Another story that hasn't really got the attention it deserves is the news that David Cameron recently had a private meeting with Nurses for Reform, who, despite their cuddly sounding name don't actually appear to be nurses* or 'for reform' unless by reforming the NHS you mean completely dismantling it. But then "libertarians and public affairs consultants/healthcare companies for wholesale privatisation of the NHS" doesn't have quite the same voter-appeal, does it?
As Cameron says, he has meetings with many groups, but if he's meeting a group like this then there are only a couple of likely explanations. Either someone (one of the shadow Health team?) has already met them, liked what they heard and lobbied to get them a meeting with the party leader. Or they've been sought out by Cameron's team because what they're saying adds a bit of "healthcare expert" credibility to what the Tories want to say, in a particularly voter-friendly way, being nurses and all that. Or there are personal connections in play, i.e. a friend of a friend. Whatever the explanation is, we ought to be taking this as a very serious sign of where Cameron's sympathies lie.
*Their media spokesperson is an ex-nurse. This is her Twitter feed. I will leave you with a quote: "the only way forward is for less Government regulation and more market forces and self-regulation"... [for hospitals].
Actually no, I won't leave you with that. I will insist you read her blog for the Adam Smith Institute, with recommendations for the 'micropolitics of the hospital privatisation, starting with the suggestion that "in the post-bureaucratic age" the Secretary of State for Health should no longer have any say in when or where hospitals are built, opened or closed. (NB the Secretary of State is not a bureaucrat. He's a democratically-elected politician. Who has been elected, inter alia, to protect and preserve our National Health Service). The stuff on locally-negotiated pay (for which read a race to the bottom on pay, terms and conditions, and training) is dynamite too. Cameron should publicly move to dissociate himself from this agenda now.
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Detective Instinct
Hope this doesn't get overlooked in post-NYE comedown...
So-called expert on extremism, Glenn Jenvey, has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred against Jews, based on allegations he posted content on the Ummah.com website under an assumed Muslim name. He says this was with the intention of seeing whether Islamic extremists were attracted to the post, but it was own posts that were splashed across the Sun as proof that British Jews, including Sir Alan Sugar, Amy Winehouse and David Miliband, had become terror targets. Credit where it's due to Tim Ireland, aka Bloggerheads, for his work on exposing the fallacy of the Sun story. More info here.
I'm not sure he's facing the right charge... If his defence is that his intention wasn't to incite hatred against Jews but to expose Islamic extremism, it seems to me that could well succeed because he wouldn't have been trying to incite the hatred himself, but simply to get others to expose their own hatred. Whereas if he was charged with inciting hatred against Muslims, by making people think extremists were compiling a hitlist of prominent British Jews, I think he'd be on shakier ground. (Usual legal caveats apply, of course). Will be interesting to see how the case develops...
So-called expert on extremism, Glenn Jenvey, has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred against Jews, based on allegations he posted content on the Ummah.com website under an assumed Muslim name. He says this was with the intention of seeing whether Islamic extremists were attracted to the post, but it was own posts that were splashed across the Sun as proof that British Jews, including Sir Alan Sugar, Amy Winehouse and David Miliband, had become terror targets. Credit where it's due to Tim Ireland, aka Bloggerheads, for his work on exposing the fallacy of the Sun story. More info here.
I'm not sure he's facing the right charge... If his defence is that his intention wasn't to incite hatred against Jews but to expose Islamic extremism, it seems to me that could well succeed because he wouldn't have been trying to incite the hatred himself, but simply to get others to expose their own hatred. Whereas if he was charged with inciting hatred against Muslims, by making people think extremists were compiling a hitlist of prominent British Jews, I think he'd be on shakier ground. (Usual legal caveats apply, of course). Will be interesting to see how the case develops...
A Different Class
Having skim-read Vogue, Marie Claire and Elle in the hairdressers yesterday I ended up reading a Tatler article on 'the Manners Maze' on essential issues such as "Is it rude to defriend someone on Facebook?" and "Should one discuss politics, sex or religion at dinner?" In answer to the latter, Quentin Letts said: "Only the dullest MPs avoid these essential subjects. Religion is quite the best. Anything to taunt dreadul clip-on atheists." I have no idea what a 'clip on' atheist is, unless it's some sort of reference to a clip-on bow tie being an inferior version of the real thing... but no, still have no idea what he's on about.
