Softy Lefty Catchy Monkey

This week I have mostly...

2007-06-09T21:16:00.000+01:00

...been listening to the Santana Blues Band.

You should have been too. Seriously, this is the first time iTunes has been off 'shuffle' in weeks. I've got a black magic woman, got me so blind I cant see, dum dee dah. They're not all lyrical masterpieces, but that's not the point. It's simply fantastic jazz music.

And hey, even if you end up hating it, just remember Carlos' support for various good causes and thank yourself on a job well done.

Little Miss Deputy contest in the Party of One

2007-06-03T21:13:00.000+01:00

So then, I'm blogging again. Not that there's much point from a Labour Party perspective, given that Gordon Brown and the Parliamentary Party and quite happily engaging in "debate" and "renewal" all by themselves.

Sour grapes aside, with the failure of either a far-left or even practical joke challenger to the Iron Chancellor, interest seems to have gathered around the deputy leadership contest. Despite the pretence of a diverse choice, of the six candidatures only two actually seem to have a point: Jon Cruddas (whispering sweet nothings into party activists' ears and talking about feckin' housing) and Hazel Blears (keeping the faith alive in the Year of our Party 2007, After Blair). The others, however nice or charming they are reputed to be, seem like all they want is a bit more time in front of the cameras and an addition to their CV.

Blears or Cruddas are the only two candidates actually interested in the party or campaigning, as opposed to calming down our poor neglected MPs. Unless one of them is elected, the only way the contest will have meant something, anything, is if Harriet "I'm A Woman" Harman announces she is, in fact, a man - or at least admits she was joking about selective education and private health insurance, and only ran for deputy as a dare.

Anyway, while I'm not exactly pleased that no one in the Labour Party or trade unions will be able to vote for the leader and therefore nail the Chancellor down on some policies, it's been nice to go a month without being massively offended by some initiative of the Government, if only thanks to the transition. If having a Labour leader who doesn't revel in pissing off his natural supporters is the only advantage of a Brown premiership (and I sincerely hope it won't be and that we'll have further successes tackling poverty and social injustice etc.) then I will consider that more than adequate.

Good to see the Tory Party has been having a hard time of it, too. Seems like a bloody long time since that last happened.

Cruddas has a different 2020 vision

2007-03-20T17:10:00.000Z

Rather than the bland, pseudo-participatory sham of a debate that is Milburn's 2020 Vision, Jon Cruddas' campaign have published an open letter from 100 supporters around the country, which I am proud to have signed. Rather than the bleak vision of a 'progressive century' based on the Murdoch press and the super-marginals, Cruddas is pointing out the need for a progressive party, re-built as a vibrant campaign organisation rather than a passive, declining husk of a cheerleading squad. I urge everyone (by which I mean the random oddball who stumbles onto this blog!) who wants a fourth term Labour government to sign the letter and give Jon Cruddas their full support.

Genghis Reid strikes again

2007-03-07T17:45:00.000Z

John Reid, Michael Howard's more right-wing, secret younger brother, is keeping up the family tradition by cracking down on something (in thise case, illegal immigration) at the Home Office. Instead of climbing into the political cesspool that is John Reid's policy agenda, I merely suggest you read this Independent article from last year, written in the run-up to the glorious 2006 protests in the United States over similarly punitive measures.

In the article, the IPPR suggests, like the T&G, that an amnesty for those immigrants living illegally in Britain, who are "likely to be doing jobs that could be characterised as dirty, difficult and dangerous", is a Good Thing. Indeed, it could be worth £6bn to the economy (or "300 new schools, 12 district hospitals or 200,000 new nurses"), compared to the £4.7bn cost of deporting up to 500,000 people. Gosh, the choice is so difficult; whatever should we do?

Half the population

2007-03-05T12:41:00.000Z

Every time I read about the next US presidential election, and the Democratic candidates specifically, I realise just how depressing it is to be outshone by such a monumentally unequal society in the diversity of candidates. Picture the two Democratic party frontrunners: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now compare them to Gordon Brown, Michael Meacher and John McDonnell, or the assortment of other white men who have been mentioned as possible Labour leadership contenders. How the smeg did this happen?

Clinton and Obama may be riding to national prominence on the back of big business and millionaire supporters, the same social class on whom their Republican opponents will depend, but their mere presence in the contest as credible candidates - and in a culture dominated by social conservatism - puts we on the UK's progressive left to shame. Yes, Labour leads the way in female MPs, but there aren't enough by far. And the only cabinet-level politician from an ethnic minority I can think of is Baroness Amos; hardly awe-inspiring.

Given the recent discussion of House of Lords reform, I am inclined to ponder Tony Benn's Commonwealth of Britain Bill, which described a democratically elected second chamber where "half of the members .. shall be women and half shall be men". Perhaps someone could suggest the idea to Jack Straw: it might stop MPs, at least on the Labour backbenches, pissing about on which voting system to use to make a decision. And maybe Gordon Brown's fabled 100 days might, say, include nationwide All-Women Shortlists for selections until the parliamentary party accurately reflects the British population.

If I recall, had women not had the vote, Labour governments would have been elected continuously since 1945. As a result, women are disproportionately vital to the fortunes of the Conservative party; if Labour loses female voters permanently, we are fu---er, well, things are not good. So why isn't Labour's innovation and radicalism directed towards ending gender inequality? For good. Gone. By any means necessary. That kind of thing. Alongside ending poverty, it surely is the great task of the modern left.

That said, I'd settle for a good, female Labour leadership candidate.

So Ming's one of us?

2007-03-04T23:20:00.000Z

The BBC reports that Ming Campbell has got into a spot of bother over an anonymous (non-existent?) party worker briefing that his spring conference speech was actually about the terms of a Lib-Lab agreement.

I understand that Campbell was one of the two leading Lib Dem MPs pencilled in for cabinet-level positions, had the pre-1997 project between Blair and Ashdown come to fruitition, so I find it believable that he is considering how to develop the idea of a new centre-left pact. Whatever the accuracies of that report, if it were true, one thing that strikes me is that I don't find any of the 'tests' set for a Brown government particularly objectionable. Given that cooperation with the Liberals has always been the affair of the Blairite wing, I found it particularly surprising that I consider most of the ideas (generally) agreeable and not contradicting Labour values.

Campbell's highlighting of the need to "reduce inequality and provide quality public services" would, I imagine, be considered quite mainstream views amongst the Labour party grassroots. Indeed it reminds one of the social democratic image the Lib Dems stole from the government during the last election - as the party prepared to be open (nationally at least!) about their plans for public spending. Considering Brown's vulnerability to allegations of imposing "stealth taxes", it might be nice if the Labour government embraced in Ming's social-liberal leadership a rather obvious ally when it comes to public services and progressive taxation. Meanwhile scrapping ID cards and replacing council tax with a local income tax are two decent policies I would wholeheartedly support if voiced by a Labour MP.

