A Tale of Two Demonstrations

I couldn't help noticing the contrast between the handful of Africans marching with the coffin of Zimbabwe's democracy at last Friday's London demonstration and the 1 million who turned out against the Iraq war.

The common theme seems to be that the Left are prepared to tolerate any kind of oppression as long as it is opposed by the American and British governments.

Bullied to death

In the last two weeks, two deeply upsetting and tragic deaths have been reported in the media.  Sam Leeson, from Gloucestershire and aged just 13, hanged himself on 5 June 2008 after being bullied via the internet, while an inquest in Wales heard this week that Cherelle Ardle, also only 13, hanged herself with a school tie after being bullied at school.

These deaths serve as a tragic reminder of the devastating consequences of bullying, and yet, disturbingly and sadly, one wonders just how many young people in the UK are driven to contemplating taking their own lives because of bullying. Beatbullying has been trying, unsuccessfully, to collate the number of suicides related to bullying using the Freedom of Information Act.

Both the Home Office and the Department of Health have refused to provide any information or declared that it is unobtainable.  I have also written personally to every court of coroners in the UK to ask if they had any information or whether we could investigate, and from the few that replied, the resounding answer was, unsurprisingly, no.

It would appear that the Government is not recording, or will not tell us, why these young people are being driven to commit suicide. So Beatbullying conducted our own research. Last year, we questioned 1,769 young people aged 11-16, and 60% told us that they had been bullied. Of those being bullied, 12% had self harmed and 9% reported having suicidal thoughts.

These were shocking findings, and ones that we need to act on. I cannot imagine the hell a young person must be going through to consider taking their own life, and whilst there might be various factors that can lead to suicide, bullying is clearly one of them.  Unrecognised officially, Beatbullying estimates that every year in the UK, over 20 young people commit suicide because they are being bullied.

Child suicide is a terrible thing for any family and community to deal with, and we must look at why young people consider it and work with them to stop others from doing the same.  One way in which we can definitely reduce the number of incidents is to prevent bullying.  We need to tackle bullying where it happens and support those that are being bullied, but most importantly, we need to implement measures to prevent it from happening in the first place.  Beatbullying runs bullying prevention programmes in schools and communities, which are proven to reduce bullying by an average of 40%.

Beatbullying calculate that it costs just £4 per child per year, to run proven bullying prevention schemes in every school, for every child, and yet bullying prevention is still not at the forefront of Government considerations.  However, at the launch of the Children’s Plan in April 2008, Kevin Brennan announced funding for all Local Authorities to put in place mechanisms for reviewing child deaths, and, as I understand it, the Department of Health will now record “suicide because of bullying” as a category pertaining to explainable deaths.  Bullying must be listed as a cause of suicide in the child death review process, as only then will the true extent of this tragedy become clear.  Faced with inescapable truths, we might finally realise the importance and necessity of making bullying prevention work available to every child in this country.

Emma-Jane Cross
Beatbullying

Valuing Young People

Young people are often depicted in the media as the scourge of their communities - if they're not knifing each other to death or hoodies nicking stuff then they're boozing themselves silly and being generally anti-social.  Even the quiet ones are moody and prone to go on suicide websites or develop eating disorders.  An all-round plague on society, only topped by asylum seekers and paedophiles if you believe our beloved tabloid press. 

Of course, no-one would deny that there are widespread concerns about the attitudes and behaviour of some young Britons today, worries that young people themselves are often the first to express.  But it is vital that the Labour party and the government don't appear to be putting forward a one-sided negative stereotype of young people  - as though they are a solely a problem which adult society has to contain and overcome.  There is a danger that if young people are only ever represented as a hostile element then they will begin to identify with this social role - as indeed was the case with ASBOs becoming a "badge of honour".