Anyway, the highlight of this feature comes with the question: "Is it rude to vote Labour?" Answers range from "It's a bit infra dig, like commenting on Grandma's moustache" and "Not only rude but also ridiculous" to "Not so much rude as ostentatiously contrary. Demonstrates a bolshy form of inverted snobbery". In other words, voting Labour is for common people. Or for people who want to live like Common People. (I was at law college with people like that... You might think that getting a university education takes you up in the world, but at law college there were 21 year olds who belonged to gentleman's clubs and treated me, I always felt, like a serving wench who'd gotten ideas above her station.)
Labour has come under some fire over the past few weeks for supposedly reigniting the class war: Gordon Brown's "playing fields of Eton" jibe at Cameron at PMQs; the Zac Goldsmith furore and criticism of Tory inheritance tax plans which would benefit only the privileged few; the resurrection of the fox-hunting debate with www.backtheban. (Resurrected only in response to a Tory pledge to revisit the issue, I hasten to add). The truth is, it never went away. But it's not Us who've been propogating it. It's Them.
What Labour is being accused of at the moment is the class equivalent of "playing the race card", Not in the sense of Tories 'playing the race card' at the last election with their "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" posters in areas of high immigration (and now Michael Howard, Tory leader at the time, accuses all political parties of not doing enough to confront the BNP... but I digress, as ever.) Not in that sense, but in the sense that people from BME communities are often accused of playing the race card when they raise questions of injustice and poor treatment. And just as those allegations often come from out-and-out racists, so faux outrage over 'class war' is often the preserve of out-and-out snobs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg once said that "John Prescott's accent most certainly stereotypes him as an oaf" and talked of the state education system producing "potted plants". And yet, if we were to describe him as a Tory toff, which he patently obviously is, we'd no doubt be accused of class warfare. (And before you start, Crewe and Nantwich... yes, silly campaign, he's not even that posh. Stinking rich, maybe, but not a toff).
Incidentally, not only has Cameron tried to get the sister, Annunziata, to change her name to Nancy Mogg for the election campaign, I have it on good authority that the Moggs are amongst those who've been told by CCHQ not to do regional media, because they 'create the wrong impression', by being too posh. Or maybe it's just because calling voters potted plants doesn't go down too well in the South West. Or anywhere really. The farmer/ Tory PPC Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is also on the list, which is quite ironic really as it seems he's just pretending to be posh.
It seems to me that it's the Tories who are obsessed by the Toff Factor, and their mockrage at "class war" by Labour is motivated primarily by fear of the label sticking. Which if the response I've been getting on the doorsteps of Bristol East is anything to go by, it is. I suspect the focus-groups are telling CCHQ exactly the same thing.
But the reason it is sticking is not because Labour have been having at bit of fun talking about Bullingdon boys or the playing fields of Eton or the Tory front-bench resembling Millionaire's Row. It's because the Conservative Party leadership has clearly demonstrated by the policies it is putting forward that its priority in Government would be to protect the interests of the privileged elite in whose circles they so comfortably move. Cameron's Christmas card list, as Gordon put it. And until they demonstrate that their priorities lie elsewhere - and drop the offensive denigration of working-class communities as 'Broken Britain' while they're at it - we're perfectly entitled to point that out.
Anyway, the highlight of this feature comes with the question: "Is it rude to vote Labour?" Answers range from "It's a bit infra dig, like commenting on Grandma's moustache" and "Not only rude but also ridiculous" to "Not so much rude as ostentatiously contrary. Demonstrates a bolshy form of inverted snobbery". In other words, voting Labour is for common people. Or for people who want to live like Common People. (I was at law college with people like that... You might think that getting a university education takes you up in the world, but at law college there were 21 year olds who belonged to gentleman's clubs and treated me, I always felt, like a serving wench who'd gotten ideas above her station.)
Labour has come under some fire over the past few weeks for supposedly reigniting the class war: Gordon Brown's "playing fields of Eton" jibe at Cameron at PMQs; the Zac Goldsmith furore and criticism of Tory inheritance tax plans which would benefit only the privileged few; the resurrection of the fox-hunting debate with www.backtheban. (Resurrected only in response to a Tory pledge to revisit the issue, I hasten to add). The truth is, it never went away. But it's not Us who've been propogating it. It's Them.
