My colleague Jamie Reed has just popped into the whips office and told me off for not having looked at his blog yet: so here it is, and very excellent it is too. My colleague Andrew Gwynne has also been nagging me from his sickbed to give his new blog for Think Politics a plug.
I particularly like Andrew's post on whether being local makes for being a better MP...
One of my opponents at the General Election is making great play of her local credentials. The front of her leaflet proclaims her "the local candidate" and another headline inside says "working and living locally". Not quite sure living in Westbury-on-Trym counts as "local" in east Bristol, but leaving that to one side... Does it actually matter?
I'm not from Bristol. I've never pretended to be. But I have lived in my constituency for the past five years. (I won't technically be in the constituency any longer after boundary changes, but the layout of the new Bristol East means that where I am - Redcliffe - is actually more convenient for both ends of the constituency, as well as for all the meetings I have in the city centre. And it seemed a bit silly to move somewhere five minutes down the road just so I could still say "I live in my constituency." But you won't get me putting out leaflets during the campaign pretending otherwise).
Over the past five years as the MP for Bristol East I've handled hundreds of cases through my constituency office in St George, and responded to thousands of emails, letters and phone calls on local issues, or national issues which local people care passionately about. I've held surgeries, knocked on doors, accepted invitations to virtually every event I've been invited to, unless I really, really couldn't make it. I've visited schools, health centres, children's centres, care homes. I've met with business people, community groups, public sector workers, faith groups... And I've done something afterwards, whether it be collaring Ministers in the division lobby to bend their ear, or writing to the authorities, or lending my support in whatever way I'm asked. Most of this goes unreported, except on my website. In fact there's still a lot that doesn't make it onto there, either because it's confidential (virtually all casework), or would suffer from being made public, or because I just haven't got round to doing it. Perhaps not being from Bristol made a difference at the start, meant I had a bit of catching up to do... but it seems a bit silly to be playing the "I'm local" card against someone who has represented the area for the past five years.
P.S. Although I do know who Bill Shankly is - how could anyone brought up on John Peel not know? - I confess, I'd be hard pressed to name many Bristol City or Bristol Rovers players... might just Google it before the hustings start!
Monday, 8 February 2010
Working for the Clampdown
Yes, I know I've stolen the title of Paul Smith's blog, but he nicked the idea of using song titles from me, so we're evens.
Nice little piece in the Mail at the weekend about an email sent to Tory MPs and election candidates, telling them that all their online utterances must be cleared by CCHQ first. Tories simply can't be trusted to tweet.
There is, as we speak, a team of young Tobys, Tarquins and Taras at Tory HQ, under the supervision of a fanatical spinmeister, Toryquemada, scrutinising every draft tweet for signs of divergence from "The Line". This perhaps might explain why so few tweets from Tory politicians make it onto Twitter; they've all failed the Tory inquisition. One wonders quite what they're trying to hide?
Nice little piece in the Mail at the weekend about an email sent to Tory MPs and election candidates, telling them that all their online utterances must be cleared by CCHQ first. Tories simply can't be trusted to tweet.
There is, as we speak, a team of young Tobys, Tarquins and Taras at Tory HQ, under the supervision of a fanatical spinmeister, Toryquemada, scrutinising every draft tweet for signs of divergence from "The Line". This perhaps might explain why so few tweets from Tory politicians make it onto Twitter; they've all failed the Tory inquisition. One wonders quite what they're trying to hide?
Know Your Rights
Very quick post... I've basically been either too busy or too downright exhausted to blog; that's what three weeks of Bill committee and weekends of campaigning does to you. I don't think this should really have to be said, but seeing as if I don't say it, someone may well accuse me of believing otherwise....
Obviously when it comes to the prosecution of Members of Parliament, they should be treated on exactly the same basis as anyone else facing prosecution under the Theft Act, as AJ said at the weekend. Of course, parliamentary privilege has to be there to protect freedom of speech in parliament, otherwise we'd be landed with libel actions or injunctions left, right and centre, but it certainly shouldn't apply to criminal proceedings. I have no idea whether there is any legal basis for arguing otherwise, under the 1689 Bill of Rights, but I think it would be a travesty of justice if there was. Cameron is being his usual opportunistic self in trying to suggest that the Labour Party doesn't think so.
Incidentally, Cameron has also suggested that Gordon has been slow to act in suspending the three MPs from the party. That's how it works under the Labour Party constitution. If someone is charged with a criminal offence, they are placed under administrative suspension until the case is concluded. Disciplinary suspension is a different process, which can be used as an alternative to expulsion if wrongdoing is found; i.e. it's a response to proven wrongdoing, not just allegations of it. These rules apply across the board, so the MPs are being treated exactly the same as any local councillor would be. It would no doubt get all the right headlines if we were to expel them from the Party now, but it wouldn't be just to do so. (And note - these MPs have already been barred from standing at the next election, which is probably as close as the Party can and should get to expressing an opinion on their alleged actions without prejudging the outcome of their trial).