Electoral reform aside, I think on issues ranging from anti-poverty work to the environment, the Labour party and the Liberals under Ming have far more in common than they would care to admit. Enough to avoid a Conservative government if the leadership elections don't rescue Labour from its year-long nosedive? Who knows. If any such agreement appeared like opportunism I think we would see even larger Tory poll leads emerge. And it's worrying to think what would happen to the trade unions and their workplace agenda under a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. They do support binding arbitration, after all.

The real 'deal-breaker' seems to be the call for a reversal of Britain's close partnership with US neoconservatism. Given that Brown has always been one of the leading advocates of the American tendency in the Labour party, I think there is more chance of Ming Campbell actually becoming the next prime minister than joining a Brown-led coalition under those terms.

However, if things don't change for Labour during the next twelve months, perhaps the situation would be worth considering further.

Review of the weekly class struggle

2007-03-03T17:00:00.000Z

1. Latest, vaguely radical-at-a-distance policy from the LibDems: raise taxes on the rich... (yay!) to redistribute inheritance to the middle class (feck!).

2. Angry parents string up Labour councillors for taking away little Billy's right to the best school. They bought that new in-catchment house fair and square, don'tcha know.

3. The party of the NHS is to give nurses a de facto pay cut. Because we all have to tighten our belts.

People power

2007-02-25T12:30:00.000Z

Let's talk about ferries. Now if you're using a few moments of your precious time to read this blog entry, you're probably British - which means that you live on an island. Not a proper island, though. A place that can hold over 60 million people is an island in the same way that Australia is: you can walk around its coastline without stopping, but if no one showed you a map you'd probably never notice.

I however, live on an island: the Isle of Wight. A real island; think Father Ted with tourism. An island off the coast of another island. Now, some very naughty people, Red Funnel and Wightlink, allegedly "ferry companies" but in reality "shameless profiteers", charge us extorionate amounts of money just to visit the mainland. And for mental health reasons, we need to leave this island every now and then. Did you know we're called the Isle of Wight because of our ghostly and lifeless nature? No? That's because it isn't true.

Moving on to some things that are true, however:

Red Jet season ticket prices have increased year on year at 2-3 times the rate of inflation
There is no government regulation of ferry ticket prices and passengers are vulnerable to further rises imposed
Since 2004, the cost of a season ticket has increased more than 30%
Islanders, particularly those travelling on foot, have no alternatives and are at the mercy of the unregulated ferry operators for getting off the island
In addition, parallel increases in the cost of transport of freight and goods across the Solent can push up up the cost of living on the island

Between those of us who need to visit Southampton or Portsmouth for reasons of sanity, and those commuters who essentially pay another tax just to get to work in the morning, we, the people, are pretty narked. And we'd like a bit of old fashioned solidarity.

The people who bring you these nuggets of truth, in the same spirit of consumer power that is sweeping this country, can be located here at the Competition 4 IOW Ferries blog. Please, take a minute to read what they have to say, and sign the petition.

Ideas for the Happy Office

2007-01-29T13:00:00.000Z

If headlines are anything to go by, then 'The Right Honourable' has been replaced by 'The Beleaguered' as the new prefix for the Home Secretary. If at all possible, the expressions on Comrade Reid's face may become even more grumpy in the coming days.

Amidst the Home Office's latest myriad of problems, so flawlessly constructed one can only surmise an evil genius is out there plotting against the Labour Party, a pertinent question arises: What the hell happens if John Reid doesn't survive as Home Secretary? Who, in their right mind, would want to replace him? "End my career in six months or less? Oh, yes. Thank you, Prime Minister." You'd need to hold his successor's family hostage, just to get them through the front door.

There is an alternative, of course. The Home Office states that it is "responsible for ensuring we live in a safe, just and tolerant society by putting public protection at the heart of all we do". Given that it is so manifestly crap at doing this, perhaps we should seek a wholly different method of achieving those goals. A good first step would be to abolish the Home Office entirely, and replace it with (drum roll, please) a Happy Office. I already have an official motto lined up: "Like its predecessor, but nicer."

We could use all the money the Home Office currently wastes on failing to keep people locked up in small rooms at public expense, and spend it on more effective (and nicer) ways of protecting us all. Not convinced? Some examples:

1. Each week, give everybody in the country a lovely free ice cream if they haven't been arrested in the last seven days.

2. Employ people to go around scraping chewing gum off the pavements, thereby making everyone feel better about their environment.

3. Create death squads to roam the streets looking for anyone who spits, litters, or doesn't clean up after their dog. (Okay, maybe that isn't 'nice', exactly, but when you're the Happy Secretary you have to make tough decisions.)

4. Issue water pistols filled with red wine to the police force, because while bank robbers (for instance) may not fear prison, they won't want their shirts getting ruined.

Think about it.

UNISON Brown Link, more like

2007-01-27T23:53:00.000Z

Every now and then, we get magazines, leaflets, and even ballot papers from UNISON through the post. This is curious, as my mother hasn't been a member of UNISON since she worked as a learning support assistant several years ago. How this reflects on UNISON's competence when it comes to keeping up-to-date records, I wouldn't like to guess. A union of some 1.3 million is allowed a certain leniency I suppose, even if it does seem like a waste of members' money.

Being somewhat of an anorak, I happened to flick through the latest batch of these magazines. My excuse? They often include offers that are available to non-members. In the UNISON Labour Link supplement to the latest addition of 'U' magazine, which came through the post yesterday, however, I found something that tickled me. Under the title 'Labour Leadership Contest - Have your Say!' there runs a line of crap pictures: Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman, Peter Hain, Jon Cruddas and Hilary Benn.

This list is notable, obviously, for the absence of the one leadership candidate who actually supports UNISON's positions on, for instance, the Private Finance Initiative or the internal market in the NHS: John McDonnell. Positions, ironically, which are brought up overleaf in 'U'. If UNISON is content to merely softly criticise these policies in perpetuity, this makes sense. Because surely, if they were serious about influencing debate on issues of such vital importance to their members, UNISON might, oh I don't know, consider someone whose candidacy would, at the very least, provoke a debate on things like privatisation or market reforms

Say what you like about McDonnell's views, I hope most people consider it acceptable to at least acknowledge there are genuine disagreements within the Labour Party and that a democratic debate would be a Good Thing. Well, apparently not. I can understand how difficult it must be for the union bureaucracy to justify supporting the architect of PFI, but excluding McDonnell's picture from a sodding in-house article, while boasting about giving members a 'say' on the impending election, is so hilariously petty the only appropriate response is:

The divorce at the UK corral

2006-11-28T16:01:00.000Z

So then, back to blogging. Sorry to my loyal audience, consisting of my invisible friend Petey the King of Carpetland and Petey's invisible family of talking carpets. Now that I've hit anyone who stumbles across this blog with a big dose of crazy, let's move on.

