merit in Miliband’s proposals. Allowing personal party donations of £5000, and a union levy of £3 per member to be donated to Labour, with individuals also able to donate separately upto the specified £5000 limit would maintain the strong and proud links between the unions, and the party they created over a century ago. It would still generate revenue for the party, as well as maintaining its accountability to organised workers.
In addition to this, it would set the unions a challenge of enthusing and motivating their members to join and donate to Labour, thereby forcing them to up their game and increase their engagement with their members, strengthening the link between union and party, increasing membership, consolidating the democratic mandate for real change that people so badly want, as well as channelling the organisational expertise of trade unions into local communities.
Despite being an interesting ideological joust in an increasingly homogenised political theatre, this issue speaks to a wider topic.
With every policy announcement and benefit reform, with every tax reform and fiscal initiative, this government is showing itself to be more and more feckless, bereft of ideas and glued together only by a collective disdain for the poor, the public sector and the organised left.
The current crisis within which we find ourselves was caused by the very people the Tory party was formed to represent, and it is ignorant to the hands of those who do not feed it. To cater for the interests of the wider populous is not an option because it does not earn money, or win the party votes.
The Tories cannot see a way out of this mess that doesn’t involve scapegoating the poor, the public sector and the organised left, because to do so would render it an enemy of its natural bedfellows, hence the government playing footsy with the banking sector and big business.
Labour must start presenting a coherent strategy for dealing with the structural deficit in a calm, ordered way, as well as preserving the dignity and base living standards of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Overall, we must win the argument of whether there truly is an alternative to this car crash of a government by taking the electorate on a journey of policy guided by principle, aspiration and sound economics.
Ending the party strategy of treating the trade unions like an embarrassing uncle, and instead treating them like respected and loved best friends would be a great start. Looking at ways of channelling investment into regional infrastructure, possibly through future rounds of quantitative easing or a National Infrastructure Bank, revitalising local government by the expansion of elected mayors, as well as maximising the spread of candidates from working class backgrounds would further bolster Labour’s journey back to power by consolidating our mandate to fight for those attacked at their most vulnerable by this foolish government of millionaires.
Every journey begins with the first step: Labour’s first step should be to proudly and publically embrace the cherished link between organised Labour and political advocacy, put an end to the automatic condemnation of organised workers exercising their legal and human right to democratically decide to withdraw labour, and to stop flinching at the wagging finger of the increasingly rabid and Dickensian right, and the editors of The Daily Mail and The Sun.
Monday, 16 April 2012
The Trouble With Workfare..
(Originally published in the ASLEF Journal)
I have directly asked a number of Tory MP's about the Workfare scheme. Whilst some are admirable in their willingness to debate, they are either evasive, or worryingly vague in the answers they give about the detail. Regardless of the merits of individual MPs in their defence of it, the coalition’s response to growing criticism of workfare has been soaked in fear, mistruth, and predictable disdain for organised workers.
For anyone reading this who thinks workfare is a good thing, let's just stop and examine what we can only assume to be happening given the government's unwillingness to properly engage in debate. Benefit claimants are being sent to work for a defined period of time to gain work experience. As ministers are too busy side stepping legitimate questions, we can only surmise that this is to fill a position that is vacant within that organisation.
The important point here is that there is a job available.
At the end of the programme, the company are under no obligation to offer work, regardless of suitability or performance. They are, therefore, perfectly at liberty to ask for another participant under the scheme and repeat the cycle.
Without descending into levelling unqualified charges at companies, it is easy to see the attraction of installing a 'workfare merry-go-round' where once there was an HR department who actually give people real jobs for a real wage.
That understandable capitalist strategy aside, whilst the Tories have dined on the right wing media's thirst for hardline welfare reform, they seriously miss the point. If these companies are allowing benefit claimants to develop experience by shadowing staff, and are not filling empty jobs with workfare participants, that is one thing, and could prove enormously positive if monitored and managed in the right way. If these companies are using benefit claimants to staff their stores and factories, they are frustrating and stifling an already choked jobs market. Undoubtedly some participants will find jobs at the end, but that is not sufficient evidence to counter the argument.
Had it not been for workfare, these jobs would have been advertised through job centres and websites. People would have applied, been interviewed and selected. They'd have done the job and received the wage, moved away from benefits, and contributed to the economy.
I fail to see how workfare improves this process.