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Teddy Picker
I'm afraid that my 'no issues' verdict from Sir Thomas Legg - i.e. being given a clean bill of health on expenses - may have rather disappointed people.
Someone posing as a journalist called the office today, seeking clarification about quarterly payments made from my Incidental Expenses Provision, i.e. the office costs allowance, to a company called CIT Vendor Finance. Well, I can exclusively reveal, before the budding Woodward/ Bernstein does, that this is the photocopier rental charge. (Hold the front page...!)
I dealt with this enquiry while I was in Bill committee this afternoon. My suspicions as to why anyone was interested in my office photocopier payments on today of all days, when there are so many more suitable subjects for media scrutiny, were confirmed when I got back to the office.
I've now discovered that the so-called media interest came from the "Centre for Open Politics". And yes, a quick Google search has revealed that it's exactly who I thought it was, or rather, someone calling herself Juliet acting on his behalf. (More here too.)
This person also told a left-wing blogsite this week that Eric Pickles has said it would be: “A very dirty election...."
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Where's Captain Kirk?
One of my colleagues - who shall remain nameless, but no, it's not Tom Harris, has joined in the fun.Shoot You Down
One of the things I've been saying when asked (on virtually a daily basis) what impact new media will have on the election campaign, is that it will be far more difficult for politicians to get away with spinning a line, unless it's backed up by solid evidence. Witness the Tories this week, who thought that if they said often enough that violent crime has gone up under Labour, they'd be able to fool most of the people most of the time. Enter the BBC's Mark Easton, who has comprehensively rubbished their claim. Are the Tories being honest with their claims on violent crime? he asks. The answer is no.
Channel 4's Fact Checker is also worth keeping an eye on. Here it is on Chris Grayling's claim that parts of Britain bring to mind episodes of The Wire. More scaremongering from the Tories.
Channel 4's Fact Checker is also worth keeping an eye on. Here it is on Chris Grayling's claim that parts of Britain bring to mind episodes of The Wire. More scaremongering from the Tories.
New York City Cops (2)
By way of follow up to yesterday's piece about "TC gone mad", I can report that not only has he not managed to dig himself out of the hole, he's dug himself a veritable mineshaft.
On Five Live he's been talking about communities who have "imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women" and has, as you can imagine, rather upset the Muslim community.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
New York City Cops...
...ain't that smart. So sang the Strokes. Don't know about that, but at least one of our Special Constables definitely ain't.
I refer of course to the contribution at PMQs today from David TC Davies MP. Aka David "political correctness gone mad" Davies, and, on Twitter, #DavidDaviesgonemad.
"Balal Khan was this week sentenced to just three years in an institution for a violent rape. Will the Minister refer that disgraceful sentence to the Solicitor General, and also investigate the parents and community, to find out how that young man could have such disregard for women's rights?"
Now.... big intake of breath. Where do I start? Well here's the Daily Mail report on the case, which was undoubtedly horrible. A 13 year old boy beat, raped and robbed a 20 year old woman. And it's because he was under 14 at the time that the sentence was so short. Whether the sentence was too short is of course an issue for debate, and a perfectly valid issue to raise in a parliamentary question. But let's put that to one side for now.
Let's also leave aside the sheer audacity of TC suddenly presenting himself as a champion of "women's rights", which was what made my jaw drop open in disbelief. (A colleague, actually squealed in horror, which I gather could be heard by the TV audience. Though she'd grasped the real import of what he'd said).
And let's also brush over the silliness of describing rape as a breach of "women's rights". Well yes, if you also regard being murdered as a breach of one's human rights, I suppose. Which it is, but kind of misses the point, doesn't it?
Let's focus on what TC was really saying in his question. Which, put crudely, was that the boy raped because he comes from a community - the Muslim community - which doesn't respect women's rights. That was what he was saying, wasn't it?
Now obviously there's an ongoing debate over Islam and the role of women, and whether the religion is more or less respectful of women than Western cultures, and of course that depends partly on the interpretation of Islam and the form in which it is practised or, even, perverted by extremist elements. And TC will no doubt try to convince his critics that he was trying to engage in this serious, complex debate. But I could point to plenty of examples of Western culture that equally "prove" a correlation between male attitudes towards women and crimes such as rape.
I was going to flag up footballers, their drunken escapades and allegations of rape against them by way of illustration, but that gets into rather tricky territory. So I'll just use a very simple example.
I've mentioned on here before an incident I witnessed when I was about 15. Trivial in a sense, but something that left a lasting impression. (Well it must have - it was thirty years ago!) I was walking the family dog late at night, when a minibus pulled up at the traffic lights near me. The occupants, who had no doubt had a few drinks, had a life-size, naked blow-up doll in the bus with them and were punching it, abusing it, beating it repeatedly around the head... I remember their faces illuminated in the streetlights, contorted in snarls of angry, aggressive pleasure. Yes, it was only a inflatable doll, but they were clearly venting their hatred on it. Their hatred of women.