Apparently the United Kingdom is, like, so last week.

The Torygraph recently reported that a majority of Scots want independence, and that just under half of respondents from both sides of the border wouldn't mind seeing England leave the UK too. I seem to recall Portillo dismissing the entire nation of Scotland in the Daily Hate a few weeks ago, so maybe a bit of a drop in lovey-dovey Britishness north of the border is to be expected. The tough guy parade by Reid, Brown et al probably isn't helping either. It's like the media had enough of debating to what extent we should curtail the behaviour of 'yoofs', Muslims and nasty foreigners, and found a shining new minority to piss off.

Anyway, I don't get it. Yes, it. Any of it. All this business about borders. The obsessive focus all these nationalists have on, er, nationalism - in England and Scotland - is just so baffling. And I live in bloody rural southern England. The fuss about whether Scottish MPs should be allowed to vote on Ingerlish laws, or become Prime Minister, or walk around in public without a great big sign saying 'Impostor' (okay, perhaps I exaggerate): it just comes across as the most unpalatable kind of intolerance and exclusivity. One gets the feeling that all the politicians and journalists involved are merely concerned with stoking up our fears or prejudices.

All of these 'constitutional' problems I've heard mentioned - devolution, the monarchy, Westminster or whatever else - can be fixed if we set all this energy currently devoted to defining 'the other', and put it towards resolving the problem itself.

Look a map of the world - seriously, go on. I'll wait. Now, do you see those little pokey bits hanging off the top of Europe (in the middle and at the top of the map, naturally)? Those are the British Isles. A bunch of French and Scandinavians nicked 'em off the Italians a long time ago. Tiny, eh? It's unbelievable, really: so small and yet so much rain. In any case, the bigger lump has a teeming population, 60 million or so, drawn from invaders and immigrants for thousands of years, united in a culture based on foreign imports (whether curries, fish 'n' chips, American movies, the Royal Family etc.) which spends its entire time questioning what it means to be from Britain, England, Scotland etc. Even pretend countries like Wales. Ho ho.

Just keep looking at the map. It puts it all in perspective. When I look at Scotland, I see a bunch of people with strange accents who have worse weather than me and should have stronger, more democratic local and regional government. Which is the exact same thing I see when looking at the north of England. This bizarre notion that 'England', 'Scotland' and so on are indivisible units, with homogenous cultures entirely unique from one another, is a myth made up by people who want it to be true. Sod 'em.

I don't believe in all this nonsense about 'progressive patriotism' or 'Britishness' either, mind. Yeah, yeah - fair play, decency, sunshine and puppy dogs etc. When we don't have children living in poverty and people struggling to pay the rent, then we can engage in a nice round of backslapping. I don't believe in nationalism because it is a complete and total distraction. Because wherever you draw the lines on a map, we are a tiny little island in a great big world, with one language, one economy, one people... And unity is our strength. Solidarity, compatriots!

The miracle of life

2006-10-22T17:04:00.000+01:00

My cousin gave birth to a boy in the early hours of Thursday morning, having being rushed in to have an emergency caesarean. As she previously thought she would be unable to have children, I am over the moon for her. The birth alone would warrant a mention, but I would also like to take the opportunity to express some anger towards the NHS. Why? Couple of things:

Labour's manifesto commitments include: By 2009 all women will have choice over where and how they have their baby and what pain relief to use. We want every woman to be supported by the same midwife throughout her pregnancy.

Given that both promises seem easily achievable, one wonders why it would take an entire parliamentary term to fulfil. Nevertheless, our local hospital, St. Mary's, has an apparently top-notch maternity ward, so it comes as no surprise that it is well along the path to delivering on Labour's very simple pledges on midwife continuity and patient choice over childbirth. Indeed, it may have already got to that point, were it not for arbitrary control still exercised by health professionals.

Consider:

1. Due to health complications, my cousin was booked in for a caesarean birth last week. I hear the staff were very kind and everything was going swimmingly. My cousin and her partner packed up their stuff, went into the hospital and... were told by the stereotypically arrogant and entirely unsympathetic consultant, without even a proper scan, that a normal birth would be fine and she should check in after another week.

Bear in mind the kid was already late, and my cousin had been told repeatedly that the safest thing would be to have a caesarean - something she initially did not want to have, and which took a lot of courage to agree to. But a random doctor whom she had never met before, and who barely looked at her, arbitrarily decided that he wouldn't do the operation there and then, as planned. After just poking around a little bit. Without explaining anything. Obviously this was very upsetting, especially as my cousin was already concerned as the baby had stopped kicking etc.

Even worse, Wednesday night she went into labour suddenly and had to have an emergency caesarean, causing a lot of unnecessary pain (as a result of the aforementioned health problems), which would have been avoided if only the commitment to patient choice were more than a buzzword.

2. Less vital but still shocking to hear was that, having had the same midwife throughout her pregnancy, as promised, my cousin was shocked to find that, when giving birth, she would be stuck with a complete stranger - who, it must be said, was very rude and really shouldn't be in that kind of job. What is the point of having one midwife throughout the pregnancy if, at the moment of greatest vulnerability and need, the birth itself, you are suddenly 'assigned' someone else for god knows what reason?

Not very impressive, I must say.

Biting the bullet

2006-10-20T12:47:00.000+01:00

After six months of considering it, I have joined Compass. Let no one say I rush into things. In truth, the only obstacles to joining have been general forgetfulness and the wonderful habit of Compass sweetening its offers every other month. Considering the current deal offers three months' membership for £1 and a crapola of impressive-sounding publications, there is a part of me that thinks, if only I'd waited another month, Compass would be offering to send me a genie to grant three wishes. Hmm.

I'm still not entirely sure about some elements of Compass - although presumably reading its Programme for Renewal will give me a clearer idea of how comfortably I fit into the "democratic left". More news as it happens.

Here's to the free movement of labour

2006-10-15T14:34:00.000+01:00

Having been told, oh, perhaps seven years ago by my then-dentist (who subsequently turned to the Dark Side, or "went private") that I didn't need a brace and my teeth would sort themselves out as I grew, it was a somewhat bitter-sweet victory when, two days ago, I proved him to be the stinking liar that he is by finally having a brace fitted. While the old man is now retired, I take some solace in the fact that, having spent his professional life screwing people out of their money in return for treatment, if there is a hell, he will surely spend eternity having root canal.

In any case, moving on from berating the class enemy, I was referred to an NHS orthodontist by our local hospital, and am currently being treated by a Polish dentist, admittedly with a poor grasp of English, but who is a lovely man and, in between working on my teeth, shares such gems as, "zese Americans... zay sink zay are ze verd police" while listening to the radio. Long story short, there was a problem with the brace and earlier this morning I had an emergency appointment to get it fixed with, surprise-surprise, another Polish dentist - again, working in a local NHS practice.