What Labour is being accused of at the moment is the class equivalent of "playing the race card", Not in the sense of Tories 'playing the race card' at the last election with their "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" posters in areas of high immigration (and now Michael Howard, Tory leader at the time, accuses all political parties of not doing enough to confront the BNP... but I digress, as ever.) Not in that sense, but in the sense that people from BME communities are often accused of playing the race card when they raise questions of injustice and poor treatment. And just as those allegations often come from out-and-out racists, so faux outrage over 'class war' is often the preserve of out-and-out snobs.
Jacob Rees-Mogg once said that "John Prescott's accent most certainly stereotypes him as an oaf" and talked of the state education system producing "potted plants". And yet, if we were to describe him as a Tory toff, which he patently obviously is, we'd no doubt be accused of class warfare. (And before you start, Crewe and Nantwich... yes, silly campaign, he's not even that posh. Stinking rich, maybe, but not a toff).
Incidentally, not only has Cameron tried to get the sister, Annunziata, to change her name to Nancy Mogg for the election campaign, I have it on good authority that the Moggs are amongst those who've been told by CCHQ not to do regional media, because they 'create the wrong impression', by being too posh. Or maybe it's just because calling voters potted plants doesn't go down too well in the South West. Or anywhere really. The farmer/ Tory PPC Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones is also on the list, which is quite ironic really as it seems he's just pretending to be posh.
It seems to me that it's the Tories who are obsessed by the Toff Factor, and their mockrage at "class war" by Labour is motivated primarily by fear of the label sticking. Which if the response I've been getting on the doorsteps of Bristol East is anything to go by, it is. I suspect the focus-groups are telling CCHQ exactly the same thing.
But the reason it is sticking is not because Labour have been having at bit of fun talking about Bullingdon boys or the playing fields of Eton or the Tory front-bench resembling Millionaire's Row. It's because the Conservative Party leadership has clearly demonstrated by the policies it is putting forward that its priority in Government would be to protect the interests of the privileged elite in whose circles they so comfortably move. Cameron's Christmas card list, as Gordon put it. And until they demonstrate that their priorities lie elsewhere - and drop the offensive denigration of working-class communities as 'Broken Britain' while they're at it - we're perfectly entitled to point that out.
Monday, 28 December 2009
We are family (5)
Yesterday I visited my grandfather and my grandmother. Separately, they're from different sides of the family.
My grandfather has a family tree on his wall which my mother updates regularly (last update, 15th December). At the last count he had 25 grandchildren and 38 great-grandchildren, which is why he needs a reminder. On 1st January every year he sits down and writes out all the birthday cards, with the dates written in pencil under where the stamp will go, and arranges them in date order, month by month, so he doesn't forget.
My grandmother, on the other hand, has three grandchildren, and that's it. (And she's from the Irish-Catholic side of the family!)
The reason my grandfather has so many descendants is partly because he has stepchildren, and some of his children/ grandchildren have stepchildren too. Technically he's not my "real" grandfather, he married my grandmother nearly 40 years ago, after she was widowed, but he's definitely "family". Whereas my grandmother is my "real" grandmother but I didn't meet her until 10 or 15 years ago, and don't really know her that well.
I don't know quite where I'm going with this, other than to say, families are sometimes messy... I have five half-sisters but they're just "my sisters" to me. The two nephews I was with last night have a stepbrother and two half-brothers, but if you asked they'd each say they're one of "five brothers". Perhaps we've lost out from not having grown up in 'nuclear' families, but I think we've gained an awful lot too.
My grandfather has a family tree on his wall which my mother updates regularly (last update, 15th December). At the last count he had 25 grandchildren and 38 great-grandchildren, which is why he needs a reminder. On 1st January every year he sits down and writes out all the birthday cards, with the dates written in pencil under where the stamp will go, and arranges them in date order, month by month, so he doesn't forget.
My grandmother, on the other hand, has three grandchildren, and that's it. (And she's from the Irish-Catholic side of the family!)
The reason my grandfather has so many descendants is partly because he has stepchildren, and some of his children/ grandchildren have stepchildren too. Technically he's not my "real" grandfather, he married my grandmother nearly 40 years ago, after she was widowed, but he's definitely "family". Whereas my grandmother is my "real" grandmother but I didn't meet her until 10 or 15 years ago, and don't really know her that well.