They were rugby fans. They may well have been Welsh rugby fans. So perhaps TC - a Welsh MP - would like to ask some questions about what in their families, their community led them to have such a lack of respect for women? He'd probably find out they loved their mothers, were fiercely protective of their sisters, wanted to marry a 'nice' girl. Not much different to your average Muslim, in fact. But he would never have asked that question of them, would he?
I refer of course to the contribution at PMQs today from David TC Davies MP. Aka David "political correctness gone mad" Davies, and, on Twitter, #DavidDaviesgonemad.
"Balal Khan was this week sentenced to just three years in an institution for a violent rape. Will the Minister refer that disgraceful sentence to the Solicitor General, and also investigate the parents and community, to find out how that young man could have such disregard for women's rights?"
Now.... big intake of breath. Where do I start? Well here's the Daily Mail report on the case, which was undoubtedly horrible. A 13 year old boy beat, raped and robbed a 20 year old woman. And it's because he was under 14 at the time that the sentence was so short. Whether the sentence was too short is of course an issue for debate, and a perfectly valid issue to raise in a parliamentary question. But let's put that to one side for now.
Let's also leave aside the sheer audacity of TC suddenly presenting himself as a champion of "women's rights", which was what made my jaw drop open in disbelief. (A colleague, actually squealed in horror, which I gather could be heard by the TV audience. Though she'd grasped the real import of what he'd said).
And let's also brush over the silliness of describing rape as a breach of "women's rights". Well yes, if you also regard being murdered as a breach of one's human rights, I suppose. Which it is, but kind of misses the point, doesn't it?
Let's focus on what TC was really saying in his question. Which, put crudely, was that the boy raped because he comes from a community - the Muslim community - which doesn't respect women's rights. That was what he was saying, wasn't it?
Now obviously there's an ongoing debate over Islam and the role of women, and whether the religion is more or less respectful of women than Western cultures, and of course that depends partly on the interpretation of Islam and the form in which it is practised or, even, perverted by extremist elements. And TC will no doubt try to convince his critics that he was trying to engage in this serious, complex debate. But I could point to plenty of examples of Western culture that equally "prove" a correlation between male attitudes towards women and crimes such as rape.
I was going to flag up footballers, their drunken escapades and allegations of rape against them by way of illustration, but that gets into rather tricky territory. So I'll just use a very simple example.
I've mentioned on here before an incident I witnessed when I was about 15. Trivial in a sense, but something that left a lasting impression. (Well it must have - it was thirty years ago!) I was walking the family dog late at night, when a minibus pulled up at the traffic lights near me. The occupants, who had no doubt had a few drinks, had a life-size, naked blow-up doll in the bus with them and were punching it, abusing it, beating it repeatedly around the head... I remember their faces illuminated in the streetlights, contorted in snarls of angry, aggressive pleasure. Yes, it was only a inflatable doll, but they were clearly venting their hatred on it. Their hatred of women.
They were rugby fans. They may well have been Welsh rugby fans. So perhaps TC - a Welsh MP - would like to ask some questions about what in their families, their community led them to have such a lack of respect for women? He'd probably find out they loved their mothers, were fiercely protective of their sisters, wanted to marry a 'nice' girl. Not much different to your average Muslim, in fact. But he would never have asked that question of them, would he?
Picture This
Just a quick, albeit lengthy, cut-and-paste post to nail something that has been raised with me before and has cropped up again in the context of Labour's excellent "Change We See" campaign. Concrete evidence (in some cases literally!) of the social and economic change we've seen in our communities under 12 years of a Labour government. Contrast that with the vacuous "time for change" mantra chanted by Cameron at every opportunity, and challenge him as to what that really means.
Anyway, the suggestion is that it's unlawful to take pictures of public buildings, which is of course not true. Here is what the Minister, Shahid Malik, said in response to a debate in Parliament in April 2009 on photography in public places. And no, I haven't censored the ending. The Speaker cut him off in his prime. Worth reading the full debate, which includes more detail from the Minister on what guidance has been given to police officers and reassurances as to what ought to happen.
"There are two separate issues and I would like to deal with each in turn. First, concerns have been expressed about the stop-and-search powers used under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As hon. Members will know, section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist. This is a useful power, but it is also wide-ranging, and concerns have been expressed that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs - whether of buildings or of people - within authorised areas. There are also concerns that cameras are being confiscated as part of such searches. Those are genuine concerns that people have raised.
I would like to make it clear that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs. In November last year the National Police Improvement Agency issued revised guidance on the use of section 44 that made it clear that the power does not stop the taking of photographs in an authorised area and that the police should not use those powers to stop people taking pictures. The police may stop and search someone who is taking photographs in an authorised area, just as they may stop and search any member of the public, but the powers should not be targeted on photographers."
"The second issue concerns the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It makes it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a constable, or a member of the armed forces or intelligences services. The information must be of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.
It has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers. A photograph of a police officer may fall within the scope of the offence, but would do so in only limited circumstances. The offence is designed to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs. An offence might be committed, therefore, if someone provides a person with information about the names, addresses or details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups. The important thing is that the photographs would have to be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists, and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse, such as responsible journalism, for taking it.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—York is a great city—that had he taken a photograph of a billboard in an underground station, he would have been on safe ground. I hope that the incident did not cost him the prize for being the best MP photographer in that year.