Admittedly, this scheme, touted as a 'route to hope from despair' amid other hyperbolic terms, is supposedly aimed at those with no work experience. But even if this scheme does introduce inexperienced job seekers into work, it is doing so at the expense of others who are claiming JSA and looking for a job. All this scheme does is take the stick with which job seekers and benefit claimants have been whacked , and replace it with a double edged sword.
If there are jobs to filled, let them be advertised. Let benefit claimants apply for them. Let the successful candidates earn a fair wage for their labour. Why allow rich, multi-national companies to nurture their considerable profits on the back of unpaid labour provided by a clueless government? The very people who would apply for these jobs are the same ones who the government target by insinuating laziness and lack of work ethic.
All workfare does is provide a cycle of unpaid labour for the country's most profitable organisations whilst preventing the scheme's participants from permanently accessing the same vacancy they're forced to occupy on a temporary basis, and receiving the commensurate wage. At best it shoe-horns an inexperienced person into a role that could be taken by another benefit claimant who does have experience. It generates good headline for the Tories within their press and media buddies, panders to the doctrine of divide and rule perpetrated by big business and government, and needlessly diverts jobs away from one part of the job market to another.
Far from being a fresh initiative that increases the access to jobs for the unemployed, it is actually the equivalent of standing in time of almost biblical drought, trying to turn public opinion against competing components of the water cycle, rather than cutting the rhetoric, listening to the voice of reason, and cracking on with digging a well.
People on benefits are struggling in a suffocated jobs market. They don't need the finger of foolish millionaires wagged needlessly at them.
What people on benefits need is responsible government that helps them to find work by guiding the economy to growth, rather than chopping at its bones. They need job centres that channel them toward REAL jobs rather than unpaid labour, and they need welfare reform targeted at improving quality of life for the poorest and most vulnerable, not just the Tory party approval rating in the eyes of the Murdoch press.
I have directly asked a number of Tory MP's about the Workfare scheme. Whilst some are admirable in their willingness to debate, they are either evasive, or worryingly vague in the answers they give about the detail. Regardless of the merits of individual MPs in their defence of it, the coalition’s response to growing criticism of workfare has been soaked in fear, mistruth, and predictable disdain for organised workers.
For anyone reading this who thinks workfare is a good thing, let's just stop and examine what we can only assume to be happening given the government's unwillingness to properly engage in debate. Benefit claimants are being sent to work for a defined period of time to gain work experience. As ministers are too busy side stepping legitimate questions, we can only surmise that this is to fill a position that is vacant within that organisation.
The important point here is that there is a job available.
At the end of the programme, the company are under no obligation to offer work, regardless of suitability or performance. They are, therefore, perfectly at liberty to ask for another participant under the scheme and repeat the cycle.
Without descending into levelling unqualified charges at companies, it is easy to see the attraction of installing a 'workfare merry-go-round' where once there was an HR department who actually give people real jobs for a real wage.
That understandable capitalist strategy aside, whilst the Tories have dined on the right wing media's thirst for hardline welfare reform, they seriously miss the point. If these companies are allowing benefit claimants to develop experience by shadowing staff, and are not filling empty jobs with workfare participants, that is one thing, and could prove enormously positive if monitored and managed in the right way. If these companies are using benefit claimants to staff their stores and factories, they are frustrating and stifling an already choked jobs market. Undoubtedly some participants will find jobs at the end, but that is not sufficient evidence to counter the argument.
Had it not been for workfare, these jobs would have been advertised through job centres and websites. People would have applied, been interviewed and selected. They'd have done the job and received the wage, moved away from benefits, and contributed to the economy.
I fail to see how workfare improves this process.
Admittedly, this scheme, touted as a 'route to hope from despair' amid other hyperbolic terms, is supposedly aimed at those with no work experience. But even if this scheme does introduce inexperienced job seekers into work, it is doing so at the expense of others who are claiming JSA and looking for a job. All this scheme does is take the stick with which job seekers and benefit claimants have been whacked , and replace it with a double edged sword.
If there are jobs to filled, let them be advertised. Let benefit claimants apply for them. Let the successful candidates earn a fair wage for their labour. Why allow rich, multi-national companies to nurture their considerable profits on the back of unpaid labour provided by a clueless government? The very people who would apply for these jobs are the same ones who the government target by insinuating laziness and lack of work ethic.
All workfare does is provide a cycle of unpaid labour for the country's most profitable organisations whilst preventing the scheme's participants from permanently accessing the same vacancy they're forced to occupy on a temporary basis, and receiving the commensurate wage. At best it shoe-horns an inexperienced person into a role that could be taken by another benefit claimant who does have experience. It generates good headline for the Tories within their press and media buddies, panders to the doctrine of divide and rule perpetrated by big business and government, and needlessly diverts jobs away from one part of the job market to another.