And some in Britain have the cheek to complain about people "coming over here" to work! It wouldn't even be possible to see an NHS dentist here without immigration. From Russians working at Sainsbury's, Canadians as high school teachers, Poles in holiday parks or Filipinos training as nurses, even a place as rural as this relies on migrant workers, and I think that it is a profoundly good sign that the countryside might one day be forced to adopt a more multicultural shade. Besides, if Eastern European workers are intent on making dentistry and plumbing less overtly profiteering trades, far be it from me to stand in the way of globalisation.

So welcome one, welcome all.

Spam: so much wasted talent

2006-10-13T16:46:00.000+01:00

In a bored period earlier today, I took the time to glance through my Gmail spam folder, seeing what kind of rubbish I'm sent nowadays. My one beef with Google Mail is it is just too efficient at getting rid of spam (no, they didn't pay me to say that - unfortunately). I miss the waves of people trying to sell me viagra or dodgy investment deals that plagued my inbox with previous email providers.

What caught my attention, however, was not the (largely predictable) types of spam I still receive, but the hilarious names of the "senders". Do spammers actually spent time making these up? I refuse to believe they can be automated. They are so bizarre, I can only assume that bitter and resentful spammers spend their days thinking up ways to inject a bit of creativity into their work.

So here they are, my all-time top 10 spam names:

Apollodoros Kee
Dareia Hardaway
Dijana Irby
Diodore Jovel
Gijsbert Luczynski
Kary Weidar
Lilyan Joelynn
Lubna McCook
Paschal Laffferty
Sonni Egan

Because I can't think of anything else to say

2006-10-06T18:45:00.000+01:00

Quote time. Like 'nap time', except with quotes. And less sleeping. One of the few quotes I find has as much power when written as spoken:

'No such thing as society', she says. No obligation to the community. No sense of solidarity. No principles of sharing or caring. 'No such thing as society'. No sisterhood, no brotherhood. No neighbourhood. No honouring other people's mothers and fathers. No succouring other people's little children.

'No such thing as society'. No number other than one. No person other than me. No time other than now. No such thing as society, just 'me' and 'now'. That is Margaret Thatcher's society.

Boris' storm in a teacup

2006-10-03T22:56:00.000+01:00

Well, shock horror:

Boris in storm over Jamie remarks

Tory MP Boris Johnson is in the middle of a fresh media storm over comments he made about Jamie Oliver's school dinners campaign.

The Conservative frontbencher said the pressure on children to eat healthy food was "too much".

My god the press must be bored.

I remember eating school dinners, and unless they've undergone a catering revolution since I last tucked into that tepid rubbish, I can't say I sympathise with the healthy brigade. This may just be me, but I recall chips being the only, even remotely edible thing on the menu. Outside of that, it was the culinary equivalent of "you can have any colour you like, so long as it's black". And yes, from the burgers to the lumps in the mash, it really was black.

Children are going to eat crap food no matter what ministers say, and I doubt turning this into the humourless nanny state vs. compassionate mums doing a run to the chippy's controversy is really going to help. This is one instance where the carrot trumps the stick every time. But then, nor do I have any faith in the government to provide food that is more nourishing than the stuff our cats eat - although as I said, it's been quite a while, and I'd like to be proven wrong. Seizing control of the canteen is fine by me is there's a gourmet replacement.

Oh, and I love the way the media can make a fuss about something and then report that a fuss is being made. All power to the fourth estate.

Let Boris Be Boris

Sod the green belt!

2006-10-03T10:54:00.000+01:00

More local stuff, m'lud. I read the following in the Isle of Wight Country Press and had to devote thirty seconds to considering why this is insane:

THE AVERAGE price of an Island home may rocket to £322,000 in five years' time. A new survey has revealed just how far prices have spiralled out of the reach of Island house buyers — and how high they are predicted to go. The report shows house prices on the Island are among the most unaffordable in the south-east and will continue to rise, fuelled by a severe lack of housing and a growing population.

According to DEFRA, the Isle of Wight's GDP is 30% below the English average, and at £237 per week average earnings are the third lowest in England. There are a variety of reasons for our poor situation compared with the rest of the South East: the large number of elderly residents; vital skills shortages in the workforce; a lack of labour mobility due to transport costs; and dependence on poorly paid seasonal and service sector jobs. Obviously, the lack of affordable housing only adds to this deprivation.

Current provision seem to be focused on building luxury accommodation too expensive for ordinary people, or pokey little things squashed into tiny "brown" sites in between existing houses. Second homes and empty properties proliferate. And when new houses are built, as on the fields next to my former middle school, one wonders what sort of effect that will have on the already-strained education system. And of course there are also examples of housing built in isolated areas, away from town centres and the opportunities they provide to a rural community. How does all this affect people's quality of life?

In short, the whole system seems like a complete mess, and I don't see anyone in the government trying to offer an actual solution to the housing crisis. Their current half-measures just aren't good enough. Labour should be committing itself to providing decent, affordable homes, with good transport links or local facilities, to everyone in this country. It is the starting block of all social progress. This is such obvious Labour territory, why aren't we trumpeting it as a top priority for the third term?

Maybe democracy is a bad idea

2006-10-01T11:58:00.000+01:00

This is "old news" really, and a local story, but I thought I'd comment on it anyway, as the absurdity and unfairness of the situation keeps making me cringe. Recently on the Isle of Wight, our two Labour councillors were effectively bullied out of the chamber by the Tory administration over their practice of not participating in the opening prayers. In their own words:

Tonight, entirely from left field, came a personal attack on Deborah and I from the Leader of the Council that because we do not take part in the (generally Christian) Prayers at the start of a Full Council meeting we are disrespectful to the IW Council, its Chairman and the Isle of Wight. The response from many of the Conservative group was to applaud their Leader. The Council Chairman by his subsequent inaction effectively endorsed this attack.

I was compelled - though I would have preferred to do practically anything else - to articulate my sincerely held view that religion or faith has no place in the Council and that to attack Deborah and I - both committed atheists - for not participating is to effectively say that we are not welcome within this Council. When we got no meaningful assurances from the Chairman of the Council, Deborah and I both left this exclusive Full Council meeting. We will not be returning until this is resolved to our satisfaction.

I will now be reporting both the Council Leader and possibly the Council Chairman to the Standards Board of England for breaches of the councillor's Code of Conduct.

I feel abused.......

This sort of small-minded silliness makes one despair for this country. As can be read on the aforementioned blog, the Leader of the Council quickly made an unsolicited apology, no doubt on advice from people who don't share his delusional view of what is politically (and possibly legally) acceptable. One Tory is actually recorded as having said, "We are a Christian state and people should understand that. If they don't like it, go somewhere else". Why, that's not completely insane! No siree. What next: send 'em back? Oh, wait, our MP already covered that particular idea.

Where do we even find these people?