I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued.
Designated areas may cover any area. They may, for example, cover a town or a borough. They must be approved by the Secretary of State, and, prior to that, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is worth noting in this context the two important safeguards in the statute, which I just mentioned. It is also worth remembering why Parliament only recently agreed to create the new offence. The offence is aimed at protecting those who are on the front line of our efforts to tackle terrorism. Sadly, recent events in Northern Ireland have shown that members of the armed forces and the police continue to be targets for terrorists. We also judge that the police, the armed forces and the intelligence services are regarded as potential targets by extremists in the UK. The new offence is therefore important, and I would not want concerns about its potential application to photographers to overshadow that.
On a separate issue, we have recently been made aware of the publication on the internet of detailed street images of the capital and other major UK cities. The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised the matter. It freely demonstrates that the ability to take photographs in a public place is not subject to any set of rules or to statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place except where the picture is taken with the intent of committing a crime or terrorist act.
I hope that I have provided some reassurance that we take the issue seriously and that we are doing all we can to ensure that legislation is not misused against photographers, whether journalists, tourists or just enthusiasts. I make it absolutely clear that unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they must be allowed to take photographs in public places and that the law should not be used to discourage or hamper that activity. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government's intentions in this area are right and that we are working hard to ensure that the law does not have an unintended impact on photography.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke about a journalist in his constituency. Freedom of the press is a fundamental foundation of any democracy, and the idea that journalists are being blocked willy-nilly from engaging in their lawful activity is completely unacceptable. Anecdotally, there seems to be a disconnect between what the Government intended and what might be happening on the ground...
If anyone does have proof of the 'disconnect' the Minister talks of, get in touch with your MP, tell him or her all about it. It shouldn't be happening.
Anyway, the suggestion is that it's unlawful to take pictures of public buildings, which is of course not true. Here is what the Minister, Shahid Malik, said in response to a debate in Parliament in April 2009 on photography in public places. And no, I haven't censored the ending. The Speaker cut him off in his prime. Worth reading the full debate, which includes more detail from the Minister on what guidance has been given to police officers and reassurances as to what ought to happen.
"There are two separate issues and I would like to deal with each in turn. First, concerns have been expressed about the stop-and-search powers used under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As hon. Members will know, section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist. This is a useful power, but it is also wide-ranging, and concerns have been expressed that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs - whether of buildings or of people - within authorised areas. There are also concerns that cameras are being confiscated as part of such searches. Those are genuine concerns that people have raised.
I would like to make it clear that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs. In November last year the National Police Improvement Agency issued revised guidance on the use of section 44 that made it clear that the power does not stop the taking of photographs in an authorised area and that the police should not use those powers to stop people taking pictures. The police may stop and search someone who is taking photographs in an authorised area, just as they may stop and search any member of the public, but the powers should not be targeted on photographers."
"The second issue concerns the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It makes it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a constable, or a member of the armed forces or intelligences services. The information must be of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.
It has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers. A photograph of a police officer may fall within the scope of the offence, but would do so in only limited circumstances. The offence is designed to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs. An offence might be committed, therefore, if someone provides a person with information about the names, addresses or details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups. The important thing is that the photographs would have to be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists, and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse, such as responsible journalism, for taking it.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley)—York is a great city—that had he taken a photograph of a billboard in an underground station, he would have been on safe ground. I hope that the incident did not cost him the prize for being the best MP photographer in that year.
I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued.
Designated areas may cover any area. They may, for example, cover a town or a borough. They must be approved by the Secretary of State, and, prior to that, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is worth noting in this context the two important safeguards in the statute, which I just mentioned. It is also worth remembering why Parliament only recently agreed to create the new offence. The offence is aimed at protecting those who are on the front line of our efforts to tackle terrorism. Sadly, recent events in Northern Ireland have shown that members of the armed forces and the police continue to be targets for terrorists. We also judge that the police, the armed forces and the intelligence services are regarded as potential targets by extremists in the UK. The new offence is therefore important, and I would not want concerns about its potential application to photographers to overshadow that.
On a separate issue, we have recently been made aware of the publication on the internet of detailed street images of the capital and other major UK cities. The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised the matter. It freely demonstrates that the ability to take photographs in a public place is not subject to any set of rules or to statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place except where the picture is taken with the intent of committing a crime or terrorist act.
I hope that I have provided some reassurance that we take the issue seriously and that we are doing all we can to ensure that legislation is not misused against photographers, whether journalists, tourists or just enthusiasts. I make it absolutely clear that unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they must be allowed to take photographs in public places and that the law should not be used to discourage or hamper that activity. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Government's intentions in this area are right and that we are working hard to ensure that the law does not have an unintended impact on photography.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) spoke about a journalist in his constituency. Freedom of the press is a fundamental foundation of any democracy, and the idea that journalists are being blocked willy-nilly from engaging in their lawful activity is completely unacceptable. Anecdotally, there seems to be a disconnect between what the Government intended and what might be happening on the ground...
