Lessons we can learn from Obama's circumstances

You can’t have failed to note that the US is at their polls today - half term voting and Obama (personally - though not in the election) and his Democrats likely to take something of a drubbing. You may well have noticed, too, that the TEA Party (a loose knit right wing grouping) is making headway and shoe-horning in its own candidates into the Republican movement. Quite how far the TEA party candidates will be able to shift Republicans to the right remains to be seen; and in the full-term elections (including the Presidential) nobody knows if the TEA Party will attract moderate voters or put them off.

It would seem that the US elected Obama with his left-of-centre policies on a wave of unseeing (or unthinking?) enthusiasm. Then, seeing what he is trying to do, run away from him. TEA Party members to a man and women (and lots of women in the movement) speak of his move to make America socialist (based to a great extent on his moderate Health Reforms). In the UK many of us would see this Socialist accusation as laughable - it is, but it’s mighty serious too.

Serious because in the UK we are different only in degree. Tony Blair created the Labour victories by rebranding Labour from Socialist to New Labour; Tony Blair introduced many socialist leaning policies (despite accusations to the contrary). But to do this ‘Socialism’ was something not to be spoken of - Christian Democrat became an unnatractive euphemism. The UK population is as deeply conservative in essentials as the US.

For the majority of the populations Socialism strikes them as inherently unfair. ‘Why should I let someone else have what I’ve worked hard to get?’ You have only to listen to the TEA Party members and supporters to hear this time and time again.

Is this question so far removed from the way the Housing Benefit and Welfare Reforms are being argued. Last week I suggested that Labour has to be very clever in handling this issue because it has popular support; I’ve seen a recent YouGov poll which suggests more than 70 per cent of UK people support the Housing Benefit policy of Cameron. Let’s not fool ourselves here! Cameron is totally confident in sticking to this policy despite adverse publicity. Why? - Because his private polling must have been giving him this 70 per cent information.

This doesn’t make this policy right. But we must acknowledge the truth - the realty if you like - and them create and appropriate strategy to overcome it.

Obama has shown himself inept (because too inexperienced) of handling the presentation of politics and the reality of working within party politics. In exactly the same way that Cleggie has - and he is inexperienced to the extent of naivete. Ed Milliband must ensure he doesn’t fall into this trap too. Intellectual cleverness doesn’t equate to political nous. Nearly all LP members and supporters I meet are complaining about Ed Milliband’s lacklustre performance - by which they mean he’s not in the news. ‘Give him time,’ I say. But he must be aware, time will soon be running out.

Milliband must argue housing benefit policy in the round

Ed Milliband and his team are right to home in on the housing benefit policy Cameron is promoting. Of course he is; it’s terrible that thousands of people are in danger of being moved out to goodness knows where. And if anyone should think that’s scaremongering, note that some London LA are already booking the bed and breakfast accommodation far from their own London Borough.

But the arguments must be put with care and in-the-round.

Labour had tried to address the welfare bill, but with only limited success. We must be prepared with some solutions of our own, lest we be seen as simply attacking for the sake of attacking.

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact, either, that the reason rents are so high is because landlords are making them high. A side-effect, if you like, of the free market . . . ‘benefit will pay the rents so let’s see what rents we can get away with.’

In addition, the public have to a huge extent taken on board the idea that people on benefit are scroungers living in large houses most of us couldn’t afford to live in. Milliband and his team must have a strategy to overcome this, to education the pubic to the truth (and not shy away from the fact that some people are milking the system.)

Cameron’s policy has popular support - almost certainly the main reason he won’t budge from it (Tory polling will indicate this.)

For us to win the argument will be hard to do - we don’t own newspapers. But unless this issue is taken on in the round we’re in danger of scoring a home-goal. We have to be smart.

Lulls, celebrity and gongs in the bank

The spending review is now being trailed like the opening of a new major film or television series. It has, in a way, lost its seriousness and gained an air of celebrity. The television, as ever, more concerned with viewing figures than they are with the serious reporting of news.

There is a strange lull in the UK. As if everything is on hold until Wednesday - as if on Wednesday there will be a seismic shift in the country’s finances and social well-being.

There won’t be. On Wednesday there will be a blueprint for bringing about that change. The change itself will happen incrementally. So we must remain vigilant and active - we need to remember that even nasty tasting medicine tastes less nasty fourth of fifth time round.