Not quite the steward of Gondor

2006-09-30T17:39:00.000+01:00

I returned home on Thursday, having spent the week in Manchester working as a steward at Labour Party Conference. It was an illuminating experience, which I enjoyed considerably, even if the continued presence of heavily armed police officers became somewhat unnerving as the days passed. Manchester is a fantastic city and everyone was very friendly - plus the taxis are unbelievably cheap. I was introduced to my hero, Nick Cohen, but completely lost my nerve! And it was good to see Alastair Campbell back on TV berating the media in that wonderfully belligerent way of his.

Anyway, a quick thought on the actual event from a lowly grunt:

Tony Blair's skills in political oratory are beyond hyperbole. If only... if only he were the sort of Labour prime minister many hoped he would be, I'd never want the man to leave. But still, there's no point in looking back. New Labour has finally gotten round to destroying itself. But one thing remains likely: Blair isn't going anywhere. Even after the PM leaves office, he will hang like a shadow over everything the party (and the next leader) does. Even if Blair keeps his direct interventions in Labour politics to a minimum, and I certainly don't see him mirroring Kinnock's silence, the party may have to resign itself to the "triumph of Blairism" - unless someone starts talking about what renewal means, outside of mostly empty rhetoric.

The Labour Party at the minute seems desperate to ignore the following simple truth: of course Labour should be concentrating on policy--ending the obscenity of child poverty, say, or protecting socialized healthcare--but no, none of this is possible while the leader is a lame duck and everyone else is forced to keep shtoom. It isn't the members stopping Labour from governing. This Labour Government is now committed to renewal, so let's have it: waiting around is only wasting time.

Say what now?

2006-09-16T14:59:00.000+01:00

A friend emailed me earlier to say that Iain Dail's Top 100 Labour blogs list had put me at number forty-one. Awfully nice to read, considering I readily admit to deserving a grand score of 'nought' for most of the categories he listed. One could argue it highlights the flawed judgment of the Tory party, and consequently its unfitness to govern. If one were so inclined.

Bang bang, you're dead

2006-09-07T15:00:00.000+01:00

So, to paraphrase the old adage, the Government is busy losing the next election. And it's pathetic. This scrabble has nothing to do with a sensible critique of Labour policy under Blair, nor does it spring from the grassroots. It doesn't even have the dramatic flare of previous disputes. It's just a bunch of career politicians throwing together a mishmash of disparate fears (over the Scottish, Welsh and General Elections) in an attempt to mask this vacuous, confused bitchfest as something not inviting electoral defeat.

In all the ways Blair's premiership could have stumbled to the finishing line, a policy-free parliamentary spat is not the one I would have chosen. Even as a left-winger, a lowly voter such as myself can realise the continued existence of a Labour Government is somewhat of a precondition of any wishes I may have of, well, a Labour Government. Perhaps the PLP might like to consider that and stop being so collectively intransigent. No? Didn't think so.

Vote Tooting Popular Front.

Killers, thieves and lawyers

2006-09-05T15:16:00.000+01:00

Lyrics of the day.

The nightmarishly funny Tom Waits:

I'd sell your heart to the junk-man baby for a buck
For a buck!
If you're looking for someone to pull you out of that ditch
You're out of luck, you're out of luck!
Ship is sinking, the ship is sinking, the ship is sinking
There's a leak, there's a leak in the boiler room
The poor, the lame, the blind
Who are the ones that we kept in charge?
Killers, thieves and lawyers
God's away, God's away, God's away
On Business. Business.
God's away, God's away, God's away
On Business. Business.

On one condition

2006-09-05T14:58:00.000+01:00

I've had an epiphany. Bear with me.

Gordon Brown is New Labour. Yet, at one time, I counted myself amongst those who saw in his expected succession, if not the return to a non-existent golden age for the left, then at least a more consensual style of government, wherein the left would be more adequately represented. Perhaps a leader attentive to the mainstream of the Labour movement. The ridiculous pantomime of the policy-free leadership circus, however, left me feeling cynical and depressed about a Brown premiership.

And as for the other possible candidates... well, from McDonnell's last chance power drive to the grumblings of bitter 'Blairite ultras' like Milburn (hahaha), let's just accept that several dozen posts could be made ripping each of them to shreds. (How cool is that term? If I were a Labour MP, I'd want to be counted as an 'ultra' too, just for the fun of it.) Any such debate ignores the apparent dominance of the Brown camp, and the supreme importance of policy rather than personality. It doesn't matter who becomes prime minister, but on what terms. So moving swiftly on...

I have decided a simple method by which to choose my preferred individual, thus resolving the issue for all time. Obviously. I will vote for whomever I consider the most 'electable' (including Gordon 'I coulda been a contender' Brown), providing they would answer yes to the following question:

Would you, upon becoming prime minister, support the current policies of the Labour Party, as determined by Conference, either by implementing them immediately, or by supporting their inclusion within the next manifesto?

I'm thinking union rights, the NHS, social housing etc. Not much to ask.

What happened to August?

2006-09-03T22:39:00.000+01:00

It appears I 'blog-blinked' and missed the entire month of August! Well, here's an entire month of my life in a single post.

Spent ten days in London, paying extortionate amounts of money on food and walking on average 23 hours a day in my own Long March.
Went 'camping' (in a caravan, bit of a cheat) for a week just in time to catch the rain. Had a good time copying Father Ted and looking out across a field as the rain run down the windows.
Got my AS results - four 'A' grades. Woohoo! I actually danced down the corridor after I read them. Then I hid from the media's annual, post-results open season on students.
Started off the process of applying to University. By 'starting off' I mean 'putting off in a way that doesn't highlight the general anxiety I feel about the whole thing'. Naturally.
Er...
Well...
Decided to stop making lists that highlight how much time I spend, as scientists define it, 'slobbing around'.

First up against the wall

2006-07-12T22:07:00.000+01:00

Come the revolution, plumbers will from hereon join electricians, mechanics and dentists as those 'enemies of the people' which it is absolutely vital we shoot first.

We've been attempting to hire a plumber to install a new bathroom at my grandmother's house. The first plumber quoted a price at £1,500. The second quoted only £500. Death to plumbers.

(Off to Tolpuddle this Friday. Should take lots of photos which I'll try and post on here. That said, I still haven't gotten last year's photos developed.)

Parting is such sweet sorrow

2006-07-08T13:32:00.000+01:00

Is there a progressive case for ending the union link?

It seems the only people ever to contemplate union disaffiliation from the Labour Party are far-left trade unionists and the exceptionally on-message 'Blair ultras'. Rarely has anyone in the public arena presented an argument in favour of breaking the link, without sounding like they were frothing at the mouth with anti-union bile. Yet is there a progressive case for a union-free Labour Party? Whatever the merits of the case, there is obviously little chance of it occurring - especially since private donations have been scared off in the wake of the loans-for-honours scandals. The affiliated unions contribute roughly two-thirds of the party's annual funds, which would be a daunting loss even in the best of political weather.

