Odbe34's blog

Bring Back BR

Bring Back BR I've not blogged in a while due to various things - mainly time - but I watchedQuestion Time last night on BBC1 and Will Self has inspired me. I have for a long time held that the renationalising the railways was a lost opportunity of the Labour Governments under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I can understand why Gordon didn't as the financial crisis and leading the world out of it was absolutely necessary, but a Labour government under Blair reneged on one of it's most important pre-election pledges. On 1st January 1947 British Transport came into being under whose control were the waterways, long distance haulage on the roads alongside, and most importantly, the railways. Previous to this happening there existed the Big Four Rail companies in the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER), London, Midland and Scottish (LMS), the Great Western Railway (GWR) and the Southern Railway. These had driven investment in the railways since their formation under the Grouping Act of 1922. However, by the end of World War Two it had become clear that the only possible route for an effective railway was it's control by the state. This proved true until, under John Major, British Rail was privatised with the rails themselves being removed from the control of the railway companies - meaning that the people in charge of companies could not dictate when improvements could take place - leading to real problems with maintenance as evidenced in major derailments or crashes such as that at Hatfield on 17th October 2000. This disconnect between the Rail companies and the track has increased to the point where disruption comes almost as a shock to those running train companies. Indeed, on a recent trip home it took me around 2h 10mins to get from York to Peterborough rather than the usual 1h 10mins± and involved going via Gainsborough to get to Newark. Whilst this may seem a bit nerdy, there was no mention of diversion on the station or at any point of the journey on the train itself. Surely if we had a truly integrated network run by the state there would be a better integration of information to allow passengers to know what could happen to their journey and therefore how long it will take to get home? On to more important things - the re-nationalisation of the railway network would allow for quite a few things, but only if it takes the form of the 1947 Transport Act. One thing to recognise about the railways is that, bizarrely, we already have a partially nationalised service in many parts of the country in the guise of DB Shenker - a subsidiary of the German State railway operator - providing its services as parent company for many of our railway companies; including York based Grand Central. This is not a bad thing per se, many of the contracts that DB Shenker have won have seen massive improvements in the quality of trains provided as well as a massive amount of modernisation. However, it does beg the question - why can't this then be the same for the rest of the country? Surely, therefore BR is the only solution? As it provides the same service for all passengers.  There are two main benefits to it's reinstatement and the re-nationalisation of the railways, first it would bring the cost of transport down for the vast majority of passengers on two levels. The starting point of Will Self's excellent rebuttal of the status quo for funding of train companies is that the subsidy for them has reached the point where it is at the £4bn per year mark, whereas under BR it was only around £1bn. So basically we, as taxpayers (and yes I do pay tax despite being a student), are footing the bill for an increase of around £3bn which goes directly to the shareholders not the passenger or track improvements. It now costs me around £37.50 to get from York to Peterborough to get home, whereas in 2008 when I first started at The University of York it cost £22±, in the last 3/4 years there has been an increase of £15.50 or 70% of the latter cost. I know there will be people asking "So what? Students have a guranteed income" and in many respects they can said to be right. But, what about those people on low incomes, who are paying tax and also paying for their daily needs? An increase of £15.50 is a massive impact on theaverage wallet, let alone the wallet of a student or of someone feeding a family on minimum wage on their own. That person on minimum wage will, generally but not always, be in a service sector job - which is where the second level of Bring Back BR comes in. Under BR there were thousands of highly skilled and highly paid jobs for those people who worked on or for the railways - either as drivers, designers or engineers. The re-nationalisation of the railways could allow for the reinvestment in areas of previous railway manufacturing (rather than just maintenance) such as Swindon, York, Doncaster and others. After all if people don't earn money they don't spend, if there's no spending the economy cannot grow, if the economy cannot grow then new jobs cannot be created, if new jobs aren't created we cannot possibly begin to "reskill" the workforce and if this is not done then the UK cannot regain - or at least attempt something towards regaining - the title of "The Workshop of the World".  Indeed, I used to watch Michael Portillo's "Great British Railway Journeys" (NB the link is not the programme I mentioned) and one in particular has stuck out in my mind since watching it. On arriving in Swindon, Portillo goes in search of the GWR Houses that railway workers used to live in and wanders round marvelling at the design of such houses, as well as engine sheds now turned into expensive flats or worse demolished. He then comes across a former BR employee whom he asks: "What happened to the [railway] industry in Swindon?" To which Portillo gets the response "Your government!"  If we are ever to beat such a sentiment as the above then governments must move beyond the expected quasi-Thatcherite mould and be brave. Increased spending, as was seen under Gordon Brown after the financial crisis, results in more jobs, a better paid workforce and fewer people on benefits who will in turn spend more, therefore decreasing the benefits burden on the state and also at the same time allow for a better skilled workforce which is able to grow into rather than shrink in horror from the future. Through this we being to believe in our workforce and also in ourselves - confidence is just as important as "events", but without confidence events cannot happen! By Bringing Back BR we would be showing a confidence not yet shown by the Tory-led government, in the Great British public, which would allow for greater levels of interdependence and community building. But, until that happens I can only think of one thing that we are heading towards - the slow train to nowhere!

