|
|
« March 2008 |
Main
| May 2008 »
Last April I posted about Luke Mackenzie, a Tory candidate who was standing in the British National Party (BNP) target ward of Basildon in Essex. Mr Mackenzie had been accused of peddling scare stories by suggesting that people who wanted to stop asylum-seekers being given council houses should vote Conservative. The Times reported that Mr Mackenzie's future as a Conservative candidate was 'hanging in the balance.'
Guess what? Luke is standing for the Tories in this year's election - this time for the neighbouring ward of Vange. Here are a few of Mr Mackenzie's thoughts and observations (taken directly from his website):
Luke on Crime: 'Ever heard of the saying cut off the head and the body will die. Try the hand instead.'
Luke on the NHS: 'The NHS has the money it needs, but it's mis-spent. Targets should be scrapped and the money saved from administration costs, that come with the targets should be spent on Doctors, Nurses, hygiene etc.'
Does anyone understand this? Does it make any sense?
Luke on housing: 'Local council housing for local people, not asylum seekers.'
The fact is that Luke is still a candidate for the Tories and he is still (if his website is anything to go by) peddling scare stories by suggesting that people who wanted to stop asylum-seekers being given council houses should vote Conservative.
Perhaps it is a case of vote Tory and get the BNP?
Thirty years since the huge Rock Against Racism gig in London's Victoria Park made a stand against the emergence of a far right challenge in the capital (then in the form of the openly fascist National Front), this weekend saw an event intended to demonstrate the unity of Londoners from all ethnic backgrounds against the politics of racism and division. The message must go out across the city - use your vote in the Londonwide list on Thursday's elections to make it harder for the British National Party to make the 5% threshold needed to get them a seat on the Greater London Assembly.
There is a real danger of the BNP gaining a platform for their message of hate. But at the same time, it is vital people understand that - even if the far right has no real presence in your locality - thanks to the proportional voting system, every registered elector in London has the chance to make their vote count.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons between how the NF was crushed and the battle to combat the BNP today - not least because Nick Griffin is attempting to conceal their vicious agenda in order to appeal to voters wanting to register a protest. The Economist claims that in the 70's "the far right was kept at bay by the electoral system", pointing to the NFs 5.3% share of the vote in the GLC elections of 1977, which was not sufficient to win them a seat under a First-Past-the-Post system. Firstly, this misses the whole point of an electoral system - which does not exist to sweep uncomfortable minority opinions under the carpet but to give representation to candidates in line with the way votes were actually cast.
And, in any case, a "like-for-like" comparison can't be made like this - under the FPTP system in 1977, Labour voters in areas like Westminster, Wandsworth or Chelsea might well have concluded that their vote would've been wasted, and so not turned out. But under a PR system they still would still have an incentive. The cumulative effect of such voters turning out would be a higher turnout, which would've made it harder for the BNP to meet a 5% threshold.
Progressives and democrats should not bemoan the fairness of the voting system and hark back to systems which skew the way candidates are elected - we should concentrate on winning the arguments, giving a positive alternative and inspiring people to get out and use their votes for democratic parties that promote unity and mutual respect.
There's a huge paradox about the latest Labour rebellion.
Those who have been pressuring Gordon Brown on the 10p tax rate change may now be experiencing a nice, warm glow of self-righteousness. But don't they see that each successful revolt undermines the authority of this government and increases the chances of David Cameron, not Gordon Brown, becoming the next Prime Minister. By winning the vote on the 42 Day Bill they would be making that outcome almost certain.
The result will therefore be to end any further help for the poor and to destroy any possibility of Labour rebels being able to influence government policy in the medium term future, at least.
Well, it was always said that self-abuse leads to blindness.
Incidentally, how is it that when you listen you are accused of doing a U-turn and when you don't do a U-turn you are accused of not listening? Anything for a negative story I suppose!
Our Chair, Stephen Twigg's campaign site for Liverpool West Derby.
Labour Outlook.
And don't forget the already-indispensible Politics Home, care of Andrew Rawnsley, Martin Bright and others.
Today we have also been looking at Hopi Sen (though it has been around for a bit!).