Therefore whilst is surely reasonable that young people are asked to meet basic social repsonsibilities, this should not be the limit of our message to them.  A state that simply acts as a stern disciplinarian parent might achieve a measure of obedience but it will never be sufficient to earn affection from its young subjects.  We need to demonstrate that alongside the responsibilities asked of young people are offered a range of rights to enable themselves both to fulfil their own potential but also to make a positive contribution to their communities.  We should demonstrate that we believe they have something valuable to offer - whether it is in terms of giving school-leavers the right to a decent minimum wage from day one of their employment, or giving community groups and youth workers the power to engage young people in making decisions on how leisure facilities are allocated, we need to listen, to empower and to value rather than simply lecture.

One way of demonstrating that Labour is serious about listening and empowering would be to lower the voting age to 16 - thereby giving a concrete right to for young people to have their say over how the country is run.  Of course many might choose not to exercise this right - it will surely take much greater efforts to overcome apathy towards political parties who sometimes act more childishly than those they would patronise.    But by including them in the wider electorate to which politicians must account, political discourse would be given an incentive to take their concerns seriously and address young people in a positive light.  This would definitely be a change for the better.   

 

Event report: Who are the real progressives now?

Labour must not allow the public to be deceived by Tory warm words about progressiveness, Yvette Cooper said last night at a debate in parliament held jointly by Progress and Policy Exchange.

'It's not enough to have warm words about the ends, you have to be prepared to do something about it and recognise that policies require money,' said the chief secretary to the treasury. 'My definition of being progressive includes a sense of anger about inequality and not one-nation Tory concern for the poor. Widening equality of opportunity for all is fundamental and something the Tories are not prepared to sign up to.'

Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt hit back, saying that a sense of anger and injustice about inequality was the exact reason he was in politics.

Hunt claimed that by denying the Tories meant what they said about poverty and inequality, Cooper was making the same mistake his party made before the 1997 election when they portrayed Tony Blair as a red-eyed socialist. 'We were wrong and the country was right. The country has sensed the Conservatives have changed.'

The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland conceded the Tories had shifted to a more progressive position, but only so far. While the party advocated progressive ends such as social justice, they were 'nowhere near a progressive place on means,' he said, talking about a broken society but disavowing the tools necessary to fix it - collective action. 'Saying the voluntary sector should fill in for government is a hollow claim in the UK, it's effectively saying we will leave people to chill wind of an empty landscape where only the strongest survive.'

He added: 'Where is the social enterprise or business paying for a couple's bonus? Where is the company which will pay for health visitors? When the rubber hits the road, you are left imagining that charities are going to do it. It's confusion.'

Hunt insisted the choice was between a bottom-up and top-down approach to provision. 'The Conservatives are not retreating to a Victorian system, we are the accepting state's responsibility to sort out problems,' he said, adding that the last 11 years had shown that problems couldn't be solved with money and targets, but required partnership with the voluntary and private sectors. 

Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, claimed it was rightwing policies that did most to help those in poverty and branded the left's policies counter-productive. Championing workers over users had led to ineffective public services which the middle classes had bought their way out of; the welfare system had encouraged people to languish on benefits; housing policy 'traps people and kills off aspiration'; and pouring aid into developing countries rather than allowing them to benefit from globalisation.

'Helping the poor has been one of the great achievements of the right. The left have actually been deeply regressive,' Browne said.

Hunt echoed these views, claiming that 'you can't say any party has a monopoly on social reform', citing the introduction by the Tories of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (although an audience member insisted the Tories did not bring in the Act and had in fact opposed it). The shadow culture secretary also claimed that Margaret Thatcher had introduced meritocracy to the country by such measures as enabling people to buy their own homes.

Cooper flatly disagreed with this, citing evidence that showed that social mobility had decreased under Thatcher, and concluding that the former Tory PM reversed meritocratic trends and presided over high unemployment.

Both sides agreed that it was significant this debate was taking place at all. 'It's testimony to the work of Labour that the debate has shifted,' said Cooper, noting that John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard had not tried to claim progressive credentials. 'The Tories are trying to claim to be progressive because the country is more progressive than 20 years ago.'