If anyone does have proof of the 'disconnect' the Minister talks of, get in touch with your MP, tell him or her all about it. It shouldn't be happening.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Are you Experienced?
"If only I, could sell myself, the way that even, I would buy..."
In the wake of the airbrushed poster debacle - and incidentally www.mydavidcameron.com is now claiming to be the UK's most visited politics site, with more than 500 posters submitted - news is out that the Tories are advertising for a "Brand Communications Manager" to sell Brand Cameron to an unsuspecting British public.
The new recruit will join a Brand Communications Team, reporting to someone with "overall responsibility for brand management" and her deputy.
The job advert doesn't make clear quite how many eager young Tory tots make up the rest of the team, but tells us the Brand Communications team is responsible for above-the-line advertising, design, online creative content and "experiential activity", whatever that may be. Watch out for The David Cameron Experience* coming to a town near you!
*Poster to appear on mydavidcameron.com very soon no doubt. Beyond my technical skills.
In the wake of the airbrushed poster debacle - and incidentally www.mydavidcameron.com is now claiming to be the UK's most visited politics site, with more than 500 posters submitted - news is out that the Tories are advertising for a "Brand Communications Manager" to sell Brand Cameron to an unsuspecting British public.
The new recruit will join a Brand Communications Team, reporting to someone with "overall responsibility for brand management" and her deputy.
The job advert doesn't make clear quite how many eager young Tory tots make up the rest of the team, but tells us the Brand Communications team is responsible for above-the-line advertising, design, online creative content and "experiential activity", whatever that may be. Watch out for The David Cameron Experience* coming to a town near you!
*Poster to appear on mydavidcameron.com very soon no doubt. Beyond my technical skills.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Alone Again Or
Disturbing but not at all surprising report in the FT of a survey of Tory candidates standing in the 240 most winnable of their target seats. Of the 144 PPCs who responded, “reducing Britain’s carbon footprint” was the lowest priority for them out of 19 policy options put before them.
Asked to rate each policy on a scale of one to five, where five was the most important to them personally, the candidates gave the climate change issue an average rating of 2.8, significantly below “more help for marriage”, 3.6, and “protecting the English countryside”, 3.57. They rated “cutting red tape” as second only to tackling the budget deficit in terms of priorities, suggesting resistance to environmental regulation.
Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home is quoted as saying: ‘This is a hugely controversial issue for the Conservative party. There’s almost no support among centre-right think-tanks for all this climate change, so the party has got to be incredibly careful. I’m confident the sceptics are going to win. It’s for Cameron to decide how he’s going to get out of this – he’s lost the battle already.’
So is Cameron going to take a stand and try to whip his party into shape behind him? Or is he going to quietly let this one go? Judging from his near silence on green issues in recent months, even during Copenhagen week, it looks as if he's already given up the fight. (And that's being generous enough to assume that he was ever particularly passionate about the cause in the first place... Which I doubt.)
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Equal but Different
Final blog of the night... and this is only because I said I would.
I am, as previously mentioned on here, thoroughly fed up with outbursts of mockrage from Tories on Twitter, although in some ways it's a useful indicator that what I've said has hit a raw nerve. Latest case is the RTing by me of a Tweet from a constituent, which, as abbreviated by me, was: "A gay man/lesbian voting Tory is a fool. Cameron voted ag repeal section 28 & party is aligned with homophobes in EU". (The constituent, btw, is a journalist who writes on LGBT issues for various local publications. And he's a gay man in a civil partnership. I've met him and his husband; they're nice blokes).
So why has this struck a nerve with the Tories? Obviously no-one likes being called a fool, and perhaps the language could have been more moderate, but you can see I'd already had to condense the tweet to fit it in, without being able to add comment of my own. And anyway, I do think that most people would be misguided/ mistaken/ unwise/ foolish/ irrational/ imprudent/ demented/ derranged/ just plain wrong [delete as appropriate] to vote Tory at the next election. Of course I do. A Tory Government would be a disaster for this country and deeply damaging for my constituents on a personal level.
But let's get back to the main issue. I suspect my constituent's tweet was inspired by reading this piece in Saturday's Guardian, on the Conservatives' less than impressive track record in voting against gay rights. I've not seen any conclusive proof that the leopard has changed its spots, despite Cameron's attempts to convince us otherwise. If a gay man/ lesbian votes on the basis of identity politics, then it's hard to see why they'd vote Tory. (And none of the 'outraged' have said anything to challenge that view).
Of course, many LGBT voters won't vote on that basis, which is where the tweet is open to challenge. If you're a gay man with parents who happen to be very elderly and very wealthy, and the only thing you care about in life is getting your hands on as much of their money as possible, then it could be argued you'd be a fool NOT to vote Tory.
Let's move on though, to the issues which I know concern my constituent, and on which basis he may well cast his vote at the next election. An example of "the politics of But" (rather than "the politics of And"). Yes, the track record of this Labour Government on equalities is remarkable, from equalising the age of consent, gay adoption, scrapping section 28, civil partnerships, recognising homophobic hate crimes.... have a look here for more. But.
Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won't have true equality until they are. I've tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn't gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it's more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn't have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.
But you could have a concept of civil marriages for all those who don't care for the religious part of the marriage ceremony, so there would at least be equality there, and hope that the Church takes a more enlightened view in future. (And give it nudges in the right direction). Although that could be seen as downgrading civil ceremonies for opposite sex couples and be met with opposition? I don't know the extent to which this was all discussed before the 2004 Act became law - I wasn't in Parliament then - but I can see why the "But" matters, and perhaps it's time we revisited it.
The other "But" is the fact gay men are still barred from being blood donors, because they're in a high risk group for HIV transmission. My initial response to this was, well, it's an understandable restriction. But when you think about it... Giving blood is an altruistic thing. We don't pay people to give blood in this country. People do it out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's self-certifying. People who go along to give blood are by and large trusted to say whether or not they've been indulging in risky behaviour. A gay man might not know if he's HIV positive, but I can't see why, if he had any doubt in his mind, he'd decide to go and give blood. And there are second and third generation tests which pick up infected blood anyway. The risk in the US, according to this, of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 2 million units transfused. And - correct me if I'm wrong - people are paid to give blood there. So I can see why gay men find it offensive to all be lumped into the same bracket, and to, in effect, be accused of being indifferent to the fate of people to whom they donate blood.
I am, as previously mentioned on here, thoroughly fed up with outbursts of mockrage from Tories on Twitter, although in some ways it's a useful indicator that what I've said has hit a raw nerve. Latest case is the RTing by me of a Tweet from a constituent, which, as abbreviated by me, was: "A gay man/lesbian voting Tory is a fool. Cameron voted ag repeal section 28 & party is aligned with homophobes in EU". (The constituent, btw, is a journalist who writes on LGBT issues for various local publications. And he's a gay man in a civil partnership. I've met him and his husband; they're nice blokes).
So why has this struck a nerve with the Tories? Obviously no-one likes being called a fool, and perhaps the language could have been more moderate, but you can see I'd already had to condense the tweet to fit it in, without being able to add comment of my own. And anyway, I do think that most people would be misguided/ mistaken/ unwise/ foolish/ irrational/ imprudent/ demented/ derranged/ just plain wrong [delete as appropriate] to vote Tory at the next election. Of course I do. A Tory Government would be a disaster for this country and deeply damaging for my constituents on a personal level.
But let's get back to the main issue. I suspect my constituent's tweet was inspired by reading this piece in Saturday's Guardian, on the Conservatives' less than impressive track record in voting against gay rights. I've not seen any conclusive proof that the leopard has changed its spots, despite Cameron's attempts to convince us otherwise. If a gay man/ lesbian votes on the basis of identity politics, then it's hard to see why they'd vote Tory. (And none of the 'outraged' have said anything to challenge that view).
Of course, many LGBT voters won't vote on that basis, which is where the tweet is open to challenge. If you're a gay man with parents who happen to be very elderly and very wealthy, and the only thing you care about in life is getting your hands on as much of their money as possible, then it could be argued you'd be a fool NOT to vote Tory.
Let's move on though, to the issues which I know concern my constituent, and on which basis he may well cast his vote at the next election. An example of "the politics of But" (rather than "the politics of And"). Yes, the track record of this Labour Government on equalities is remarkable, from equalising the age of consent, gay adoption, scrapping section 28, civil partnerships, recognising homophobic hate crimes.... have a look here for more. But.
Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage. And we won't have true equality until they are. I've tried looking into this, and the explanation I got as to why the UK hasn't gone down the path of other countries who have legalised gay marriage was that it's more difficult in the UK because whereas in those countries you can only be married in a civil ceremony and can then choose to go on and have a religious service should you want one, in the UK you can be married in church without the civil element. Which I took to mean that you couldn't have gay marriage in this country without persuading the Church of England, Catholic church, etc, to accept it.
But you could have a concept of civil marriages for all those who don't care for the religious part of the marriage ceremony, so there would at least be equality there, and hope that the Church takes a more enlightened view in future. (And give it nudges in the right direction). Although that could be seen as downgrading civil ceremonies for opposite sex couples and be met with opposition? I don't know the extent to which this was all discussed before the 2004 Act became law - I wasn't in Parliament then - but I can see why the "But" matters, and perhaps it's time we revisited it.
The other "But" is the fact gay men are still barred from being blood donors, because they're in a high risk group for HIV transmission. My initial response to this was, well, it's an understandable restriction. But when you think about it... Giving blood is an altruistic thing. We don't pay people to give blood in this country. People do it out of the goodness of their hearts. And it's self-certifying. People who go along to give blood are by and large trusted to say whether or not they've been indulging in risky behaviour. A gay man might not know if he's HIV positive, but I can't see why, if he had any doubt in his mind, he'd decide to go and give blood. And there are second and third generation tests which pick up infected blood anyway. The risk in the US, according to this, of contracting HIV through a blood transfusion is 1 in 2 million units transfused. And - correct me if I'm wrong - people are paid to give blood there. So I can see why gay men find it offensive to all be lumped into the same bracket, and to, in effect, be accused of being indifferent to the fate of people to whom they donate blood.