Certainly, it has been amusing to watch the disingenuous efforts of slightly desperate-sounding New Labour big wigs to convince everyone that, in fact, they have always been in favour of the union link and no, this doesn't have anything to do with those nice rich gentlemen leaving us wit massive debts. Perhaps, in true oppositionalist form, I only considered posting on this subject once the Labour hierarchy, financially dependent on a constituency of people to whom it has frequently offered nothing but derision, organised this U-turn. Nevertheless, prompted by this perverse sense of rebellion, I have been increasingly considering the issue. What are the benefits, both to the Labour Party and to the trade union movement, of parting ways?

The case for the Labour Party:

Unfortunately, the debate on party funding appears to be reaching an inevitable, if in my opinion undesirable, consensus that state funding should be extended and private donations somehow limited. In recent weeks, Labour has suffered extensive criticism for the union link. What's knew, one could ask. The problem is that, if the whole system of political party organisation is indeed to be reformed, Labour must be able to argue for the most transparent, democratic and fair new model possible. Until the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the UK effectively dismissed the existence of parties as unimportant: that situation has been progressively coming to an end and this is a real chance to change politics for the better.

By accepting the end of its unique position with regard to the trade unions, Labour could help to restore public confidence and trust in its ability to make British politics "whiter than white" - or at least to ensure the government case is given a fair hearing. If we are seen to start afresh, then Labour, and especially any Brown-led government, could regain the opportunity to radically reform not only party funding, but the UK's political institutions in general, on the principle of real, democratic renewal. Arguably, it is this policy area that Labour still has a chance to capitalise on and to win over new supporters - given the rather limited record of the Blair government, given the context.

Labour Party MPs, officials and members would be able to argue the pro-union case without suffering from the perpetual and damaging retort that the unions direct public policy due to their financial links to the Labour Party. Union values are Labour values - solidarity, social justice, internationalism, equality. There is no reason to think Labour's traditional affinity with organised labour should cease to exist simply because structural links are broken. That trade unions are a core segment of Labour's electoral coalition, moreover, will ensure that Labour governments continue to heed the views of our country's 6.5 million trade unionists when formulating policy.

Without the presence of union contingents in internal party structures, ordinary members could campaign to undermine the absurd control that party officials and representatives continue to hold over Labour - in the latter case, demonstrated most famously in the London Mayor candidate selection process, when Ken Livingstone lost under the Electoral College despite being the choice of Labour's members. One-member one-vote was a good idea, but it was highjacked by people who favoured a passive audience for the leadership's message. Labour should be a democratic organisation actively controlled by its members, not MPs, union leaders or organisers. Union disaffiliation could be, not a lone development, but the start of a comprehensive reform of the Labour Party.

The case for the trade unions:

The union movement is the voice of 6.5 working people in this country and it should be of a hell of a lot more. But reversing the decline in union membership won't come through voting Labour alone, nor will tying itself to the political fortunes of one political party give it the kind of leverage some union leaders seem to think. Grassroots organising, as explored by theT&G and by American unions in the Change to Win coalition, is perhaps the most important strategy. Trade unionism shouldn't be about political networking or composite resolutions. The labour movement should be an independent voice for working people and their families, able to adapt to changing conditions in a globalised world: by working to achieve this status, the unions could find a revived sense of purpose.

The trade unions could show the government that they, like other more 'traditional' sections of Labour's support base (as seen by 4 million missing Labour voters since 1997!) are not willing to have their cooperation taken for granted. Donations to the Labour Party - or, crucially, to other political parties - and other measures of support could be targeted at sitting MPs or candidates with known pro-union views. Locally, the unions could differentiate between those Labour branches with strong support for their issues, and those who have offered precious little. Trade unions should be conscious of their own members' interests: incorporation into a single party isn't a particularly forward-looking tactic, and compromises their ability to gain reforms. The only mechanisms able of circumventing the government's negative, "it's us or the Tories" argument consists of the trade unions themselves.

To conclude, I realise this is a fairly one-sided presentation of the issue; this is because those arguments expressed in defence of the union link have already been widely disseminated by stakeholders in the party, and this was merely an attempt to redress the balance somewhat. Indeed, I am not even sure whether I subscribe to the validity of the ideas I have presented myself - having always looked on the federal, union-based structure of the Labour Party as fundamentally beneficial. But the union link cannot be allowed to become a totem that is considered off-limits from debate - especially by the left of the party, which needs to lead the campaign to rejuvenate and democratise the Labour Party's institutions, not shy away from it.

Picking up the pieces

2006-07-02T16:18:00.000+01:00

Beneath the absurd media-driven obsession over the perceived personality differences of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, there is a legitimate question, one that becomes more intriguing the further into the future one attempts to peer. In its immediate form, the question is what: what policy changes will accompany the succession? More broadly, however, this translates to a question of whether "New Labour" will survive its greatest standard-bearer's retirement and, indeed, whether it should. What will remain of "Blairism" - in both the Labour Party and British politics (if we even have a union after this) - a year after the prime minister stands down? What about five years?

What makes it such a curiously complicated issue is, of course, the deep divide within the Labour Party: between those who want a rejection of Blairism's worst attributes (although not, I would hope, a complete repudiation of this government's legacy!!) and those who reject any criticism and hope the next year, perhaps a final crucible for Tony Blair's leadership, will instead not only cement but extend the ideological dominance of everything Blair stands for. There is obviously an array of opinions between this, but the two broad swathes of opinion seem to consist of either 1) acceleration or 2) change. Rather than "forward, not back" perhaps for the Party it should read "forward down this road, or forward down that one". Not quite as catchy, methinks.

My point is, whenever Gordon Brown (for the sake of unreality, let me add "or whomever" to that) moves to take over the premiership - and unfortunately, but perhaps inevitably - picks up the pieces of a tired and embattled government, every Labour member will have to think about how they want Labour to progress, and to fight for that. What a dreadful state of affairs it is, when Gordon Brown seems so dominant that neither left nor right really stands a chance at beating him. I don't want an "orderly succession" if it is without a democratic mandate. Perhaps more importantly, nor do I want a contest between a de facto winner and a "stalking horse" from the far left, who will inevitably lose, having shifted the field not one iota and instead simply given Brown (or, cough, whomever) evidence that nothing should change, despite there not having been a real discussion.

There needs to be a proper contest, but there won't be unless the leadership are forced to deliver one. Nevermind the office of Prime Minister, no one can just automatically "inherit" the leadership of the party. That is impossible; so there will be an election of some variety. But that doesn't guarantee a real debate. If the succession controversy continues like it has been, a Byzantine intrigue between warring clans of careerist MPs, then whoever wins it really will be a case of picking up the pieces - renewal, revival and re-election will only be possible if Labour displays the sort of transparency and fairness that should be expected of any modern political party and especially one that is in government.