I don't know quite where I'm going with this, other than to say, families are sometimes messy... I have five half-sisters but they're just "my sisters" to me. The two nephews I was with last night have a stepbrother and two half-brothers, but if you asked they'd each say they're one of "five brothers". Perhaps we've lost out from not having grown up in 'nuclear' families, but I think we've gained an awful lot too.
I Come and Stand at your Door
I really should just ignore people who send me snide tweets about MPs being on holiday...
I've just spent an hour looking at emails, on a range of issues from funding for the local PCT's End of Life Strategy (not ringfenced, therefore a constituent is querying whether it will be spent as it should be) to trying to stop a bunch of asylum seekers arbitrarily being removed from Bristol to Cardiff. Also slowly ploughing my way through all the emails in the 'New Media' folder, of which there are many. And last night we - me and my adorable and easily-bribed nephews, Man and Jem - were stuffing envelopes till nearly midnight, sending out my parliamentary report to constituents. (The snow scuppered our chances of hand-delivering them all in the run-up to Christmas and they have to go out before the New Year because the parliamentary authorities have decreed so).
I also worked from the Bristol office till Christmas Eve, although Parliament broke up the week before, and I'll be back in the Westminster office on 4th January, to catch up on things before Parliament returns on the 5th. Oh, and I'll be working seven days a week from then until the General Election, and I know that because we've already got all the dates in the diary for campaigning.
I spent a few hours before Christmas turning the Bristol East Labour Party office, which is in the same building as my constituency office, above the St George Labour club, into a "war room" for the election. The life size cut-out of Michael Howard, which I was somehow lumbered with at the end of the 2005 campaign - surprisingly no-one else wanted it - has pride of place, holding a Vote Labour sign. Compared to 2005 when I was selected with only a couple of months to go, we're very well-organised this time... Only time will tell if that makes a difference.
Sunday, 27 December 2009
David Taylor MP
Just heard shocking news about the death of David Taylor MP. Quite upset about it. I'd only really got to know him over the past year or so, but had a lot of time for him. He won Backbencher of the Year in 2007, and was one of the most active MPs in the Commons Chamber, one of those MPs who could be described as a true parliamentarian. Basically, I liked him and respected him, and it's very sad news. Condolences to his family.
About a girl
Has only slowly dawned on me that it's Sunday, which is why the Mother has disappeared from the house; she must be at church. Wish she'd shown me how to switch on the telly before she went. Seriously, I've pressed every button on the remote, and yes, it is switched on at the mains.
While we're on the subject of techy problems, can anyone explain why Blogger doesn't allow cut and paste anymore? It's very, very annoying. Is it a protecting copyright thing? I can't even cut and paste from Word docs.
I'm feeling rather proud in a maternal way today. A year or two ago a Bristol uni student emailed me, begging to me allowed to come and volunteer in my constituency office, telling me how passionate she was about the Labour Party and how much she wanted to help achieve a Labour victory in the next election. (To be honest, she needn't have bothered, a simple "I'm Labour and willing to stuff envelopes and answer the phones for nothing more than my bus fare" would have sufficed).
I didn't get to see much of Ellie when she was interning for me, because constituency Fridays are an absolute whirl, with me running in and out of the office between appointments. But anyway, we're now firm friends, and today she's in two Sunday newspapers. The Observer has a feature on the Hot List 2010 (must pick up a paper copy as judging from her tweets there's an embarrassing photo which will be going up on the noticeboard in our Bristol East war room) and she's also writing a column for the Sunday People today; this is the main article but there are other titbits too. She's also going to be in Company magazine in January, and speaking at the Fabians Conference on January 16th under my watchful eye; I'm chairing the session. Anyway, well done Ellie... and carry on squashing those Tory trolls.
While we're on the subject of techy problems, can anyone explain why Blogger doesn't allow cut and paste anymore? It's very, very annoying. Is it a protecting copyright thing? I can't even cut and paste from Word docs.
I'm feeling rather proud in a maternal way today. A year or two ago a Bristol uni student emailed me, begging to me allowed to come and volunteer in my constituency office, telling me how passionate she was about the Labour Party and how much she wanted to help achieve a Labour victory in the next election. (To be honest, she needn't have bothered, a simple "I'm Labour and willing to stuff envelopes and answer the phones for nothing more than my bus fare" would have sufficed).