And in the lull, 35 top UK companies have come out in support of Posh Boy’s deficit cutting policy. Are we really surprised? Conservative cuts will drive up unemployment (anyone can see that), will drive down wages, will increase profits for (the top 35) companies. The leaders of which will then, no doubt, be able to give large sums to Posh Boy and his chums’ Party and get gongs into the bargain.

Roll on next Wednesday and lets take the fight to them!!

Pinocchio and a Poem

The Conservatives made much noise in their election campaign about how much money they were going to save by cutting out waste (have we ever heard that one before?) Their savings formed a significant part of their plans for deficit reduction. One of the major savings they were going to make was by getting rid of a large number of QUANGOs. Today they are going to announce the fate of many of them. So far so good . . .

However, we now learn that many of them will be subsumed into Whitehall civil service. Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, says that it was never about saving money but about accountability. Good job he’s not Pinocchio, I say. But then, if he were, we’d at least get a laugh out of this sick joke.

In the description of this blog I mention the importance of art and culture; I’m attaching, as part of today’s blog, a recent poem of mine. It may be too overtly political to be good poetry . . . I don’t know.

But here goes.

We Can’t Rhyme, David

You don’t speak to me.
However earnestly
you don your Honest-Dave face
(the one you had so exquisitely
bespoke in Saville Row)
it’s just for show.
No, we don’t inhabit the same space.

Your PR crafted creed
we’re all in this together doesn’t chime
with me, we don’t bleed
in the same way
you and I, we
can’t rhyme.

You tell me, media hype
cocooned (you recognise the political type?)
we live in a broken society;
from where I stand I see
it’s always been like this –
hard as nails, yes,
a son or daughter who careers
off the rails, a friend who fears
work, a neighbour who peers
into another’s business and who
tells tales. But, too,
the occasional helping hand,
a friend who’ll understand,
lines etched merely in sand.

You think you’ve jettisoned grand
but your eyes are your eyes
and the shoes you live in are your shoes;
you cannot help but patronise
us; I cannot excuse
you for the lives you’ll destroy
and for your smile while you do it.

What planet does Gove live on? (Or come from?)

Education secretary, Michael Gove, has announced an over-haul of the school curriculum. But the majority of what he says beggars belief.

If you want to control a population one of the things you do, first, is control their knowledge of history; many years ago Kenneth Baker did it - ‘they should know kings and queens’ philosophy. Gove wraps it up as Britain’s ‘island history’.

He makes a great deal about students needing to understand and practise correct sentence structure, spelling, grammar. Not surprisingly he used this statement to bash ‘left wing idealogues’.

Now I don’t know where Gove has been . . . certainly not into any primary school I’ve been into recently. Primary children study history in broad sweeps, getting an understanding or feeling for different periods. And if he bothered to open a Level 3 SATS English paper, I think he might find his language skills challenged.

Gove then has a list (don’t these Tories love them?) - Keats, Dryden, Byron . . . I can think of ways I could teach these in a secondary school, but I don’t think they’re appropriate for all groups - I don’t see the point. It’s much better to work with some of the brilliant contemporary writers. I could pick one or two Year 9 or 10 classes that Gove might like to prepare a lesson plan for and teach it.

Gove isn’t, of course, really considering education, much more to the fore is his desire to re-establish his position within the Tory front bench. The education secretary has proved once again his credentials - he’s a pompous prat.

Life isn't just PR, is the real world beginning to get to the Tories?

One of the things that’s marked the ConDem time in office is their cool, calm assurance; it’s reassuring, ‘they know what they’re doing, we’re safe in their hands.’

But it’s easy for them to be calm and cool; their time, so far, has mostly been PR with few policies being outlined in detail or implemented. One Minister who hasn’t seemed sure-footed is Education Secretary, Gove, Cameron’s right hand man; look how Gove has been shoved out of the media spotlight after his spectacular encounters with a number of banana skins.

But now do we begin to see more things wobble?

Osborne has broken the link of child benefit with universality; the wisdom of this is open to debate. But he has make the break point the higher rate tax - c 44k gbp per year. However, if one person in a family earns above this figure child benefit is lost; if two people in a family are working and they individually earn less than this figure but their joint income is more (even quite a lot more0 .......................then they don’t lose it - even if, say, both earn 40k gbp (ie 80k per year). Anyone can see this is unfair. But Osborne says to the effect: ‘It’s tough, but we have to put up with it.’

Osborne can put up with it - he’s a millionaire, so what will he feel?