Time for the "But what about me?" section of the post. I support comprehensive education and a fully public NHS. I support electoral reform and trade union rights. Yet I also support an internationalist foreign policy and nuclear power. Given a choice of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or alternatively, chalk and cheese, means nothing to me unless there is a proper debate about policy throughout the entire party - I don't want to just pick from two completed packages. Politics needs to be about debate and democracy, not just the passive endorsement of an established strongman.

Popular front for lighter placards

2006-06-27T22:24:00.000+01:00

Love is in the air. If by love, you mean fear. Fear emanating from the Labour Party. Some are afraid Gordon Brown's tough talk is a sign he is becoming the uber-Blair, others are afraid those nice ex-Blairites in Compass are going to start talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. And both those groups are members of the same party. Huh. Anyway, in this period of uncertainty and political debate, it strikes me that (beyond the word "leftish") I've not once attempted to explain what I believe in. Why do I even support the Labour Party?

Perhaps the reason I have remained ambiguous on this matter is the deep sense of unease I have when looking at whether the Labour Party any longer represents my values. I call myself a democratic socialist, although my definition is probably very different than the people who put it on the back of my membership card. What is democratic socialism in the 21st century? Catalyst put is best: practical policies for the redistribution of wealth, power and opportunity. To quote Blair, "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." Like many, I had a brief flirtation with the far-left, but if anything nowadays I identify politically with the Fabian Society, the co-operative movement, "Croslandism" etc.

The death-agonies of capitalism turned out to be mere growing pains. We have a market economy; fair enough. Government cannot control everything. What it can do, however, is redistribute wealth and provide equal opportunities. The fight against social inequality can and should survive the abandonment of old dogmas. I disagree with the Blair government on many issues from the left (education, trade unions, the monarchy and electoral reform to name a few), but I find it neither possible nor desirable to supplant Labour as the voice of working people, nor to replace this government. I am a democratic socialist because I believe in equality, but don't like holding placards. It's that simple.

(Not that anyone cares, of course - I just thought it would be appropriate to round off this blog's political underpinnings, if only for aesthetic purposes!)

A proportional response

2006-06-26T13:36:00.000+01:00

Boundary changes reported in today's Guardian have further reduced Labour's ability to defend its majority. Good. On 35.3% of the vote, Labour deserves 35.3% of the seats; that I am a Labour supporter is neither here nor there. I am a democrat. It's quite simple, isn't it? Britain's use of first-past-the-post is an archaic and undemocratic. Electoral boundaries once favoured the Conservatives, now the Labour Party: the point is they shouldn't favour anyone.

At this point I should state my personal interest in this matter. As someone not fortunate enough to live in that holy grail of British elections, a marginal constituency, my vote currently means sod all. Our Conservative MP has 48.9% of the vote and a majority of 12,978 votes over the nearest challengers - the Liberal Democrats. Yet, as anyone with an understanding of basic arithmetic will have just realised, my MP didn't win a majority of the vote. The same is true of 66% of all MPs. Just like this government. And like the 64.7% of people who didn't vote for the Labour Party nationally, as one of the 51.1% of those who didn't vote for Andrew Turner locally, I am feeling pretty cheesed off. Such are the downsides of a system inherited from a world long dead.

We need proportional representation. Party interest has for too long dominated debate on electoral reform. The Labour Party fears the beginning of coalition government. The Conservative Party fears the end of, well, Conservative government. No one likes the Lib Dems. Touche. Labour supporters will inevitably ask why we should surrender the chance of another 1945, another 1997. And why risk letting the neo-Nazi BNP into Parliament? All perfectly reasonable party concerns - ones I share. But to rest on our creaking, arbitrary electoral system on the basis of short-term party political concerns is no solution. It ignores people like me, people who are deprived of a voice. It surrenders the political centre of gravity to the unrepresentative marginals. Ironically, that system is a major contributor to all those problems - the rise of the BNP in deprived areas, the Labour Party's reliance on isolated landslides to puncture Conservative stretches in office etc.

Eventually, FPTP will kill itself off. This isn't 1951. Does anyone think that, if Labour wins a fourth term on less votes than the Tories, Cameron will sit back and take it quietly like Atlee? What if the only obstacles to a Tory government are Scottish and Welsh MPs? It could happen. Let's not forget that Michael Howard's ugly, right-wing campaign gave the Conservatives a plurality of English votes in 2005, even if Labour retained the edge in MPs. Can you imagine the constitutional crisis that could spark? West Lothian is already proving an uncomfortable situation for Gordon Brown's leadership ambitions. If electoral reform is to be harnessed for progressive ends - to give people a voice, not just a vote - it needs to be led by progressive people. The alternative is a Conservative government re-discovering the power of gerrymandering.

The ministry of public enlightenment

2006-06-17T23:49:00.000+01:00

A copy of the local Labour Party's monthly newsletter, Wight Red (sounds dashingly radical and unreconstructed, doesn't it?) was pushed through my door earlier. Printed on bright red paper, and with advertisements for the Tolpuddle Martyrs festival and the Grassroots Alliance NEC candidates, it is the epitome of 'old' Labour, even asking whether members would be prepared to attend "additional meetings". What fun.

Anyhow, it welcomes "contributions", although I have a suspicion that, were I to write a robust defence of New Labour, it would mysteriously disappear. The urge to test that theory is nearly overpowering. Something to bring up at one of these fabulous new meetings we'll no doubt be creating in the near future.

Independence day

2006-06-16T15:24:00.000+01:00

Freedom reigns! This year's exams are over. Actually, they've been over since Monday, but I spent the last few days waiting for the last of the caffeine to leave my bloodstream so that I could, you know, sleep. Now I have to find something to fill the big, exam-shaped void that has appeared in my life. Sunny outside, no work left, what do I do? Watch Argentina v Serbia on the tele and post on this blog. Duh.

I noticed the other day that The Enemy is demanding that exams become "more rigorous". God damn them. I just hope their experiment in primaries lands them with Big Brother's Chantelle for a Mayoral candidate. That would serve them right.

Talking of the World Cup, I trust that the rest of our green and pleasant land has also been plastered red and white with St George's Crosses? (This month's Red Pepper has a very good debate on England and the World Cup, by the way.) I'm starting to tire of their constant display, especially considering the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding "our boys" is always destroyed as soon as they actually play a sodding game. Watching Argentina play, I can't help but thinking that England is well and truly out of its league.

Interestingly, the England flags on display pretty much everywhere at the moment have only served to highlight how non-English I feel. They just don't affect me. On an emotional level, I feel... British. Hell, considering the geographical and social diversity of England, I don't think there is anything more valid about identifying with it rather than with Britain as a whole. Does my everyday life on the Isle of Wight really have that much in common with, say, a Londoner that I don't also share with a Scot?

Anyway, here's to warm days, cold drinks and football.

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day

2006-04-08T21:07:00.000+01:00

I received a few emails that caught my attention this week.