Far from being a fresh initiative that increases the access to jobs for the unemployed, it is actually the equivalent of standing in time of almost biblical drought, trying to turn public opinion against competing components of the water cycle, rather than cutting the rhetoric, listening to the voice of reason, and cracking on with digging a well.
People on benefits are struggling in a suffocated jobs market. They don't need the finger of foolish millionaires wagged needlessly at them.
What people on benefits need is responsible government that helps them to find work by guiding the economy to growth, rather than chopping at its bones. They need job centres that channel them toward REAL jobs rather than unpaid labour, and they need welfare reform targeted at improving quality of life for the poorest and most vulnerable, not just the Tory party approval rating in the eyes of the Murdoch press.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Full Text Of My Complaint To The BBC - Re; Failure Of BBC To Adequately Cover NHS March.
Complaint Summary: Lack of coverage of Save our NHS March by BBC News
I feel compelled to complain about the almost total lack of coverage of the Save Our NHS March today. Today we had legions of concerned and outraged marching through the capital in defence of our health service, a crowd that included women, children and the infirm.
The police, with the approval of government, responded to this lawful protest by posting Police Officers armed with machine guns on the streets! Yet this is not reported by the BBC!
To say I'm disgusted by your seeming indifference to this would be an epic understatement. I expect variable levels of integrity from commercial news outlets, but the BBC has a responsibility to lead by example and make sure that disturbing and reprehensible acts of operational excess such as this are reported. I feel this is an aspect of a wider agenda that seems to be infiltrating the BBC News and current affairs programming, whereby news which is contrary to the government view is barely examined and vastly under reported, and advocates of left wing opinion seem maligned as a matter of course.
Even Question Time is seemingly stacked against government opposition, with left wing commentators other than senior Labour ministers apparently considered unsuitable panellists.
Your news programmes are fast losing their air of impartiality thanks to your ongoing refusal to report on anti-government protest and opinion, and Question Time is fast losing its appeal and its relevance because it relies on coalition bias and a pool of panellists that is fast becoming predictable and too small, both in terms of numbers and opinion.
As a passionate advocate of the values of the BBC, and public sector broadcasting, I urge you to correct these worrying regressions as a matter of urgency.
I feel compelled to complain about the almost total lack of coverage of the Save Our NHS March today. Today we had legions of concerned and outraged marching through the capital in defence of our health service, a crowd that included women, children and the infirm.
The police, with the approval of government, responded to this lawful protest by posting Police Officers armed with machine guns on the streets! Yet this is not reported by the BBC!
To say I'm disgusted by your seeming indifference to this would be an epic understatement. I expect variable levels of integrity from commercial news outlets, but the BBC has a responsibility to lead by example and make sure that disturbing and reprehensible acts of operational excess such as this are reported. I feel this is an aspect of a wider agenda that seems to be infiltrating the BBC News and current affairs programming, whereby news which is contrary to the government view is barely examined and vastly under reported, and advocates of left wing opinion seem maligned as a matter of course.
Even Question Time is seemingly stacked against government opposition, with left wing commentators other than senior Labour ministers apparently considered unsuitable panellists.
Your news programmes are fast losing their air of impartiality thanks to your ongoing refusal to report on anti-government protest and opinion, and Question Time is fast losing its appeal and its relevance because it relies on coalition bias and a pool of panellists that is fast becoming predictable and too small, both in terms of numbers and opinion.
As a passionate advocate of the values of the BBC, and public sector broadcasting, I urge you to correct these worrying regressions as a matter of urgency.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
Why Labour Needs To Keep Faith In Ed..and Why We Need a Coalition Of Our Own..
This article was originally published in The London Progressive Journal on
January 1st, 2012.
As a Labour Party member, looking back over 2011 should be a positive experience. The coalition have been allowed time to disprove what was suspected of their motives, and yet again, these motives have been proven as bulwarks of governmental policy issued from behind the political fig leaf that is the Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Ed Miliband has been given time to establish himself as the voice of an alternative vision for the building of a better future for Britain.
It is certainly true to say that the politic of opposition is far easier than the duty of government, yet Miliband’s personal ratings have yet to reach levels expected of somebody taking the fight to an unpopular government busying itself with the bloody business of ripping the heart out of the regional economies, the welfare state, and the dying embers of British manufacturing.