Conservative Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, has already said the policy may need revising . . . It didn’t stand up to much scrutiny then.

Osborne has also capped a family’s benefits to the level of the average family income - around 500 gbp per week. This sounds quite a lot, but in London and areas of the SE housing costs alone could approach this. The policy effectively shoves people out of their homes in London and areas of the SE to areas with lower housing costs; sounds a bit like ghettos to me.

At the same time three local authorities are taking legal action against Gove cutting the funds for schools for rebuilding.

And now, Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation Online Protection Centre, has resigned, following a disagreement with the Government over the Government’s future plans for the agency.

I hope the new Labour Leadership notes these cracks. But it’s not enough to attack them . . . we have to be much cleverer. We have to have better policies. Let’s get our skates on.

Interesting times, interesting polls, and Ed safe from Warsi

Two down, one to go. We wait to hear from Osborne and Cameron; in the meantime Ed M begins his work while he (and we) wait to hear about his shadow cabinet. And polls are interesting.

Recent polls show a big drop in LibDem support and Tories and Labour neck and neck. Some put Conservatives slightly ahead, others put Labour slightly ahead. There haven’t been dramatic Conference Bounces this year; we’ll have to see if the Conservative vote follows this pattern.

Ed must capture the goodwill in the Party and move onwards. He must quickly get some quick answers to some often repeated Tory claims. Many people in the country are failing to support Labour because they hold us responsible for the UK debt; it’s easy to understand why. The Tories keep telling them we’re responsible for it. ‘Say something often enough and it becomes true’ a cynical person might say.

The Tories have several add-ons too . . . ‘We have the biggest debt of the G20’, ‘We’re like Greece’, ‘Look at Spain and Ireland’, ‘Look how Canada got itself out of debt with budget cuts’. We must have media friendly answers to these, and use them loudly and often.

Speaking of loud . . . I caught part of Baroness Warsi’s Conservative address. At one of her climax points she finished with ‘Ed Milliband - you’re no friend of mine.’ He must be breathing a sigh of relief. And Ms Warsi, I don’t personally know anybody who’d want you and your squawking clap-trap as a friend.

Are the Parties partying in a calm before a storm?

It’s that time of year, isn’t it? Party Conference time.

You’d think Nicko would have a tough little job on his hands - and the way the media have it, he has. But he hasn’t really. The LibDems will all fall into line supporting him. They may have a spat about, say, schools, but that’s all it is. And it won’t make a difference. Nicko says that the country wouldn’t have forgiven them if they had missed the opportunity to go into government; polls appear to be showing that many voters haven’t forgiven them . . . for going into government with the Conservatives.

So they’ll be a pretence of a difficulty; but that’s the media creating a shower in a tea-cup.

D Cameron will be rapturously received no doubt. His party calling his government a great success and completely ignoring the fact he didn’t win enough seats (even though Labour was bending over backwards to help him) to form a government of his own. Besides which, he can be popular now - he hasn’t actually done anything. But if, like me, you’re out in the world, you’ll be only too aware of the fear that’s around.

We all hope that our fears aren’t going to be realised.

And Labour, well, Labour’s holding its own - polling shows the Conservatives and Labour neck and neck. So, if we’re holding our own while waiting for the Leader to be announced - think what we can achieve when the leader is in place. Not long to go now . . . And the first task of the new Leader is to attack the lie perpetrated by both sides of the ConDems - that the Labour Government was responsible for our present financial position. (This, of course, should just be one of the many first tasks!!)

Why should I welcome the Pope?

We are told we should welcome the Pope on his visit. Why should we? Why should we even pay for this State visit?

In a recent statement, David Milliband spoke about the ‘middle ground’ of politics. He said that Labour could occupy the middle ground and could shift the middle ground; he gave examples of this. In moments of self-doubt (yes, I admit not too frequent!!) I come back to my passionate belief in equality of opportunity.

Despite the unfortunate, to say the least, of Cardinal Kasper’s comments that the UK is like a third world country, the Pope has spoken out against a number of issues. I’m an atheist, but I believe in equality of women; to speak against women priests is, therefore, against equality. Feeding the number of people on our planet is a major concern and yet the Pope refuses to move against family planning / birth control. In the early days of Christianity, survival of the belief - ie lots of children - would have been important, but times have moved on. Today, equal rights for lesbian and gay people are increasingly recognised, something the Labour Government can take great pride in. The Pope’s views are well known on this. Even the Catholic irrational hatred of gay people can be seen to be a belief rooted in the ancient need for a race (or belief group) to survive.