The NASUWT published the interim findings of their Gangs and Schools Report today, which suggest that gangs are not a widespread problem in schools, but schools need significant help to tackle the problem head on where it exists. It’s only the interim findings, the full report is out in September, but it makes some interesting points.
Firstly, it is heartening to see the NASUWT painting a responsible, realistic picture of the problem, acknowledging it without blowing it out of proportion or scaremongering, and offering positive and sensible recommendations.
The findings show that gang related activities can stem from truancy, and are linked to poor interfaith and interracial relations. They also acknowledge that bullying is inextricably linked with both of these issues, and it’s not too big a leap to see that prevention work around bullying will therefore have a significant effect in tackling the problem of gangs in schools as well.
At Beatbullying the Charity I work for, we’ve been acutely aware of the links between bullying, violent behaviour, and gang culture for a long time. Bullying often operates with a pack mentality, with young people forming groups both to target others and to protect themselves. This can be seen as a precursor to gang behaviour, with young people searching for an identity and common ground, to ingratiate themselves with others, and for protection. As tensions increase, violent behaviour is not uncommon. Interestingly, however, many young people state that they carry weapons more as a self defence mechanism than as an offensive weapon. The fear element here is something that needs further attention I think – young people aren’t out to commit violent behaviour, but they fear attack themselves. Perhaps the biggest challenge here must be promoting levels of knowledge and tolerance, rather than hatred and fear, between young people.
Most interestingly and laudably, the NASUWT strongly advocates the use of peer mentoring schemes, working directly with young people involved, to change behaviour, re-educate, and prevent further involvement in undesirable activities.
For years NGO’s such as Beatbullying, Childline and The Mentoring and Befriending Network has been lobbying the Government to introduce peer mentoring programmes in all schools across the UK, to tackle bullying and other inappropriate behaviour. Peer to Peer mentoring works, when embedded in our schools, bullying is reduced by up to 40% (Beatbullying 2007). TMBN report similar results. Scaled up Government committing to supporting these schemes will mean that thousands and thousands of violent and inappropriate behaviours from our young people will not happen.
The NASUWT findings are simply a further indication that we need these schemes in all schools now. All schools need peer mentoring programmes, and with Government spending on education at an all time high, it’s time that funding was given to peer mentoring schemes so that every young person has access to it, and we can effectively tackle these issues that concern young people and families the most.
>Emma-Jane Cross
Upcoming Fabian Society pamphlet, How to Defend Inheritance Tax
TUC issues response to DWP proposals for protecting pension funds
Fawcett Society publishes new collection of essays on race and gender
Oxfam calls on government to review new transport fuel policy
On Wednesday, the Chatham House Under 35s Forum discusses the topic Peace and Justice After Conflict – Can We Have Both?
Work Foundation event this Thursday on faith in the workplace – examining the potential conflict between people’s roles as workers and religious believers
Ippr event next Monday on secondary migration – the onward movement of international migrants from one country to another
Smith Institute breakfast seminar next Tuesday examining how public services can help promote the health of all children
The current debate about the new anti-terror bill can be boiled down to one simple question. What is worse, the possibility of an innocent suspect being held (despite all the safeguards) for 42 days or the possibility of a guilty suspect slipping through the net at the 28 day point because there is insufficient time to gather the essential evidence?
Those who oppose any extension obviously consider the infringement of liberty to be the key factor. Indeed, the campaigning group, Liberty , are currently running a highly emotional ad showing a young lad with a ball tucked under his arm looking into the distance, with the caption WHERE'S MY DADDY? The sub-text reads:
Under current anti-terror laws you can be locked up and questioned repeatedly by police for 28 days, without being charged. The government is proposing to extend this even further. Imagine spending 42 days away from your home, your family, your life - and try explaining that to him.
To which those favouring an extension can respond by running the same ad, except the sub-text would read:
Under current anti-terror laws you can be locked up and questioned for only 28 days. Imagine a terrorist being released because there has not been enough time to make the case against him, and then blowing up this boy's Daddy and many others. Try explaining that to him.
I know which course of action is the lesser of the evils for me. How about you?