Refounding Labour Proposals Good, but Missing One Thing

A summary of the Refounding Labour proposals has been published by the Labour Party's NEC (National Executive Committee) and I am all too pleased to see that I agree with all of the recommendations - as found on Dr Eoin Clarke's blog, The Green Benches - apart from one potentially glaring omission. There are three points that I particularly agree with and they are below:

1) A new funding mechanism for CLPs means that the poorest and smallest CLPs will move out of a permanent cycle of debt; every CLP get a basic package of support including access to contact.creator, Euro election leaflets, insurance, and a delegate to Party Conference and £1.50 per member to cover administration and communication costs. As well as placing redistribution with the Party creating new national fund to which CLPs can make bids - to fund organisers and other aspects of participation in party democracy. This all allows us to start on the road to equitable reward for all CLPs, and more to the point it allows all CLPs to access the same things at the same prices.

2) Flexibility for CLPs to organise their local structures the way that best suits their geography and size of membership. Only CLPs know their local areas and this allows for local issues to directly influence the local party's policies. On top of which the funding changes of point 1 will also allow for even greater flexibility in campaigns that respond to local events which, to be fair,we have been lacking and the Liberal Democrats have been very good at. Local issues must effect CLPs policy as well as their publications, I hope that this will then allow for local parties allowing themselves greater flexibility in terms of campaigns, leaflets, (the list goes on) at Branch Level to help combat the Liberal Democrat "Focus" leaflets and campaigning etc.

3) Candidate contracts to ensure all candidates campaign effectively and know what is expected of them. There was nothing like this when I was a candidate and there were quite a few other candidates that I knew who didn't know what was expected of them or how the election would (even if they were in non-target wards) take over their lives, eventually leading to them dropping out or at the very least doing no campaigning. 

Despite agreeing with everything in the Refounding Labour document, I do think that there's one thing missing. Point 1 talks specifically about equitable economic reward for the Labour Party at a local level so why is this not extended to the affiliated Societies and Parties of the Party? Surely it makes sense and is far more ethical as it will - in effect - mean that each affiliate will have an equal hearing when it comes to making Party policy. Therefore, equitable economic reward is essential to the Labour Party of the future and must start at home if we are serious about taking back power at the next election. The public will only believe in us if we practice what we preach in our party and also later on in manifestos nationally then locally. 

Right to Recall

So, Dave has returned as well as his companion Boris to enter the fray over the Tottenham riots. I'm not going to say that this is a bad move, because it isn't, but like with Theresa May (Home Secretary) the question is why did they both wait so long to do so? It seems as though their combined leadership strategy is - "Keep issues at arms length lest they get in the way of my holiday!" Again, I don't begrudge anyone their holiday, it's just in this case both men have let it get in the way of actual leadership in this crisis. 