Policies not posters
In a seminar I chaired at the Fabians conference yesterday I asked Peter Kellner of YouGov whether it was possible to judge what was the more effective form of political campaigning: the Conservatives spending millions on billboards of an airbrushed David Cameron, or Labour supporters parodying it with the www.mydavidcameron.com pics, which have now received considerable coverage in the mainstream media. His response was that it's difficult to judge, and that 90% of the money spent by the political parties during election campaigns is a complete waste of money anyway. Leaflets go in the bin, billboards are forgotten, etc, etc.
Also, much of this propaganda is directed at people who have already made up their minds how to vote anyway.... Which is why Voter ID/ phone bank work, and then targeted mailings are by far the best use of funds rather than blanket coverage of a constituency. (Not something those with the Ashcroft millions behind them have to worry about though - they can just bombard everyone.)
The received wisdom about billboard campaigns in the past was that what mattered wasn't the billboard itself, but the press/TV coverage it got when it was unveiled. As Peter Kellner pointed out, the only Conservative billboard people remember from the 1997 campaign was the 'Demon Eyes' picture of Tony Blair. And yet there was only ever the one poster; it wasn't a campaign that was rolled out on billboards across the country. You will probably be able to find people who can "remember" seeing the poster, but they won't have; they'll have seen the press coverage.
During my brief stint working for the Labour Party during the 2001 election I remember having trouble explaining this to the Electoral Commission, when we were discussing election spend with them. They were convinced that a 'billboard campaign' would have cost millions, whereas the truth is, most of them only get a very limited run. The current Cameron campaign, which really has been rolled out nationwide, is the exception, not the rule. And yes, people notice the posters, but are they more or less likely to vote Conservative as a result? I doubt it actually makes any difference at all, unless the ad agencies find a campaign that really hits home.
At the coming election Labour has a choice - should it spend its limited funds on targeted mailings, phone banks, battle buses, party political broadcasts, new media campaigns: all those things which genuinely connect with voters? Or should it splash out on billboards instead? My reckoning is we might see one or two limited poster campaigns, to get across a particular message on a particular day, perhaps in a particular location, but we won't be following the Conservative example.
Also, much of this propaganda is directed at people who have already made up their minds how to vote anyway.... Which is why Voter ID/ phone bank work, and then targeted mailings are by far the best use of funds rather than blanket coverage of a constituency. (Not something those with the Ashcroft millions behind them have to worry about though - they can just bombard everyone.)
The received wisdom about billboard campaigns in the past was that what mattered wasn't the billboard itself, but the press/TV coverage it got when it was unveiled. As Peter Kellner pointed out, the only Conservative billboard people remember from the 1997 campaign was the 'Demon Eyes' picture of Tony Blair. And yet there was only ever the one poster; it wasn't a campaign that was rolled out on billboards across the country. You will probably be able to find people who can "remember" seeing the poster, but they won't have; they'll have seen the press coverage.
During my brief stint working for the Labour Party during the 2001 election I remember having trouble explaining this to the Electoral Commission, when we were discussing election spend with them. They were convinced that a 'billboard campaign' would have cost millions, whereas the truth is, most of them only get a very limited run. The current Cameron campaign, which really has been rolled out nationwide, is the exception, not the rule. And yes, people notice the posters, but are they more or less likely to vote Conservative as a result? I doubt it actually makes any difference at all, unless the ad agencies find a campaign that really hits home.
At the coming election Labour has a choice - should it spend its limited funds on targeted mailings, phone banks, battle buses, party political broadcasts, new media campaigns: all those things which genuinely connect with voters? Or should it splash out on billboards instead? My reckoning is we might see one or two limited poster campaigns, to get across a particular message on a particular day, perhaps in a particular location, but we won't be following the Conservative example.
Now Mary
I'm not usually a Telegraph reader - no, you surprise us! gasps my collective readership - but this piece by Mary Portas, aka Mary Queen of Shops, is a must-read. (Given my previous post, perhaps we should just get rid of political columnists altogether and have celebs write all the comment pieces in our newspapers).
Mary dissects the now infamous 'airbrushed' posters, and comes to the conclusion that, frankly, they're a bit crap. (For suggestions as to how they can be improved, see the excellent www.mydavidcameron.com.) But it's in her analysis of 'Brand Cameron' that she really excels, coming to the devasting conclusion:
"All successful brands stand for something, whether that's reliability, luxury or usefulness. I've racked my brains but I can't for the life of me think what Cameron stands for.... If he were a supermarket, he'd be Somerfield."
Mary dissects the now infamous 'airbrushed' posters, and comes to the conclusion that, frankly, they're a bit crap. (For suggestions as to how they can be improved, see the excellent www.mydavidcameron.com.) But it's in her analysis of 'Brand Cameron' that she really excels, coming to the devasting conclusion:
"All successful brands stand for something, whether that's reliability, luxury or usefulness. I've racked my brains but I can't for the life of me think what Cameron stands for.... If he were a supermarket, he'd be Somerfield."