The Lib Dems are, I'm afraid, correct about the need for a public inquiry into BAE's allegedly corrupt arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Though governments are usually pretty strict in setting the terms of reference for these things (the Hutton Inquiry, for one), the debate would surely quickly move on to role of the attorney-general.
The government's draft constitutional reform bill is extremely timid on this. The hope that Gordon Brown would do something radical, like denying a political appointee the power to halt fraud investigations, has foundered. In fact, such powers might even be strengthened - the draft bill proposes that the attorney-general be able to snuff out prosecutions on national security grounds.
But didn't Tony Blair more or less admit to taking the decision to halt the BAE prosecution? This, as the former attorney-general Lord Lyell pointed out on the Today programme this morning, was unconstitutional. It was Goldsmith's job to offer 'advice' to the rather anaemic head of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Robert Wardle. But let's face it, such quaint notions as constitutional propriety probably weren't at the forefront of the three men's minds at the time.
You could argue that this is the beauty of the British system. The PM or a politically-minded law officer can intervene in due process to protect us from terrorism, or to allow us to sell £4bn worth of warplanes to the Saudis. This what certainly the 'realist' tack taken by the Daily Telegraph this morning, in keeping with its view that the charges be dropped in the first place.
You could argue that, but that would put you squarely in agreement with the likes of Jonathan Aitken and the late Alan Clark. If Gordon Brown's promised 'new kind of politics' is not going to be looked back on with derision, he should act to ensure much greater accountability and openness around government decisions taken 'in the national interest' - as well as defining what the latter actually means.
A public inquiry would be an ideal place to start. Denis Macshane, also on Today, implied that the primacy of parliament was being ignored and that it should debate the decision after recess. Talk about a monumental red herring. The House of Commons did, after all, debate and pass - with a majority of 244 - the relevant anti-corruption legislation in 2001.
Parliament could hardly be described as a highly challenging scrutineer of the government. The problem with the British system, as any half-decent politics student knows, is the lack of rival centres of power to central government. The courts are one of the few exceptions to this. Hence the periodic Blunkett-like moanings from politicians about their decisions. To allow parliament - subject as is it is to a government majority - to determine which legal judgments can be overridden 'in the national interest' would be an act Robert Mugabe would be proud of.
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Gordon Brown backed plans to extend the Cadet force in more British comprehensive schools. The Tories aren’t against the idea either, and they outlined their own separate plans to tackle discipline and behaviour in schools on Monday in policy document titled Giving Power Back to Teachers.
While it’s pleasing that both parties are trying to tackle behaviour in schools and address the problems facing our young people, I can’t help but think that some of their strategies won’t be as effective as they claim.
The Tories main proposals include boosting powers of exclusion and giving teachers more power in dealing with violent and disruptive pupils, pressing for an end to the ‘no touch’ policy. Some of the obvious flaws in the proposals have already been outlined in the Independent.
Yes, we need to improve levels of behaviour and discipline within schools, but it seems to me like this is all ‘stick’ and no ‘carrot’ for pupils. Young people behave well in environments where they are valued, where they can contribute, and where they can progress. Not surprisingly, these are also the environments where they will respect others. I doubt that many pupils will find this environment within the Tories plans. Will they make teachers feel happier? Yes. Teachers can forcefully restrain pupils, can take away possessions without reason, and can turf them out of education if they don’t like it. Will the fear of being restrained and expelled without appeal improve pupil behaviour? There’s no substantial evidence to say so.
Now, there is an argument that the cadet environment is precisely one where young people can contribute, be valued, and respect each other. Yes, but only for a small minority of young people. In relation to the 35,000 young people Beatbullying has worked with directly over the last few years, only a very small percentage would react well to a bootcamp environment. For all those who do not enjoy physical activity or games, the prospect of a cadet lifestyle is unlikely to have a beneficial effect on their behaviour.
Furthermore, you can’t help but be a little worried about the prospect that bullies will migrate towards this system, and the allure of power that they will be in a position to exert over their junior officers. Perish the thought that we might even be putting bullies in uniform and putting them in a position to abuse any authority. Without substantial evidence, beyond the anecdotal, that cadet forces significantly improve behaviour among its recruits, then you’d have to wonder whether this is the best system of anti-conflict education.