David Cameron was right first to call a meeting of COBRA and second to recall parliament, but lets compare his reaction to this crisis to that of something which happened under Gordon Brown at a similar time in the political and Westminster year. Although not as potentially explosive and changeable as the circumstances surrounding Tottenham, the Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2007 caused as much concern for politicians, farmers and the general public. Within a few hours of the outbreak being confirmed by the BBC's Gary O'Donoghue Gordon Brown had cut short his holiday (after I think only a day), convened a meeting of COBRA and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, had returned from his holiday as too had the Minister of State for Rural Affairs, Elin Jones. It was through co-ordinated action that things started to happen and that a preliminary strategy had been put in place before the official announcement of the outbreak. Following on from this the strategy was put into more concrete form when all of the above had met with advisors, farmers and members of DEFRA. This was all done within 24 - 48h, yet all we saw from David Cameron has been to leave his Home Secretary alone to deal with Tottenham despite the fact that they both knew about the shooting of Mark Duggan and the potential repercussions on the day it happened. Could there not have been a strategy put in place then? Rather than it seeming as though the blind are leading the blind at the top Westminster and the top of the GLA (Greater London Authority). After all David Cameron was keen to impress on people that he was in constant telephone contact with No. 10, the Home Office and those left in Westminster whilst he was away.

In between the start of the crisis and David Cameron's return there has been an increase in violence both in London, increases in looting, increases in attacks on members of the public and fresh riots starting across the county in different cities. Indeed, today a video has appeared showing an injured person having his posessions stolen by rioters.

 

So why have the Prime Minister or the Mayor of London not returned before? Lack of direction from the central government on this issue has given credence to rioters who now feel more able to take advantage of a situation that should not have arisen in the first place. As Ken Livingstone said last night on Newsnight the majority of people now involved in the rioting are uncertain of their futures:

 

This does not excuse the violence, however it does show somewhere to start the rebuilding process from - which must include engaging children, lifestyles, future plans that everyone has and community cohesion (and I must say a concentration on cuts is integral to this process) as well as all those people involved in such areas; politicians, local people and business ownvers and those involved in the rioting. A lack of self belief and self confidence can lead to other problems, the cuts that have happened and are going to happen in the future are going leave communities isolated as well as children, teenagers and other with nowhere to go to vent their creativity, anger, etc. If this is allowed to happen without proper and detailed planning rioting is bound to happen whether we like it or not. 

So to return to the original question, why have David Cameron and Boris Johnson left it so late to return to London - to my mind it's not because they wanted to have as much of their holiday as possible, rather they have been unsure what to do and whether or not to leave it to their government processes and colleagues. Unfortunately, in the process they have shown that their leadership is weak at best and severely limited at worst (after all when problems occurred with Gordon Brown as PM and Ken Livingstone as Mayor they both returned home immediately to lead from the front). More to the point, far from taking difficult decisions David Cameron has shown himself to be a ditherer - helped and ably abetted by Boris Johnson. This does not bode well for the future, the Prime Minister's first crisis will be remembered for a long time and I doubt will be forgotten by the next General Election!

The Wanderer Returns

After what seems like an eternity the Home Secretary, The Rt. Hon. Theresa May, has decided to return from her holiday following the Tottenham riots and continuing disturbance in London. This comes almost 48h after the riots started and also more to the point a long time after the local MP, David Lammy (Lab), put out a statement, spoke to the media and engaged with people over all social media. 

Now, I'm not going to sit here typing a diatribe against polticians having a holiday but one thing that has struck me is the lack of any kind of continuing public response from the Home Office itself apart from this very short statement, the Home Secretary before last night or from any of the members of the Ministerial Team under Theresa May. Indeed, John Prescott's new and now perennial question of the summer is - "Where is the government"? We've heard Francis Maude talk about greater openess and accountability yet we've seen nothing of the sort from the Home Secretary. There's been very little comment on how the Tory-led government's cuts are effecting and will, in the future, affect community cohesion budgets for both the Metropolitan Police and Harringey Council (whose combined cuts amount to just over half a billion pounds - £548m). It is good, however, that the Home Secretary is meeting police chiefs but two things still play on the mind: i) why take so long to do it and ii) why only meet the Chiefs, what about those people who were on the ground themselves to give her advice? After all, when decisions are made people have to have to the greatest amount of facts available when taking them. So, meeting Police Chiefs is good but there's also community leaders, community groups, members of Harringey Council involved directly with community cohesion and members of the public to meet too with the express purpose of creating a united front against the violence that is nuanced in such a way as all those living and working in Tottenham can understand the government's (local and national) response to the riots. It worked after Broadwater Farm, so why shouldn't it now?