I didn't get to see much of Ellie when she was interning for me, because constituency Fridays are an absolute whirl, with me running in and out of the office between appointments. But anyway, we're now firm friends, and today she's in two Sunday newspapers. The Observer has a feature on the Hot List 2010 (must pick up a paper copy as judging from her tweets there's an embarrassing photo which will be going up on the noticeboard in our Bristol East war room) and she's also writing a column for the Sunday People today; this is the main article but there are other titbits too. She's also going to be in Company magazine in January, and speaking at the Fabians Conference on January 16th under my watchful eye; I'm chairing the session. Anyway, well done Ellie... and carry on squashing those Tory trolls.
We are family (4)
Have decided rather than spend hours trying to construct a thesis on this, I'm just going to blog things as they occur to me. So, for starters today: look at the numbers of children damaged through parental alcohol abuse, domestic violence, drug addiction, poverty (emotional as well as material), or parents who are simply too caught up in the unhappy dynamics of their own relationship to pay much attention to the kids? (This is particularly true when people get married too young, and have kids too young. They're still working things out). Where are the Tory policies to deal with these issues? With Labour, there's Sure Start and the Family Intervention Project for starters.
Something I've noticed about some families where the parents have separated, is how much more attention the kids get from their parents when they're with them, either because that's "having the kids time" or because the adult who remains in the family home has to talk to the kids because they don't have another adult to talk to. I'm not saying that's a 'plus point' about separation, it's just another way of making the point that it's not the structures that count, it's how parents treat their kids. And also about what other influences the kids have in their lives.
Something I've noticed about some families where the parents have separated, is how much more attention the kids get from their parents when they're with them, either because that's "having the kids time" or because the adult who remains in the family home has to talk to the kids because they don't have another adult to talk to. I'm not saying that's a 'plus point' about separation, it's just another way of making the point that it's not the structures that count, it's how parents treat their kids. And also about what other influences the kids have in their lives.
We are family (3)
Have now just read this piece in the Times saying Labour is doing a u-turn on marriage and the family, though reading the piece I'm not sure that's quite what we're saying (we;ve reiterated our opposition to tax breaks for married couples, for a start).
I don't have any problem at all with an emphasis on strong and stable relationships, that's just common sense, it's obviously a good thing for kids. But it shouldn't be fixated on the institution of marriage as the only 'good' relationship, nor even on the parents staying together. It's about the relationship the parents have not just with each other, but with their children. A father, for example, can have a strong, stable relationship with a child without living with that child, and we need to find ways to promote the continuation of such relationships rather than assuming that if parents separate at an early stage in a child's life, the chances are the father's role will be minimal. The recognition that it's time to talk about 'mother, father and baby', as it says in the Times piece, rather than 'mother and baby' is long overdue. We should stop talking about 'teenage mothers' too and talk about teen parents. It takes two!
I don't have any problem at all with an emphasis on strong and stable relationships, that's just common sense, it's obviously a good thing for kids. But it shouldn't be fixated on the institution of marriage as the only 'good' relationship, nor even on the parents staying together. It's about the relationship the parents have not just with each other, but with their children. A father, for example, can have a strong, stable relationship with a child without living with that child, and we need to find ways to promote the continuation of such relationships rather than assuming that if parents separate at an early stage in a child's life, the chances are the father's role will be minimal. The recognition that it's time to talk about 'mother, father and baby', as it says in the Times piece, rather than 'mother and baby' is long overdue. We should stop talking about 'teenage mothers' too and talk about teen parents. It takes two!
We are family (2)
Have just seen this piece about the Tories' warning that marriage is in danger of becoming a middle-class institution... Not sure I agree. If anything it's the middle class, well educated people I know who are not married (though many are in long-term relationships) and the working-class people who marry young, or who aspire to marry. That's a generalisation, but then so is what David Willets says. He says that "instead of being something you just do in your twenties" marriage has "become like scaling Mount Everest, a sort of great moral endeavour". I simply don't recognise that at all. I think people are possibly more reluctant to settle down these days, or find it harder to meet someone to settle down with, but there are also people who treat marriage far more lightly than they did in the past. The phenomenon of 'starter marriages' for example, is now well-established, when people meet at uni, get married and are divorced and single again by the time they're thirty.