Numerous commentators, in addition to many within the party, make disparaging comments about Ed Miliband, rubbing their hands in anticipation of the ‘inevitable’ power struggle that will surely follow as we all turn in on ourselves, ripping Ed from office and tearing a hole in the party, as ambitious hands clamour to grasp the chalice of leadership.
Such views are misguided, and will only condemn us to a generation on the sidelines as we watch the Tories wreck the country once more.
Whilst Ed certainly isn’t as naturally engaging with television cameras and mass media as Blair, Cameron or Clegg, he has proven himself to be of immaculate political breeding, as well as being a brilliantly shrewd political mind. He is a facilitator, organiser, and a strategist, qualities vital for anyone intending to lead our nation and our economy away from blind cuts, and toward growth and jobs.
I concede the point that Ed needs to raise his profile, and those advising him need to work on the image he projects. As someone who will be knocking on doors come election time however, I would advise Mr Miliband to pay as much attention to the team he assembles around him over the coming months.
Those reaching nervously for the ejector button should hesitate. Looking back to the heady days post-1997, it would be easy to compare Ed’s early ratings, and the abject failure of William Hague to press home his message during his ill-fated time as Tory Leader. The striking difference of course is that the government of the day were investing in public services rather than starving them of funds, and the nation at large was on a high following the promise of a new start.
Differences aside however, I would point my party colleagues in the direction of history when cautioning against Machiavellian manoeuvring.
Looking back at the recent history of the Conservatives, the ousting of Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard prove my point in that the Tories were as a result, rudderless, disorganised, introspective and unelectable.
We face a fixed term parliament promising nothing except continued attacks on unions and the public sector, cuts, misery, mass unemployment, and a depressing cocktail of poverty and benefit dependency which will last generations. We have a coalition government, glued together by the political ambition of Nick Clegg and a small clique of Lib Dems whose betrayal of principles and supporters alike unlocked the door to a ministerial pension pay day, and access to the government car pool, together with a newly hawkish Tory party who are shameless in their hatred for the sweeping majority of the people they govern.
It would be a mistake for Labour to allow the remainder of the parliament to become too presidential in terms of the comparison between government and opposition. Cameron has referred to himself smugly as “The heir to Blair” and it is clear that he has funnelled a great deal of Tory donations into massaging his image.
Labour should realise that there is strength through unity, and wealth through depth. Miliband needs to carefully examine his shadow cabinet with a mind to blazing new trails, building new bridges, and showing the electorate that the government is just plain wrong.
Labour’s campaign should not solely be about Ed Miliband. It should be about the collective might that is the best that Labour can offer to the electorate. I believe that Ed can assemble, plan and direct such a team.
To focus the battle on Ed versus Dave would be a grave mistake. Labour needs to show that we have the wealth of numbers, strength through unity, and courage of our convictions in sharing the burden of spearheading the fight across that shadow cabinet.
Cameron and Clegg have already assembled a ‘Coalition of the Willing’
For Labour to return to office, and right the wrongs of this administration, Ed Miliband needs to assemble a coalition of the ready and able.
January 1st, 2012.
As a Labour Party member, looking back over 2011 should be a positive experience. The coalition have been allowed time to disprove what was suspected of their motives, and yet again, these motives have been proven as bulwarks of governmental policy issued from behind the political fig leaf that is the Liberal Democrats. At the same time, Ed Miliband has been given time to establish himself as the voice of an alternative vision for the building of a better future for Britain.
It is certainly true to say that the politic of opposition is far easier than the duty of government, yet Miliband’s personal ratings have yet to reach levels expected of somebody taking the fight to an unpopular government busying itself with the bloody business of ripping the heart out of the regional economies, the welfare state, and the dying embers of British manufacturing.
Numerous commentators, in addition to many within the party, make disparaging comments about Ed Miliband, rubbing their hands in anticipation of the ‘inevitable’ power struggle that will surely follow as we all turn in on ourselves, ripping Ed from office and tearing a hole in the party, as ambitious hands clamour to grasp the chalice of leadership.
Such views are misguided, and will only condemn us to a generation on the sidelines as we watch the Tories wreck the country once more.
Whilst Ed certainly isn’t as naturally engaging with television cameras and mass media as Blair, Cameron or Clegg, he has proven himself to be of immaculate political breeding, as well as being a brilliantly shrewd political mind. He is a facilitator, organiser, and a strategist, qualities vital for anyone intending to lead our nation and our economy away from blind cuts, and toward growth and jobs.