It's interesting to note as well, that some commentators on the right as well as those of a Liberal persuasion have been snide in their response to people on Twitter or Facebook asking #wheresthegovernment - which incidentally became the fifth higherst trending hashtag on Twitter! Why simply get cross a perfectly legitimate question? Yes, the summer is a time of rest and relaxation for all, but the government must retain a number of Ministers (junior, senior and Secretary of State) in position to make sure that if something does go wrong there's an immediate and proper response. If it worked under the Labour Party between 1997 and 2010, why can't the Tories get their act together and leave proper safety mechanisms in place? People may have been particularly ruthless about John Prescott's appearance on the Marr Show but he has a very valid point to make. He had a lot on his plate when he was Deputy PM under both Tony Blair and Gordon when both were on holiday, yet the response to every situation always had a Minister or Secretary of State who was immediately available and accountable for their government's position.

One thing that really rankled yesterday was seeing those on the right (and to some extent the Liberals too) on Twitter arguing that people such as Ed Miliband and Ed Balls for both being on holiday at time of their responses to Tottenham were in the wrong. But those who shout loudest must remember who is now in government - a rather shaky combination of both the Tories and the Liberals and not Labour any more! Succinct, timely and more to the point ministerial response to crises is integral to the government's role during the Summer recess, as well as others, but what we've seen from the government is to say the least lack lustre. Are they ashamed to be in power? Their response certainly suggests this, the government was elected to provide leadership but this has not been forthcoming rather left to others.

Tottenham Riots and Community Cohesion

It is always interesting to note the response of politicians, commentators, news channels and others to issues across the world, but they are always of more portent when they occur in your home country. The current problems in Tottenham have received a mixed bag of responses with Labour MP Chris Williamson (Derby North) causing a storm with "Conservative Blogger" Iain Dale over the former's comments. I neither agree nor disagree with Mr Williamson, but the incumbent Tory-led government must be where the buck stops. I have spoken to both Iain Dale and also @stackee (whose political affiliation I don't know) on Twitter tonight about Tottenham, but they both seem unwilling to accept the previous sentence. After all the government funds all police forces to a certain extent, but in this case the Metropolitan Police is of utmost importance.

Tottenham finds itself under the jurisdiction of Harringey Council and under the Police protection of the Metropolitan Police/the Metropolitan Police Authority (who have had to call in City of London Police to help their operation on the ground). Whilst the violence is shocking the Community Cohesion Budget - which is a combination of MPA, LA and Tax Payer funding - is very interesting thing to look at here. Harringey Council is expected to make £84m worth of cuts over the next four years, but no one seems willing (let alone the BBC) to note how much this budget has been affected. This is all despite the fact that Tottenham has one of the widest ranges of communities in the UK and needs special, calm community relations. Yet, in 2009 Harringey Council had to defend its £1m spend on Public Relations - which necessarily must include community cohesion and/or relations. On top of which the Met faces a £463m deficit thanks to the government's cuts - where, again, is the mention of community cohesion and it's budget?

Violence is always the culmination of a wide range of factors, which in the case of Tottenham post-1985 and Broadwater Farm was always bound to flare up if community relations were handled wrongly. Therefore community relations must always be treated with Kid Gloves by all in power due to the potential repercussions of mis-handling, whether perceived or actual. I know some may find Chris Williamson MP's comments wrong but central government enforced budget cuts for both Local Authorities and cuts in Police funding leading to cuts in Police numbers (mainly in the numbers of those Police who have the power of arrest) and others must mean that the buck stops with the Home Secretary or at the very least a government minister. Yet, despite this, nothing has been heard from either of them.

As yet I don't know if there has been a cut in the Community Cohesion Budget either by the MPA or Harringey Council or a combination of the two. But, Iain Dale (and to some extent @stackee) are wrong to presume that centrally imposed cuts will have no effect on local communities, especially in those areas where there is a history of violene. I agree with them, this is not a party political issue, but if you choose to associate yourself with a political party in your blogging etc (whether or not you are a member) there has to come a time when acceptance of the dangers of severe budget cuts becomes the norm not the outlyer! Community Cohesion means different things in different areas, but in places such as Tottenham being able to reach out to all communties leads to gradual peace and harmony then eventually - and most importantly - changes in attitudes. 