I also met someone the other day who is definitely from the posher end of the class spectrum, whose mother is in her mid-40s and has just embarked on her fourth marriage. I'm not sure what David Willets would have to say about that!
I also met someone the other day who is definitely from the posher end of the class spectrum, whose mother is in her mid-40s and has just embarked on her fourth marriage. I'm not sure what David Willets would have to say about that!
Saturday, 26 December 2009
We are family
At this festive family time, and with the Tories predictably reverting to norm on so many issues as the election approaches, including resurrecting tax breaks "in symbolic recognition of the institution of marriage" (see here for an analysis from Left Foot Forward) I've been reflecting on the family structures of some of the mothers I've been spending time with over the Christmas break. (Mothers, not fathers, because I think this is - sadly and predictably - still very much still a debate about the role of women in society).
A) late 30s, been with partner since university days, three children, not married, no intention of doing so
B) married for 25 years to boy-next-door, two boys
C) 40, two kids from long-term relationship (10 years +), one child from current relationship (5 years +), no desire to get married
D) three children by three fathers, (including one short marriage), not currently in a relationship
E) lived with partner for 10+ years before getting married, now have 8 year old
F) married in her twenties, separated from husband for several years in thirties, now reunited and have a 2 year old
G) two children in late teens/ early twenties, never married, father of children has always played active role in their upbringing but doesn't live with them
H) married in twenties, three children, divorced late 30s, now single parent
That's just a sample. And the point I'm making is this... You, reading this, cannot tell from the bare facts above who is a good mother, whose kids are happy and healthy, who is in a loving and supportive relationship, who has reluctantly stayed together for the sake of the kids... Can you? You don't know who's working, who's well-off, who's living on the bread line.
So why are the Conservatives so obsessed with structures, rather than outcomes?
Here's another Left Foot Forward piece on how Osborne's pledge to support married couples through the tax system ignores social trends, with the proportion of children being brought up in a single parent household having steadily increased... (As ever I say this bearing in my mind the words of a 15 year old I know, who rebuked me for describing him as coming from a single parent family, as he's always spent half the week living with his Dad. He's probably had far more active hands-on parenting from his father than many kids who have grown up in a two-parent household. Or kids who are sent off to boarding school at the age of seven, come to that.)
I seem to have lost the ability to paste chunks of text into Blogger, but have a look at the reasons given in the first LFF piece from the Conservatives' Social Justice Policy Group as to why their suggestion of a £20 a week Transferable Personal Allowance would in a modest way support stable relationships - for which, read marriage.
Reading between the lines, it's obvious that the Social Justice bods are simply dreaming of a traditional marriage where the man goes out to work, and the woman stays at home, looks after the kids, does a bit of voluntary work, pops in to see her elderly relatives, has the dinner on the table when the man gets home. No doubt she also bakes cakes, wears a pinny and waltzes round the kitchen singing songs about the virtues of floor cleaning fluids. Ignore the red herring thrown to the liberals, 'mother or father'... that is not what they're on about.
Of course we all want children to grow up in happy, stable families. But you can do this through boosting family incomes (the minimum wage, tax credits); supporting parents who work (extended schools, free nursery places, child care vouchers); early intervention programmes (Sure Start, the Family Intervention Project). If I was to list the priorities for families with young children in my constituency it would be those things, not worrying about whether they're married or not.
I would say more, but off out to a family Boxing day party soon, with maybe thirty, thirty-five of us there. The one thing I can count on is that all the mothers will gratefully dump their kids on Auntie Kerry for the evening and I'll be the one organising Pass the Hat!
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Arms control poseur
Another embarrassing story for Cameron in the Guardian. How can a company with a pre-tax profit of £21,000 in 2005 make a donation of £50,000 to the Tory Party that year, and then make another donation of the same size last year despite only declaring £20,000 in pre-tax profits? Under UK electoral law the Tories will have to demonstrate that this company is genuinely doing business in the UK, and not simply a device set up by its Dubai-based parent company, which had a turnover of £600m to allow it to make donations to the Tories. Oh, and minor point I'm sure: it's owned by a former arms dealer mate of Jonathan Aitken too.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Mis-shapes
Nice little insight into the wonderful world of Conservative Future in Prospect magazine. What's the point in being rich, if you can't think what to do with it... Indeed.