I concede the point that Ed needs to raise his profile, and those advising him need to work on the image he projects. As someone who will be knocking on doors come election time however, I would advise Mr Miliband to pay as much attention to the team he assembles around him over the coming months.
Those reaching nervously for the ejector button should hesitate. Looking back to the heady days post-1997, it would be easy to compare Ed’s early ratings, and the abject failure of William Hague to press home his message during his ill-fated time as Tory Leader. The striking difference of course is that the government of the day were investing in public services rather than starving them of funds, and the nation at large was on a high following the promise of a new start.
Differences aside however, I would point my party colleagues in the direction of history when cautioning against Machiavellian manoeuvring.
Looking back at the recent history of the Conservatives, the ousting of Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard prove my point in that the Tories were as a result, rudderless, disorganised, introspective and unelectable.
We face a fixed term parliament promising nothing except continued attacks on unions and the public sector, cuts, misery, mass unemployment, and a depressing cocktail of poverty and benefit dependency which will last generations. We have a coalition government, glued together by the political ambition of Nick Clegg and a small clique of Lib Dems whose betrayal of principles and supporters alike unlocked the door to a ministerial pension pay day, and access to the government car pool, together with a newly hawkish Tory party who are shameless in their hatred for the sweeping majority of the people they govern.
It would be a mistake for Labour to allow the remainder of the parliament to become too presidential in terms of the comparison between government and opposition. Cameron has referred to himself smugly as “The heir to Blair” and it is clear that he has funnelled a great deal of Tory donations into massaging his image.
Labour should realise that there is strength through unity, and wealth through depth. Miliband needs to carefully examine his shadow cabinet with a mind to blazing new trails, building new bridges, and showing the electorate that the government is just plain wrong.
Labour’s campaign should not solely be about Ed Miliband. It should be about the collective might that is the best that Labour can offer to the electorate. I believe that Ed can assemble, plan and direct such a team.
To focus the battle on Ed versus Dave would be a grave mistake. Labour needs to show that we have the wealth of numbers, strength through unity, and courage of our convictions in sharing the burden of spearheading the fight across that shadow cabinet.
Cameron and Clegg have already assembled a ‘Coalition of the Willing’
For Labour to return to office, and right the wrongs of this administration, Ed Miliband needs to assemble a coalition of the ready and able.
Monday, 19 December 2011
Why David Cameron Should Preach From The Union Rulebook..As Well As From Leviticus..
David Cameron this weekend spoke of how, as a country, we should return to Christian values. I have to admit that Mr Cameron trumps me on the religious activist scale. I am listed as Church of England, but have in truth only attended church on sufficient occasions to qualify for marriage, and the christening of my son.
Looking back at recent history, the financial collapse brought about by our over reliance on avaricious bankers, and the financial whims of free spending oligarchs in the stock market etc, in addition to the Tories historic derision for the lot of worker’s rights and unions, and I have to say that I couldn’t agree with him more.
This country has an ideologically contaminated government, blind to the precipice they lead us towards. Unemployment spirals out of control, benefit dependency balloons, and the government, instead of working tirelessly for a lasting solution that will lead us from the hinterland, train their collective fire upon union representatives, and those fighting for a morsel of fairness in their hard earned retirement.
We have seen recent attacks upon the paid time off for trade union representatives that were enshrined in law by Labour, much to the disgust of millionaire Tory backbenchers. Even the CBI recognise the worth of trade union representatives in business, yet still Cameron’s coalition of the cuts seems determined to remove the protection for low paid and vulnerable workers that these representatives provide on a daily basis.
We have witnessed the double speak and simple ineptitude of Francis Maude during the ‘negotiations’ regarding public pension reform, and the inflammatory and hypocritical remarks made by Michael Gove concerning the audacity of our teachers, nurses and public sector workers in actually daring to stand up for their rights and retirement. The hawkish element of the Tories, which recently seems to have assumed control of UK foreign policy, has always felt contempt for the NHS, comprehensive education, and the welfare state.
Their blind reliance upon the power of the free market has lead to an explosion in unemployment as they enthusiastically swung the axe at the public, charity and voluntary sectors, rather like the baby boom spiked our levels of populus at the end of the war.
Mr Cameron is plainly pandering to the core readership of the Daily Mail when making these comments, however, the merit of his words should not be lost upon those within his party who are shameless in their allegiance to the privileged few, and the destruction of the public sector.