So the Pope is vigorous in his condemnation of the principle I and the Labour Party hold most dear, so why should I welcome him?

On another but related note, the very loud Lady Warsi (Conservative Minister), has said that Labour got its relationship with religion wrong; and the Conservative Government will give religion a greater role. Religions are self-interest groupings and, while putting decently paid people out of work, will also work in furthering their own beliefs.

I have long argued (and shall continue to do so) for a separation of Church (faith) and State. Warsi has let us know the Conservatives intend to push in the opposite direction. To use (or perhaps misuse?) a Christian line, I shall carry on and ‘fight the good fight’ for the separation.

Help! I'm agreeing with Govey

I may need to go into therapy; I find myself agreeing with Govey. He’s announced that he wants to reform H and S legislation so that schools are more able to introduce ‘Boys’ Own Adventure’ type projects and that parents find it harder to sue if there are accidents. Actually, I only agree a bit, because there’s another gender than boys (in case Govey hadn’t noticed) and they like a bit of adventure too.

Nobody would want young people put into danger, but sensible risk taking is important in growing up and developing. Risks must be managed, but we have become far too risk averse. But Govey needs to go further. I know of a group of FE photography students who were not to be allowed into the streets of a city to take photos because it was too dangerous. FE STUDENTS for goodness sake! So it’s not just schools it’s FE too.

Most H and S legislation is important and sensible. Too often it’s a dumbo application of H and S that brings it into disrepute. I don’t know if we need to reform the legislation, but we may certainly need to reform its application. And in terms of schools and colleges, get people into the management of them who understand a bit about teaching - that these establishments exist for the teaching, not for the management. It’s a tails and dogs issue.

And Govey . . . remember girls as well as boys need to learn how to manage risk.

The Gove that Dare not Speak Its Name

Gove’s at it again . . . his favourite hobby of obfuscation.

I was just thinking, this morning, that we’ve been free of Mr Gove for some time - and then up he popped.

It’s to do with a debate about whether young people from poorer backgrounds are being excluded from successful schools because of application processes that are too complicated. There is some evidence from the free school meals indicator (a broad brush) that this is true. One strategy to overcome this, it is being suggested, is that successful schools should be required to band pupil entry - in other words, take a fair percentage of students from each attainment band.

Gove answered this by pointing out that when failing schools become successful academies, more higher attaining pupils wish to attend. Yes, you can spot it; he answers the question by turning the question into the answer and thus avoiding the question. He also stated that the government are to introduce the ‘pupil premium‘ - a strategy whereby schools in more deprived areas receive a higher sum of money for lower attaining students - he stated that it is the government’s job to hand out the money ‘but the Headteachers’ job to spend it as they see fit.‘ (Free market coming in here.)

But here’s the killer . . .

He also states that ‘England has one of the most unequal education systems in the world.‘ But, as ever, Gove will not mention the private (in the UK called ‘public’) school system; he dare not speak its name, although it’s the element that skews our system more than any other.

When are we going to see an honest debate about drug use and abuse?

Drugs are in the news again; always a good topic for a few headlines - and that’s really the problem.

The ConDems make it into the news because they want to consider the possibility of removing welfare benefits from people who refuse treatment. Excuse me, but my understanding is that there aren’t enough places on treatment programmes for those wanting them. But we should live safe in the knowledge that the ConDems are going to ask people their views. Once again, we see the ConDem PR machine in action. More talk and (not yet) any action. Hypocrisy.

At the other end of the spectrum, Sir Ian Gilmore, retiring President of the College of Physicians, has suggested that drugs should be legalised. The problem for Sir IG is that he knows what he’s talking about; and the one thing politicians don’t want on drugs is informed debate . . . though they like to say they want it.

Labour is no better; one of the most stupid decisions the Labour Government made was to reclassify cannabis - C to B. Other than a couple of days’ good headlines what use did this do? A rhetorical questions . . . but I’ll answer it. None.

I wonder, sometimes, what land politicians live in. How many of us can honestly say we don’t know anybody who uses them? Like most of us, I have many friends who smoke cannabis; other classified drugs, I don’t know. I’d like to say I’m fiercely opposed to drug use and that I never take them. In terms of classified drugs I can say I don’t take them - but I drink alcohol and coffee. I gave up cigarettes years ago for health reasons.