Be my head*
I've just completed an online survey circulated to MPs by an organisation called Transplant 2013, about organ donation, and then by pure coincidence was forwarded this link on Twitter by someone who remembered my support for opt-out organ donation. Really good to see Wales take a lead. Wonder if there's a chance of getting it in the manifesto? If you're interested in becoming an organ donor (obviously not in the immediate future, but after a long, healthy and happy life!) you can sign up here: http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/
*You can be my head
Oh, I really need one
'cause it's used all its better days
You can be my head
'cause I've ruined this one
Blasting holes where it used to be
And if it's not a big thing,
You could swap or lend me
You should stop and ask me
Be my head, and I'll be yours...
*You can be my head
Oh, I really need one
'cause it's used all its better days
You can be my head
'cause I've ruined this one
Blasting holes where it used to be
And if it's not a big thing,
You could swap or lend me
You should stop and ask me
Be my head, and I'll be yours...
Behind the Counter
I was complaining in an earlier post about the Sunday Times lumping an article about life in Bristol under 'women' presumably because lifestyle issues are seen as a woman's thing. This story, however, is lumped under men - presumably because being a playboy and having loads of dosh as a result of selling boys' toys (well, carphones were, even if mobile phones aren't these days) is a bloke's issue.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6965748.ece
And yes, this is just a gratituous excuse to draw attention to another embarrassing story for the Tories.
Labour splits revealed on Twitter
A row has been brewing on Twitter since last night, and now threatens to go global. It was sparked by 'angry' tweets exchanged between a 'senior' Cabinet Minister and a senior 'not in the Cabinet, but attends Cabinet meetings' Minister, in which the word 'ghastly' was used in what can only be described as a provocative manner. Now numerous Labour activists, from PPCs to councillors to grassroots activists have joined the fray. As a Government whip I am observing from a distance, ready to step in should my services be required. It doesn't look as if this one will go away.
It began with a trip last night by Ed Balls MP to see Paul McCartney perform at the 02. Ed enjoyed himself. Enter Jim Knight MP to destroy the Christmas cheer: "Hope he didn't perform Wonderful Christmastime: ghastly!" This has now degenerated into a furious row over the merits of otherwise of the Frog Chorus, with one Labour PPC pointing out that the lyrics are quite profoundly moving: "Win or lose, sink or swim, one thing is certain we'll never give in, side by side, hand in hand, we'll all stand together" (I've recited those lyrics from memory...they may be wrong but I have a scary feeling that somewhere in my brain I have a small section reserved for the Frog Chorus lyrics. Adjacent to 'I've Never Been to Me' by Charlene).
For a moment just now, I thought I'd have to step in, when one Labour activist tweeted another, who has been in the forefront of pointing out to Ed the error of his ways "I don't think you should bother responding to the twerp. He's a brainless little oaf." But as ever on Twitter, wires were crossed and the reference was to a little Tory/ libertarian monster who, judging from his avatar, will be starring soon in a remake of the Omen. (I'm quite fond of him, in a perverse way. He actually talks about, and cares about, policy).
Seriously though, regardless of whether people manage to convince Ed that he is wrong to like the Frog Chorus (they won't and he is, and as his whip I will be having words when Parliament returns), isn't it great that Labour activists and some people who aren't even activists are using Twitter to talk to Cabinet ministers, and that they feel they can respond to Ed saying 'I like the Frog Chorus' with the simple message 'Oh dear'? Trivial as this particular conversation may be, it says a lot about the Labour Party. We're like one big family.
PS This will inevitably attract the usual nefarious comments from trolls, on how talking about singing frogs on Twitter is emblematic of ZaNuLab's blah blah blah... Can I suggest you read this from Tom Harris? He's talking about YOU.
It began with a trip last night by Ed Balls MP to see Paul McCartney perform at the 02. Ed enjoyed himself. Enter Jim Knight MP to destroy the Christmas cheer: "Hope he didn't perform Wonderful Christmastime: ghastly!" This has now degenerated into a furious row over the merits of otherwise of the Frog Chorus, with one Labour PPC pointing out that the lyrics are quite profoundly moving: "Win or lose, sink or swim, one thing is certain we'll never give in, side by side, hand in hand, we'll all stand together" (I've recited those lyrics from memory...they may be wrong but I have a scary feeling that somewhere in my brain I have a small section reserved for the Frog Chorus lyrics. Adjacent to 'I've Never Been to Me' by Charlene).