Yes, we need to improve levels of discipline and respect, and encourage youth participation in activity, but let’s not limit this within an army environment. Perhaps what would be a better, more mixed and more inclusive, policy response in the way we tackle behavioural problems in schools, is the roll out of mentoring schemes in both schools and communities.
We know that mentoring schemes work – they reduce bullying, they improve behaviour, increase attainment, increase attendance. Unlike the cadet force proposal, they are all inclusive – sporty kids mentor sporty kids, young people who like music can find a mentor they can relate to, and so on. And unlike the Tories plan, mentoring proposals actually take into consideration the position of young people. They are monitored by adults, and their results undoubtedly make life easier for teachers, yet young people are at the heart of them, and unlike the Tories proposals, young people benefit too.
First report from ippr's Working out of Poverty series published at the start of April
Day for Darfur Demonstration taking place this Sunday (13 April)
New Local Government Network launch event on recruiting the next generation in local government
Equalities Commission and Local Government Association research shows allocation of social housing not biased towards migrants
Launch of counter-extremism thinktank the Quilliam Foundation
Matthew Taylor speaking at Young Foundation on âprivate optimism, public pessimismâ
Will Hutton yesterday spoke at a Work Foundation event entitled: Whatâs going on with the credit crunch?
The Centre for European Reform today launch The Lisbon scorecard VIII, with Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Secretary of State for European Affairs, Paris
At Chatham House, Olivier Roy, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, discusses his new book, The Politics of Chaos in the Middle East which argues that the west has no choice but to engage in dialogue with the Islamo-nationalists of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood
The Supplementary Vote system used to elect the Mayor of London will give Liberal Democrats in the capital a straight choice: Should they put the politics of anti-incumbency - the desire to kick out randomly at Labour in power, even if this means giving a helping hand to a barely reconstructed reactionary clown like Boris Alexandre de Pfeffel Johnson - ahead of the progressive governance of our city? Many Liberal Democrats nationwide would surely baulk at taking such a stand. And yet with Liberals and Conservatives already working together in boroughs like Brent and Camden to forge an anti-Labour bloc, it is far from clear that the majority of Londoners will resist the temptation to take a further swipe at their local opponents. A recent Guardian/ICM poll put Ken and his Tory challenger almost neck-and-neck, but suggested that a lead that has opened up by Johnson for the second preferences of Lib Dems, could give the latter the key to City Hall.
This possibility raises an awful lot of questions. What would this say about the direction Nick Clegg is taking his party?
And what would it all mean for the possible introduction of preferential voting for elections to the House of Commons? Would it help Labour to convince the electorate that it was not introducing reform of the voting system for its own party-political advantage? Or is the party leadership looking for signs that AV would help to cement a broader "progressive coalition" with the Lib Dems to keep the Conservatives out of power?
How representative are the views of London's Lib Dems, anyway? In areas with Tory incumbents, might there be more of a move to swing behind Labour instead? There will be a lot to factor into our post-election considerations.
I was pleased to be invited to attend last night's lecture by Tony Blair at Westminster Cathedral. The event got off to a bit of a farcical start when Tony mistook shouts from the back of the cathedral asking for the sound to be turned up for hecklers shouting him down - as he said, he is more used to people not wanting him to speak than to those expressing concern because they cannot hear him!
Blair's message was that religion could "awaken the world's conscience" and help to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to eradicate poverty and hunger. He warned against the "extremist and exclusionary tendency in religion today". He argued that it is not extreme for a person to believe their own religion is the only faith - "most people of faith do that" - but said it should not stop them respecting other religions. He said people must accept that faith is not in decline and the world has become more economically, politically and ideologically independent.
"The divide, then, is between those who see this as positive, the opening up offering opportunity, and those who see it as threatening and wish to close it back down," he said. Blair took the opportunity to set out plans for his new Faith Foundation, to be launched later this year. The Foundation will focus on bringing together Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists to promote faith as a relevant and positive force for good.
http://mike-ion.blogspot.com/
The EU is proving its worth on the issue of climate change, environment minister Phil Woolas told a packed meeting in parliament on Monday, jointly hosted by Progress and the Green Alliance.