Brotherly Love, Fraternity, Renunciation of Worldly Goods, Respect and Love of Your Neighbour are all extolled in detail throughout the bible. A few hours spent reading extracts from Matthew, Leviticus, John, Job, Thessalonians, Romans, and Peter, amongst others should tell Mr Cameron all he needs to know. I would also suggest that he consult the rules, aims and values of just about any democratic trade union within the UK.
We are built upon fraternity. We trade on mutual respect, commitment, public duty, community spirit, and a sense of justice that obliges us to stand united in the face of bullying, harassment, exploitation and unfairness, wherever manifested and whomever suffered by. It is our fraternal duty that has kept us strong for more than a century, and which will stand us between ordinary workers and unfettered exploitative excess, far into the future.
The irony of this is that, whilst Mr Cameron has plainly been attempting to commission a play right out of the republican election manual, all he has managed to do is highlight the listlessness of his party’s policy foundations, built upon increasingly shifting sands, whilst underlining the strengths of those whose values his party seeks to repudiate and destroy.
The Tories will continue to lament the passing of ‘collective responsibility’ ‘social cohesion’ and ‘moral values’ from their leafy shire strongholds, whist congregations encourage the onward march of Christian soldiers, whilst at the same time, the inherent values of trade unionism, ‘collective responsibility’ ‘fraternity’ and ‘mutual respect’ will continue to be ridiculed, demonised and maligned by the Tories, their millionaire backers and their right wing media bed fellows as ‘extremist’ ‘dangerous’ and communist’ when democratically actioned by workers.
Many have for years believed that the dogma of Toryism has lacked quality in many areas; a distinct lack of love and respect for fellow men, hatred for trade unionists and public sector workers, any real community concern, any regard for people occupying a lower income tax bracket and council tax band, the list goes on. If Mr Cameron has indeed enjoyed an epiphany which has illustrated for him the folly of his beliefs, and the misguided direction he leads our nation in, then I for one will doff my hat willingly in the direction of his fortitude and self awareness.
Looking back at recent history, the financial collapse brought about by our over reliance on avaricious bankers, and the financial whims of free spending oligarchs in the stock market etc, in addition to the Tories historic derision for the lot of worker’s rights and unions, and I have to say that I couldn’t agree with him more.
This country has an ideologically contaminated government, blind to the precipice they lead us towards. Unemployment spirals out of control, benefit dependency balloons, and the government, instead of working tirelessly for a lasting solution that will lead us from the hinterland, train their collective fire upon union representatives, and those fighting for a morsel of fairness in their hard earned retirement.
We have seen recent attacks upon the paid time off for trade union representatives that were enshrined in law by Labour, much to the disgust of millionaire Tory backbenchers. Even the CBI recognise the worth of trade union representatives in business, yet still Cameron’s coalition of the cuts seems determined to remove the protection for low paid and vulnerable workers that these representatives provide on a daily basis.
We have witnessed the double speak and simple ineptitude of Francis Maude during the ‘negotiations’ regarding public pension reform, and the inflammatory and hypocritical remarks made by Michael Gove concerning the audacity of our teachers, nurses and public sector workers in actually daring to stand up for their rights and retirement. The hawkish element of the Tories, which recently seems to have assumed control of UK foreign policy, has always felt contempt for the NHS, comprehensive education, and the welfare state.
Their blind reliance upon the power of the free market has lead to an explosion in unemployment as they enthusiastically swung the axe at the public, charity and voluntary sectors, rather like the baby boom spiked our levels of populus at the end of the war.
Mr Cameron is plainly pandering to the core readership of the Daily Mail when making these comments, however, the merit of his words should not be lost upon those within his party who are shameless in their allegiance to the privileged few, and the destruction of the public sector.
Brotherly Love, Fraternity, Renunciation of Worldly Goods, Respect and Love of Your Neighbour are all extolled in detail throughout the bible. A few hours spent reading extracts from Matthew, Leviticus, John, Job, Thessalonians, Romans, and Peter, amongst others should tell Mr Cameron all he needs to know. I would also suggest that he consult the rules, aims and values of just about any democratic trade union within the UK.
We are built upon fraternity. We trade on mutual respect, commitment, public duty, community spirit, and a sense of justice that obliges us to stand united in the face of bullying, harassment, exploitation and unfairness, wherever manifested and whomever suffered by. It is our fraternal duty that has kept us strong for more than a century, and which will stand us between ordinary workers and unfettered exploitative excess, far into the future.