Compass is apparently holding its annual conference, "The Shape of Things To Come". I have to admit it: the "democratic left" certainly knows how to market an event. My initial urge to join Compass is growing rapidly - more so every time I read an article written by Neal Lawson. Unfortunately, the conference itself is being held in June, the middle of my exams. Pass my exams, or attend the Compass National Conference... hmm. Let me think about it some more.

The second email was from "Patrick Stewart", after I signed up to the Labour Supporters Network. (Hey, I may be a party member, but I don't want to be left out...) Now, I realise it probably wasn't Patrick Stewart himself - although we can always dream - but that's not the point. Patrick Stewart is a Labour member? Did I miss a memo or something? Seriously people.

Onto other news... Actually, I don't have any news. Onto other filler then, I guess. I was elected youth & student officer at the Isle of Wight CLP's Annual General Meeting about a week ago. As the only candidate, it had all the democratic credentials of a coup d'etat. Anyway, the main challenge seems to be actually building an active youth section, which I imagine is a lot harder than it sounds. I'm still trying to think of ways to get out of doing any hard work!

One final note - I am now officially sick to death of the Blair-Brown saga.

Education, education, education?

2006-03-28T16:48:00.000+01:00

The government has admitted that evening class subsidies will be reduced from 73% to 50% by 2010. I attend two evening classes a week at the local college, as they offered A Level courses the high schools were not providing. Now, were it not for my age (and thus exemption from fees), I would be unable to attend them now, let alone after these cuts. Most people just won't be able to afford paying half the cost. Assistance for distance-learning courses has already been removed - with most AS courses averaging £400-600! The Association of Colleges has predicted that 70 English colleges could close, and 1,000,000 places lost by 2010. This doesn't sound like the actions of people devoted to maintaining educational opportunities...

Additionally, as anyone who has ever attended a college will know, extending the fee exemption for people aged 19-25 could actually make the situation deteriorate all the more quickly. Since the Learning and Skills Council announced its budgetary reforms (right after the election, how very convenient!) colleges have been struggling to remain financially viable. Courses need to be self-sustaining - meaning that evening classes, for instance, need to raise the cost of tuition through students' fees. In other words, if there aren't enough paying students, the courses won't run. By providing courses free to the under-25s, and increasing fees excessively for the remainder of students, you are actively undermining colleges' ability to sustain a variety of courses: they'll only pick a few "safe bets" and ditch the rest!

As the great Jed Bartlett of The West Wing (heh) once said, education can be the silver bullet: to poverty, unemployment, crime, drug abuse... Sod religion, I believe in the mystical powers of education. And far from the "middle class self-improvement" image often represented in popular culture, my experience of evening classes suggests they are largely attended by women and youth working, often in low-paid, insecure jobs. I fail to see how restricting access to education will improve their situation.

Reform reshmorm

2006-03-27T00:54:00.000+01:00

Tomorrow's Guardian is reporting that Blair, who recently said it may have been a mistake to publicly rule out seeking a fourth term (duh), has privately set a departure date and told his allies that he intends to "tackle the financial crisis in the health service and push through NHS reforms" before standing down. Not quite sure what I feel about that. While I'm sure it was an exaggeration, the Tories' figure of 20,000 job cuts is hardly an inspiring message for Labour's supporters.

And apparently, none of this will affect patient care...? Please.

My local health Trusts are suffering acute financial strains - yet according to our Strategic Health Authority's report, we are actually one of the better regions in the country! The Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight Council wants to integrate the health and social care Trusts, in an effort to save money. Last year, subsidies for cancer patients' transport costs were revoked, and several mental health facilities given notice of closure. If this is good, I don't care to think what the rest of the NHS is like...

Frank Dobson has said, "The main cause of deficits, cuts, closures, job losses and reductions in patient care in the NHS is the latest round of re-organisation. If the Health Department pays out hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to private hospitals and management consultants then it's not available for the NHS. Even more damaging is the paper chase and bureaucracy of the new system..."

And no mention of any solution in the Gordon Brown's budget? That's the plan, more of the same? It's just not good enough...

Brucey doesn't know

2006-03-24T18:10:00.000Z

Over the last few weeks, I've become seriously addicted to an American cop show (that isn't really a cop show) called The Wire. Set in Baltimore, it explores the drug trade and its affects on the urban poor - including, in the second season, the blue-collar working class. Instead of attempting a likely inept explanation myself, see here for a comprehensive interview with the show's creator. Anyway, late in the second series, Frank Sobotka, secretary-treasurer of the port union, says something which has stuck with me: "You know what the trouble is, Brucey? We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket."

For a crime drama, I thought that was a highly perceptive remark. The concerted attacks of the 1980s on the American manufacturing base were, of course, replicated in Britain, and to this day we suffer from problems for which the forced de-industrialisation, of much of our economy, is to blame. The idea of permanently adopting a "knowledge economy", or alternatively a "service economy", is quite naive in my view. According to Catalyst, despite the violent assaults on the industry, British manufacturing still makes up more than 60% of exports and 75% of business research and development.

As James Dyson, inventor and manufacturer of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, said in 1999: "What I think we're losing is our intellectual property base, our know-how in both technology and manufacturing. We're losing the ability to make cars, planes, electrical appliances, in almost every traditional manufacturing area. That's a terrible thing. While you might think the world now depends on the software and service sectors, in reality their output is a fraction of the traditional industries."

In other words: "making shit, building shit", is still vital to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. It is responsible for maintaining economic output, defending our share of world trade, and providing stable employment - despite the ambivalence of successive UK governments towards this sector of the economy. And hell, what does this country really make anymore? Too little, that's what.

The decline can be, and must be reversed.

Note: I strongly urge you to download Catalyst's publication, Manufacturing and industrial policy, from which the above figures were taken, on their website. Of special interest is its examination of how various other European countries have responded to industrial decline - the short answer to which is, much better than us.

Oops, I did it again

2006-03-23T01:31:00.000Z

Er, hello. My name's Dan. Deja vu. I attempted to start this blog a couple of weeks ago, and have somehow managed to delete the couple of posts I managed to make while changing the template... I'm usually very organised, y'know? You know, right?

Tell me you know.

So this is a new blog. My blog, in fact. I'm an 18 year old, A Level student living in Torytown, southern England, and I've been a Labour Party member for four or five months now. I think people in my CLP were quite surprised to see someone my age joining. Anyway, I've been enjoying myself so far.

I decided to create a blog (yes, this blog!) so that I could rant and rave to my heart's content - about politics, Labour activism, current events, crappy movies, whatever - without people staring at me in the street.

Why did I call the blog Softy Lefty Catchy Monkey, I hear you ask. I've no idea. I'm a bit leftish, and well, it sounded cool at the time. I think I originally had an explanation, which has now been lost. In truth, I already hate it.

In any case, I'll try and keep this reasonably active.