Freedland said the debate's topic should sound warning bells for Labour. 'It's coming to something when Labour even has to argue for itself as the progressive party. I say, with a heavy heart, that Labour now has to argue for why it's a progressive party.'

Purnell speech makes discreet waves

John Rentoul, on the Independent's Open House blog, is positively gushing in his praise for James Purnell's speech for Progress last week:

'No wonder several Labour people in Westminster in the past few days have said to me: "Have you read Purnell's speech?"'

... says Rentoul. All part of Purnell's 'discreet rise', apparently. Though the number of admiring media profiles the pensions secretary is receiving is definitely on the increase. See this one by Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.

Still, perhaps the political editor of the Tory organ isn't the best person to be listening to at times like this ...

A theory of relativity

I posted the following comment on Tom Harris's excellent blog in response to the flack he's receiving for asking why we are so bloody miserable when most of us have never had it so good.

No doubt in fifty years time when our standard of living will have trebled there will be an economic setback due to our insatiable appetites outrunning the resources available.

People will then be complaining about not being able to afford things like cordon-bleu meals every day, the latest hologramic TV, household robots to do all their work for them and flying cars to get them to where they want to go - all considered to be essential for a contented life.

And of course there will be those oh-so-caring opposition politicians and commentators arguing that they have every right to be upset about having to suffer such terrible deprivation.

Policy discussion: how do we open up admissions to faith schools?

According to the Catholic Education Service it is spurious to suggest that removing the absolute right of a religious community to educate its own children by introducing a percentage non-faith quota for Church schools would aid social cohesion. I'm not so sure.

Why? Well as someone whose teaching career was solely in the VA RC sector I would argue that it is neither spurious nor indeed contrary to the mission of the Church. Indeed I would go further and challenge the CES to publish a complete list of Catholic schools (secondary in particular) where it is already custom and practice that between 20% - 30% of the intake is from other faith backgrounds or none.

Opening up faith schools to people of different faiths (or none) would be a positive move towards greater social and educational inclusion. After all a truly 'Christian school' is surely one that seeks to be open and accessible to all as well as paying particular attention to the needs of the marginalized and the poor.

What is needed is a mature, open and honest debate about the type of educational system various faith groups would be happy to support and indeed help shape in the twenty-first century. Should it be an inclusive, comprehensive system that intrinsically values and caters for all pupils regardless of their spiritual, economic or social capital? Or should it be a two-tier, elitist system that perpetuates privilege, does not help promote the common good and is contrary to the message of the Christian gospel?

Here are some practical suggestions for reform:

1. Insist that all state funded VA schools set a aside a minimum of 20% of its annual intake for the pupils of parents of other faiths or none.

2. Require all VA schools to publish their admission figures (criterion referenced) annually.

3. Require all VA schools to provide LAs with action plans (updated annually) as to how the school will actively seek to promote community cohesion.

Do you agree? What else might we add?

Boycott this by-election stunt

So David Davis wants to stand for re-election to his seat of Haltemprice & Howden in a "noble endeavour" to shaft Cameron, get his face all over the papers and pose as the defender of liberty and the Magna Carta.  We shouldn't dignify this tawdry electoral stunt by lending it the slightest claim to legitimacy.  It demonstrates that the Conservatives have contempt for the principle of representative democracy.  Your view gets voted down fairly and squarely?  Just throw your toys out of the pram and hold a sham by-election in a seat you would have won anyway.  We should leave Davis slugging it out with the Monster Raving Loonies and their ilk.

And before anyone rushes to denounce me for being an illiberal authoritarian or the latest modish insult, I couldn't have supported the 42 day proposal either.  But if Davis felt the need to go into battle for habeas corpus why didn't he do it around the original 28 day measure?  And the bill hasn't passed into law, nor is it likely to do so anytime soon as the Lords will send it back.