The irony of this is that, whilst Mr Cameron has plainly been attempting to commission a play right out of the republican election manual, all he has managed to do is highlight the listlessness of his party’s policy foundations, built upon increasingly shifting sands, whilst underlining the strengths of those whose values his party seeks to repudiate and destroy.
The Tories will continue to lament the passing of ‘collective responsibility’ ‘social cohesion’ and ‘moral values’ from their leafy shire strongholds, whist congregations encourage the onward march of Christian soldiers, whilst at the same time, the inherent values of trade unionism, ‘collective responsibility’ ‘fraternity’ and ‘mutual respect’ will continue to be ridiculed, demonised and maligned by the Tories, their millionaire backers and their right wing media bed fellows as ‘extremist’ ‘dangerous’ and communist’ when democratically actioned by workers.
Many have for years believed that the dogma of Toryism has lacked quality in many areas; a distinct lack of love and respect for fellow men, hatred for trade unionists and public sector workers, any real community concern, any regard for people occupying a lower income tax bracket and council tax band, the list goes on. If Mr Cameron has indeed enjoyed an epiphany which has illustrated for him the folly of his beliefs, and the misguided direction he leads our nation in, then I for one will doff my hat willingly in the direction of his fortitude and self awareness.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Embracing The Working Time Directive
If I were to advise David Cameron on the economy, I would suggest something that might force him to spit out his latte in disgust. Nevertheless, it is a strategy that would increase employment, decrease benefit spending, and free up public money which could be used to assist the regional economies which are being turned into scorched earth by current dogmatic Tory policies: embrace the Working Time Directive (WTD).
The heart is being torn painfully from the most vulnerable and poorest neighbourhoods in the name of 'market confidence' yet still we see unemployment figures rise, poverty levels rocket, and the continuing immolation of those sectors that traditionally lift working classes, ethnic minorities and women out of unemployment and benefit dependency.
The welfare bill is ballooning, thanks largely to Conservative indifference to rocketing joblessness in constituencies where they have no chance of electoral success. Even in 'true blue' areas, unemployment is creeping upwards whilst incumbent MPs focus attention on clamouring for promotion, rather than opening their eyes to the growing legions of jobless generations who will inflate the UK benefit bill for decades to come.
The right leaning group 'Open Europe' claim that a WTD without opt out could cost up to £11bn per year. These are frighteningly large figures, but when taken in the context of a benefit budget covering Job Seekers Allowance, Housing Benefit and Income Support of over £20bn per year, the opportunity for savings, deficit reduction, regeneration and increased employment become more obvious.
If the government were to set aside their distaste for EU regulation, natural contempt for workers rights and hostility to positive change, they would see that the end to the WTD opt out will no more destroy the economy than the minimum wage did, despite Tory claims at the time.
At a time of massive job shortages, rocketing unemployment and increasing social disconnection, it's surely logical to seriously consider the positive effects of a directive that, by nature, requires creation of jobs in order to fulfil its requirement? Placing people in work reduces unemployment, lowers benefit liabilities, stimulates the economy, and instils the work ethic that has skipped generations.
Positive effects of increased employment to disadvantaged neighbourhoods bring reductions in anti-social behaviour, and a feeling of personal pride that for many simply does not exist. It is plain to see that every penny used to implement such policies is a penny well spent. More importantly, such expenditure would save us money in the longer term.
Admittedly, the full implementation of the WTD would come at a cost, but this cost needs to be valued over the longer term, for the greater good, in the face of the bigger picture, bringing substantial social and industrial benefits.
The UK is an economy surviving on institutionalised overtime. We work harder, for longer, with fewer bank holidays than our neighbours. We have an adversarial, outdated approach to industrial relations, and successive governments have crowed about British 'competitiveness' Yet still we lag behind many other economies in terms of recovery, growth, poverty and investment. If we were running our economy in the best way, we would surely be lifting well clear of recession and racing towards economic nirvana, rather than speeding toward a fiscal tundra.
We need higher productivity, better work/life balance, and fresh approaches that will bring lower sickness rates, lower absenteeism, and greater profitability for our industries. The current system does not create these things, and needs to be consigned to history.
The economic downturn should be a watershed. The calamitous failure of strategies that scorned manufacturing and practical skills, instead worshipping financial services and all the confidence trickery that it brings, alongside an approach of selling the labour and toil of the most educationally disadvantaged and financial vulnerable for the lowest price needs to be abandoned.