Mere Pseud Mag Ed
Two excellent articles in the Observer today. David Mitchell is on form, parodying archaeologists and the conclusions they draw from tiny "finds". Something which, perhaps I can now confess, I've never really quite seen the value of. So archaeologists, led by a professor of palaeolithic archaeology at the University of Bristol no less, have discovered Neanderthals may have worn make-up. I thought we already knew that from the Flintstones? Betty and Wilma were very glam. They'd completely nailed this season's animal print too. Role models for us all.Seriously though, perhaps someone can explain to me why we need to know this. Is is that we could then go on to conclude that Neanderthals weren't quite as hairy as we've previously thought, and that could tenuously prove something to do with evolution? Or is it just fascinating to know a tiny bit more about our very ancient past, and I'm the archaeological equivalent of a philistine?
The second excellent article in today's Observer - and tellingly by another non-journalist - is from Regine Chassagne of Arcade Fire fame, who is Haitian and writes movingly about her shock since the earthquake struck. "Since Haiti shook and crumbled, I feel as if something has collapsed over my head, too. Miles away, somehow, I'm trapped in this nightmare. My heart is crushed, I've been thinking of nothing else." Please read it - and then donate via the DEC appeal, which includes most of the major UK charities/ NGOs.
There is also a far from excellent article in today's Observer by Catherine Bennett. I have to admit, I'm not a fan of her comment pieces. She's rarely thought-provoking or infuriating or amusing. The logic of her conclusions often defies me, and there doesn't seem to be any coherent worldview. To be honest, I've never quite seen why she's paid to be a columnist.
Anyway, today she is writing about about the possibility of her mate, the highly unappealing Rod Liddle, becoming editor of the Independent. Completely bizarre logic, once again. She seems to be defending Mr Liddle's right to free speech - sexist/ racist/ Islamophobic though it may be- whilst condemning those in the blogosphere and on Twitter who are expressing the view that a man of Mr Liddle's views should not be put at the helm of one of our few liberal-leaning newspapers. It seems free speech only applies to Mr Liddle and not to those who disapprove of him. (Check him out on climate change denial too; surely if the Independent has a particular USP, it's that it's been excellent on environmental issues).
Stop press - the folks over at Liberal Conspiracy are running a piece suggesting that Mr Liddle has been leaving racist comments on a football website. Wonder what Ms Bennett has to say about that?
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Glam Racket
Was toying with the idea of doing a post here on silly Tory claims that ww.mydavidcameron.com is negative campaigning. (Well it is, in so far as it's saying that Cameron and his Tory Party are not an entirely good thing, which we are allowed to do, but it's witty and fun and some of the pics at least are based on policy differences which need highlighting - for example, the BBC one - and this is a good way to do it.)As I say, I was going to do that, but I've been distracted by discovering Www.deadgoose.com. Worth checking out for the picture of Geoff and Patricia alone. And I like Andrew Adonis and his salt supplies.
Hollow Man (2)
Sorry to harp on about the Cameron poster campaign (well, not really) but according to the Mail, Senior Tory officials have said that the campaign is "designed to appeal to floating voters in Lib Dem held seats". So does that mean the Tories are targeting Bristol West? The three posters I've seen so far are in the new Bristol West seat or roads leading to it... It was a three-way marginal last time, but I'd have thought the boundary changes put it as a straight Lib Dem-Labour fight (which will be won by Labour).
Stephen Williams, by the way, reckons Bristol North West is a three-way fight, as his safest Lib Dem ward has gone into there. No doubt we will be seeing "Only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here" leaflets going out soon.
Stephen Williams, by the way, reckons Bristol North West is a three-way fight, as his safest Lib Dem ward has gone into there. No doubt we will be seeing "Only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here" leaflets going out soon.
Wax and Wane
Some good pieces on the airbrush campaign by Brand Republic. (See the links at the bottom too.)
Haiti - earthquake
DFID is making excellent use of its website - www.dfid.gov.uk - and its Twitter account - @dfid_uk - to show what the UK is doing to help the people of Haiti, including sending out search and rescue teams. The UK were first on the scene after the Pakistan earthquake and are acknowledged experts in this field. Of course after the rescue efforts have been exhausted, there will be a huge amount of reconstruction needed, in what was already one of the world's poorest countries. You can donate to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal at www.dec.org.uk.
Kurious Orange
Just received this email. Somewhat baffled by it.
Dear Kerry McCarthy,
Whatever happened to that revolutionary Rearing of Cod in Freshwater Project?
Well, I am delighted to advise that our activities are developing at a rapid rate!
The website has just been updated together with a summary of 2009 and the Annual Report.
We have included a very honest assessment of our activities and performance, as well as an opinion of current trends and policies.
It makes good reading and may ruffle a few scales!
Take a look at www.diobas.com
Kind regards,
Gerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