The UK has an ambivalent attitude to drug use . . . look at the dope-smoking, pill popping lead character in SHAMELESS, a popular anti-hero. And comedy (however broad) reflects society - see the name of this blog.

Drug use is common at all levels of society - even at political levels. Drug use is complex - in judicial, medical, financial and social terms. The sooner politicians realise this and enter into an informed, serious and above all honest debate the better. Politicians can lead . . . are there any brave enough to lead on this?

Slasher Cameron's now pinching policy ideas from The Archers

Did you catch the latest Big Society big idea from Slasher Cameron?

He wants community groups to take over the civic gardens from local authorities. Another cosy idea for Cameron supporters. But this one appears to be plucked from The Archers. In one storyline, Linda Snell, headmistress of Ambridge, and Elizabeth Pargetter (Archer), went out secretly at night to sort out the flower beds around the village green.

But Cameron’s Archer’s policy isn’t quite so cosy. What will happen here is that low paid gardeners from wealthy LAs will be sacked so that middle-class amateur gardeners, with time on their hands, can take over their jobs unpaid (because they can afford to work unpaid.)

This is a specific example of what I was outlining in a previous blog about the Volunteer Society.

Nothing cosy, clandestine nor fictional about this, is there?

Can you afford to volunteer?

David Cameron wants a lot of the slack created in his new Big Society taken up by volunteers – he wants to create a volunteer culture. Sounds OK in front of a nice audience or when you hear it on the television; it sounds wholesome, doesn’t it.. But let’s unpick it just a little bit.

One concern (although not really the one I’m going to follow up, here) is that he wants to remove many jobs from the public sector – we know this. ‘Public sector, bad; private sector, good (presumably with worse terms and conditions)’ is an Old Tory mantra and one well rehearsed. But Cameron appears to be going further than this; he seems to want the jobs to be taken up by volunteers. In other words, get the work done for nothing. Fine policy when you’re a millionaire, I suppose.

But the aspect I’d like to follow up is ‘Who is going to do the volunteering?’ To be a volunteer you need the time to be a volunteer. When trying to answer this it’s easy to pick out people who run a scout group or a youth group. Valuable people, doing valuable work.

But I’m thinking about running schools, or managing big projects ‘in my community’ – whatever that means. Big complex projects take up lots of time; and only certain groups of people have the time to do it.

I’m not knocking the idea of volunteering – I’m a member of a Board of two regional arts organisations as a volunteer, one of the Boards meets at 3 o’clock. I’m a self-employed worker, so I can organise my diary to be free when needed. But only certain types of worker can be free in the middle of the afternoon.

I used to be on the Independent Monitoring Board of a prison near me; in many ways one of the most important things I’ve done. I felt it was important, anyway. But it required almost the equivalent of one day a week, and every now and again a duty week came up. On your duty week you needed to be in the prison a lot, as near to each day as you could; and you were also on call. If there were any sort of emergency you had to drop whatever you were doing and speed to the prison.

Only a certain type of person (retired, senior managerial, non-working partner) can commit to this. Eventually I had to give it up; as a self-employed person, I simply couldn’t afford to give the time, free. The spirit was willing the but mortgage and utility bills weren’t.

Hence, the aspect of our Big Society Volunteer Culture is that we shall be increasingly run by a small group of volunteers taken from an increasingly small section (social, financial, racial) of society. This is not healthy.

Education Cuts - Mr Creepy's Own Goal

When Michael Gove announced his swingeing cuts to the budget for rebuilding and renovating schools, one of the disturbing aspects was his apparent glee at doing it. He appeared to be bathing in the sunlight of being the among the first, the biggest and the most brutal cutter of the new Government. Obviously keen to catch Sir's eye and one of the new prefects.

Now his untimely haste has jumped right back and bitten him. Mistakes in the first list and then in the second shows what a prat this man is.

That having been said, I find myself truly upset by the announcement. I've been in many schools of different types and for different ages, and the least we can offer young people is a decent place in which to work, learn and develop. This is not a 'hard' cut, it's a disgraceful one.

Does Gove really think he and his government can now get away with pouring money into his free schools - get the marketing ploy there. Gove is keen on pointing out that we have a two tier education system. But neither he, nor his cronies, ever mention the public (ie private) schools that truly create the inequality in the UK education system.

This education cut and the free schools policy are but the start of an old-style Conservative free market philosophy. Once again, they will try to prove that the free market can solve all ills.

Well, no it can't. Shame that our young people must be such an early victim.