Engagement by management with Unions needs to be encouraged, as does a greater openness to new ways of working on the part of those unions.
We need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want. Do we want the status quo to prevail, whereby millionaires choose their tax contribution rates, poorer communities are left to decay and stagnate, and those fortunate enough to work are flogged into later retirement, scant pension provision and an early grave? Or do we want higher employment, lower sickness/absenteeism rates, better work/life balance, economic stimulation, better employee engagement, greater profitability and productivity, and true recognition of our manufacturing abilities?
The industry of exploitation has failed as spectacularly as the industry of investment banking. This government dines hungrily on its cosiness to the city, and its fabricated reputation for economic competence. For the appetite that we all hold for economic success to be satisfied however, the Tories, as well as business at large, urgently need to swap dining partners and choose their diet from a new menu.
(Also published by the London Progressive Journal)
The heart is being torn painfully from the most vulnerable and poorest neighbourhoods in the name of 'market confidence' yet still we see unemployment figures rise, poverty levels rocket, and the continuing immolation of those sectors that traditionally lift working classes, ethnic minorities and women out of unemployment and benefit dependency.
The welfare bill is ballooning, thanks largely to Conservative indifference to rocketing joblessness in constituencies where they have no chance of electoral success. Even in 'true blue' areas, unemployment is creeping upwards whilst incumbent MPs focus attention on clamouring for promotion, rather than opening their eyes to the growing legions of jobless generations who will inflate the UK benefit bill for decades to come.
The right leaning group 'Open Europe' claim that a WTD without opt out could cost up to £11bn per year. These are frighteningly large figures, but when taken in the context of a benefit budget covering Job Seekers Allowance, Housing Benefit and Income Support of over £20bn per year, the opportunity for savings, deficit reduction, regeneration and increased employment become more obvious.
If the government were to set aside their distaste for EU regulation, natural contempt for workers rights and hostility to positive change, they would see that the end to the WTD opt out will no more destroy the economy than the minimum wage did, despite Tory claims at the time.
At a time of massive job shortages, rocketing unemployment and increasing social disconnection, it's surely logical to seriously consider the positive effects of a directive that, by nature, requires creation of jobs in order to fulfil its requirement? Placing people in work reduces unemployment, lowers benefit liabilities, stimulates the economy, and instils the work ethic that has skipped generations.
Positive effects of increased employment to disadvantaged neighbourhoods bring reductions in anti-social behaviour, and a feeling of personal pride that for many simply does not exist. It is plain to see that every penny used to implement such policies is a penny well spent. More importantly, such expenditure would save us money in the longer term.
Admittedly, the full implementation of the WTD would come at a cost, but this cost needs to be valued over the longer term, for the greater good, in the face of the bigger picture, bringing substantial social and industrial benefits.
The UK is an economy surviving on institutionalised overtime. We work harder, for longer, with fewer bank holidays than our neighbours. We have an adversarial, outdated approach to industrial relations, and successive governments have crowed about British 'competitiveness' Yet still we lag behind many other economies in terms of recovery, growth, poverty and investment. If we were running our economy in the best way, we would surely be lifting well clear of recession and racing towards economic nirvana, rather than speeding toward a fiscal tundra.
We need higher productivity, better work/life balance, and fresh approaches that will bring lower sickness rates, lower absenteeism, and greater profitability for our industries. The current system does not create these things, and needs to be consigned to history.
The economic downturn should be a watershed. The calamitous failure of strategies that scorned manufacturing and practical skills, instead worshipping financial services and all the confidence trickery that it brings, alongside an approach of selling the labour and toil of the most educationally disadvantaged and financial vulnerable for the lowest price needs to be abandoned.
Engagement by management with Unions needs to be encouraged, as does a greater openness to new ways of working on the part of those unions.
We need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want. Do we want the status quo to prevail, whereby millionaires choose their tax contribution rates, poorer communities are left to decay and stagnate, and those fortunate enough to work are flogged into later retirement, scant pension provision and an early grave? Or do we want higher employment, lower sickness/absenteeism rates, better work/life balance, economic stimulation, better employee engagement, greater profitability and productivity, and true recognition of our manufacturing abilities?
The industry of exploitation has failed as spectacularly as the industry of investment banking. This government dines hungrily on its cosiness to the city, and its fabricated reputation for economic competence. For the appetite that we all hold for economic success to be satisfied however, the Tories, as well as business at large, urgently need to swap dining partners and choose their diet from a new menu.
(Also published by the London Progressive Journal)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