Woolas said the reputation of the EU had been ‘hugely enhanced’ in the developing world because of the leadership it had shown. ‘Climate change does not respect national boundaries in consequences or solutions,’ he said. ‘The world - and especially developing world - is looking to the EU for leadership and brokerage in this debate.’
While the threat posed by climate change was ‘terrifying’ it presented ‘the best opportunity we have for true internationalism,’ the minister said. ‘The EU has been criticised for having a policy for its membership and not for the world - this issue is changing that. The level of international solidarity is greater than on any issue since the Treaty of Rome.’
The question for those on the reactionary side of politics, said Woolas, was what policy they had that recognised the international nature of climate change. The answer, he claimed, was that they didn’t have one.
Stephen Hale, director of the Green Alliance, said the problem of climate change was ultimately one of political imagination – framing a story that could be understood by the public and a framework within which to act.
While the EU had been the single most important player so far in tackling climate change – with initiatives such as the Kyoto treaty and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – Hale said its climate change project was in a fragile state. ‘There isn’t the depth of political support needed or the policy framework needed. The EU doesn’t yet have the policies or strategies in place to deliver emissions reductions or to persuade the big players to do so.’
Hale described Europe as the ‘global dealmaker’, arguing that no other player on the world stage could bring an agreement together on climate change. Futhermore, the issue presented the EU with an ‘open goal’ when it came to gaining public support, with the evidence clearly demonstrating that that the public wanted the EU take action on climate change.
Hale outlined four particular actions the EU needed to take: do more to deliver aspirations for greater renewable energy; impose greater stringency in reductions in the ETS; put in place the necessary finance for investment in carbon capture and storage; give serious amounts of money to cover transition costs to a carbon economy, particularly for India and China.
The rhetoric about climate change will remain strong, said Hale, but the EU is about to reach a moment of truth on substance.
Margaret Gilmore, associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Policy Studies and former BBC home affairs correspondent, outlined some of the security issues surrounding climate change. The floods seen in the UK last July demonstrated the severity of climate change, she said, adding that the issue is going up the security agenda.
However, Gilmore cited a recent report on floods indicating that the government’s strategy to deal severe weather incidents – that could see 300,000 evacuated from their homes - falls well behind its strategy to deal with terrorist attacks.
‘We have to work with our European partners but we have to put our own house in order first,’ she said.
Simon Tilford, chief economist at the Centre for European Reform, said the measures enacted by the EU so far had not been perfect but were far better than if 27 countries had been attempting to act alone. ‘Winning domestic support when other countries are not taking similar action would be politically impossible,’ he argued.
Tilford said that carbon capture storage would be vital if the EU countries were to reduce their emissions levels by the necessary amount before 2050. This would require a European network of storage facilities and could therefore only be done at a European level, he said. ‘EU-level financial support would help and there would be no better way to make use of its money.’
Woolas said the price of carbon was essential to ensuring sustainability. ‘This isn’t a fringe activity, it’s got to be mainstream in trade throughout the world.’
But Hale warned against relying too much on the carbon price which he said was not going to reach the level necessary to drive investments in the technologies needed. What were needed, in addition, were regulation and money – through radical reform of the EU budget and by auctioning revenues.
Whatever the differences about how the EU should act to tackle climate change, most panellists agreed that the issue presented a problem for the right. Woolas argued that it was not possible to tackle climate change and be a protectionist while Patricia Hewitt, chairing the meeting, branded the Tories’ professed concern for the environment as posturing since they were sceptical about the very means by which the problem could be dealt with – government and EU action.
She also issued a challenge to progressives ‘to ensure we can mobilize consent we need at a European level and public political consent for a shift to low carbon economy.’
While it was important for the EU to take effective action to combat climate change, the panellists added that the issue presented the EU, often derided as self-interested and ineffective, to demonstrate its importance in the modern world. As Hale pointed out: ‘It can demonstrate to the people of Europe that they now have their money spent on something they care about.’
|
|