Even if the Parliament Act was invoked, that has far greater consitutional legitimacy than a fake plebiscite in an area highly unlikely ever to be suffer the effects of terrorism anyway.  We might not come out of this episode exactly covered in glory ourselves.  But we shouldn't be pressed into fighting this meaningless contest/  We should expose the cynicism of the Tories for playing politics with national defence and by-passing the democratic will of the House of Commons. And move on to pick the kind of battles that can unite the party and win broad public support.

Fight back against scaremongering doctors

This week the British Medical Association starts its campaign against the government's polyclinic proposals. There will be posters and leaflets in every GP surgery. I've already had a preview of what this entails when I visited my local medical centre the other day.

Before I had even checked in, I was urged to sign that BMA infamous petition. Being a bolshie sort of person I declined, pointing out that I was not in the habit of signing petitions until I had acquainted myself with both sides of the argument.This remark produced a disdainful shrug from the lady behind the counter and when I added that I thought that this was multi-GP centre anyway, she retorted rather sharply "Oh no, the new clinics will have dozens of doctors and you'll be lucky to see the same one twice".

The petition form was almost full and I felt my anger rising as I realised that this BMA propaganda exercise was being repeated in surgeries across the nation (which was particularly unfortunate as I was about to have my blood-pressure checked). Quite apart from the ethics of foisting this kind of one-sided material on vulnerable patients visiting a surgery, not properly answered it could only provide another reason for not voting Labour at the next election.

Which brings me to how the government are responding to this insidious campaign. So far I have only seen Alan Johnson's excellent article in the current issue of the Observer. Presumably more will be said by Ministers in the coming days and weeks. But given the emotional pull of the BMA propaganda in the "Trust me I'm a doctor" atmosphere of the surgery this is not enough. The government (or the Party) should be insisting on the surgeries displaying the case for polyclinics alongside the BMA material, to at least give patients the opportunity of considering the pros and cons of this vital issue before making up their minds. Alan Johnson's piece would be a start but even better would be Polly Toynbee's hard-hitting polemic in last Friday's Guardian   

If Whitehall and Victoria Street are reluctant to take this on, how about you dear reader? I have already sent copies of these two articles to my local practice and I would urge you to do the same. The surgeries' response will make a good story about polyclinics for the local newspaper. If you are concerned about how such action will affect your treatment in the surgery, surely the prospect of having the needle plunged in a little more vigorously than usual is a small price to pay for doing your bit for the party.

It's time to end the era of 'fuzzy' politics

Political cross-dressing is occasionally sensible from a tactical perspective but rarely does it make for an effective political strategy. Too many voters just don't see what the real differences are between the two main parties in Britain, we live in the age of fuzzy politics. Gordon Brown knows that if he and the Labour party is to regain the trust and confidence of the electorate he will need to articulate exactly what differentiates progressive Labour politics from those of the opposition.

In an attempt to stimulate debate and discussion can I suggest three main differences:

1. Conservative philosophy believes that inequality in society is inevitable and desirable and that government can play virtually no role in its eradication. Progressive, left of centre political parties have always argued that inequality is repugnant to a modern, civilised society and that governments can be operate some powerful levers that bring about change.

Modern example: Labour wants education up to 18 for all, the Tories want to keep it to a select few.

2. Conservative politics believes in that most government 'intervention' is futile, be it in the markets or in the realm social policy. Progressive Labour politics believes that there is both strength and virtue in collective endeavour, that government really can make a difference in helping improve the quality of life for all.

Modern example: Labour introduced the national minimum wage, the Tories opposed it.

3. Conservative politics is 'conservative' politics, it seeks to entrench privilege and limit opportunity to an elite few.Progressive Labour politics recognises that to live is to change, that reform is often necessary to help re-affirm or re-assess strongly held values and beliefs in fairness, justice and tolerance for a modern setting.

Modern example: Tories have fewer women MPs than Labour and (in contrast to Labour) the vast majority of the Tory front bench come from backgrounds of immense wealth and privilege.

Let's not forget who the real enemy is and let's also remember that, yes the centre ground is where elections are won and lost, but let's not forget that in politics the centre ground covers a very wide area.