For a moment just now, I thought I'd have to step in, when one Labour activist tweeted another, who has been in the forefront of pointing out to Ed the error of his ways "I don't think you should bother responding to the twerp. He's a brainless little oaf." But as ever on Twitter, wires were crossed and the reference was to a little Tory/ libertarian monster who, judging from his avatar, will be starring soon in a remake of the Omen. (I'm quite fond of him, in a perverse way. He actually talks about, and cares about, policy).
Seriously though, regardless of whether people manage to convince Ed that he is wrong to like the Frog Chorus (they won't and he is, and as his whip I will be having words when Parliament returns), isn't it great that Labour activists and some people who aren't even activists are using Twitter to talk to Cabinet ministers, and that they feel they can respond to Ed saying 'I like the Frog Chorus' with the simple message 'Oh dear'? Trivial as this particular conversation may be, it says a lot about the Labour Party. We're like one big family.
PS This will inevitably attract the usual nefarious comments from trolls, on how talking about singing frogs on Twitter is emblematic of ZaNuLab's blah blah blah... Can I suggest you read this from Tom Harris? He's talking about YOU.
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Update on Like a Prayer
The parents involved have now given their side of the story. They say the sessions with the teacher 'became increasingly traumatic', that she 'used every opportunity to discuss religion', that it was made clear to her that they were a 'non-religious family' and 'did not want to discuss these issues in this way' and that her actions 'caused our family much distress at what is a difficult time'. This is a family whose 14 year old daughter, who was being taught maths by Mrs Jones, has leukaemia and is too ill to attend school. They were entirely within their rights to request that Mrs Jones no longer taught their daughter, and I think the onus is on Mrs Jones now to show some compassion and respect for their views on this matter.
A Tale of Two Cities
Just got round to reading this week's Sunday Times piece about Bristol. It's not an entirely unrecognisable picture of the city, but it's pretty obvious that the reporter didn't set foot in Bristol East. (Also, why is it in the Women's section of the paper? This is one of my pet hates, labelling things as "women's" just because they're lifestyle pieces.)
I did a regional political show last week, and had trouble persuading the Tory MP on the panel that virtually no-one in my constituency would benefit from his party's inheritance tax plans, i.e. that there were very few houses worth more than £325,000 and certainly none approaching the £2million mark, which is the Tories' upper limit, below which a household will not be subject to IHT. He insisted I'd find there were 'quite a few who would' (which still begs the question, why is this a flagship policy for the Tories, their top priority for tax cuts, when on any reckoning it's only a few who would benefit?)
I can think of a handful of big houses, for example out Stapleton way, which might be above the £500,000 mark. But with the average house price in Bristol as a whole only at £163,000 and even detached houses at an average of £305,000, and that obviously includes all those huge houses in Clifton pushing the average up, I can't see that the Tories' tax plans are going to do anything at all for the people I represent. If anyone can come up with more specific stats for east Bristol, I'd be keen to see them.
I did a regional political show last week, and had trouble persuading the Tory MP on the panel that virtually no-one in my constituency would benefit from his party's inheritance tax plans, i.e. that there were very few houses worth more than £325,000 and certainly none approaching the £2million mark, which is the Tories' upper limit, below which a household will not be subject to IHT. He insisted I'd find there were 'quite a few who would' (which still begs the question, why is this a flagship policy for the Tories, their top priority for tax cuts, when on any reckoning it's only a few who would benefit?)
I can think of a handful of big houses, for example out Stapleton way, which might be above the £500,000 mark. But with the average house price in Bristol as a whole only at £163,000 and even detached houses at an average of £305,000, and that obviously includes all those huge houses in Clifton pushing the average up, I can't see that the Tories' tax plans are going to do anything at all for the people I represent. If anyone can come up with more specific stats for east Bristol, I'd be keen to see them.
Monday, 21 December 2009
The First time I've ever blogged about buses
Also in today's BEP, me talking about buses. Some might say, oh she's going on about buses again. But you'd be wrong. According to Councillor Jon Rogers (see comments on the BEP site) I have shown no interest in the subject at all till now. I'm only bringing it up because there's an election.
Memo to Jon: Type 'bus' into the search engine on my website. Or on this blog. Or ask any of the local radio stations. Or check membership of the Local Transport Bill Committee. And then tell me what you're talking about....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