Segregation Education

Before I read this article: School colour-codes pupils by ability - I had the thought that it might be similar to Oakham School, where I went for the IB Diploma. At Oakham between Lower (Lower 1/Yr6 - Second Form) and Middle School (3rd Form - 6th Form) your Blazer changed from black to blue and your ties changed according to your house, with the girls having to wear house badges rather than ties. After this, in 7th Form/Upper Sixth, you wore a suit.

However, on reading the above article I'm stunned that a Secondary School would so actively segregate it's pupils according to academic ability with those who are more able/advanced in a separate uniform and being made to play in separate play grounds behind a fence. The thing that has stuck with me about Oakham School, and indeed the schools that my parents were very successful Headteachers of, is the fact that no matter what age or ability you were allowed to mix with others of differing abilities. At Oakham every house was purposefully mixed so that you had as wide a range of abilities and talents as possible, the same being true at my parent's Secondary schools. 

Oakham had a very similar set up to the "Small Schools" idea (but based only on age with the younger children being separated from the older ones into their own houses and areas - with good reason) but because the campus was purposefully mixed there was no sense of segregation, departments were peppered all over the place - so during a school day I walked past every age and every ability between lessons or going to lunch or activities. In fact, I remember talking to a very wide range of people, of all ages and abilities during activities meaning that I had a very wide range of friends. 

How can a government that was supposed to be "Progressive" allow this to happen? We all know what segregation can breed - jealousy, and we all know what that can turn into - hatred which in turn can produce something more dangerous i.e. bullying of all types. Education is meant to be about learning on all levels - academically and more importantly socially. When I joined the party I already knew how important social skills were, but I feel very proud to say that I have learned more in the last four years from talking to people of all abilities than anything else which in turn has improved my social skills. 

In his comments, the Headteacher talks about his school being in special measures and that his only option was to go for the "Small Schools" approach. As a governor of a small primary school in York that has previously been in special measures I can do nothing but disagree. Having seens various reports recently there are two things that stick in my mind: i) inclusivity and ii) care. The inclusivity agenda, alongside very strict and high targets, has seen the school improve it's results year on year for the last four and has also seen SEN education improve exponentially. The school has never once decided to segregate along ability lines and the results are plain, all pupils are attaining better levels of education than ever before in mixed ability groups. The school has cared for it's pupils and staff as it were a small family in which everything they all do brings better outcomes and standards. 

I hope the government will step in to stop the atrocity of segregation in the State Sector, it's wrong and will ultimately fail. But, I have no doubt that they will let the school carry on with it's dangerous educational agenda by passing it off under the "more freedom for schools" banner. By all means have different "sets" of ability within the same school, but education should never be about actively closing doors to pupils to different things and fences have proven to be totally inadequate before, supposed permanent boundaries are inevitably broken!

(Thanks to @msgracefh for the link)

Farming Today and Labour

(Photo from the Telegraph website)

Reading an article in Sunday's Observer over breakfast in a hotel in Uppingham, dad and I had been banished from the house whilst mum did her Counselling, it struck me that we, as a party are missing a trick. This is the article: British farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars (Observer, 3rd July). 

Farming very often hasn't been a big part of Labour's inward re-evaluation post-General Election, admittedly the Refounding Labour moment has passed but even so it doesn't mean that CLPs in more rural or semi-rural areas shouldn't allow themselves to think about it. Living as I do in Rutland, when at home from Uni, it always surprises me that we don't have a larger rural vote than we do - for example, where I play the organ there are Labour voters there both from the village and from other areas within the county who choose to travel to where I play. It's taken me a while to a) feel comfortable talking about politics and b) to find out which way people [say] they vote but it's worked slowly. Like with everything else it's about engagement on a personal level and also on others that breaks down barriers which allows for more in depth conversations, which in turn produces long lasting friendships. On the whole, I've found that out of the people I've spoken to a fair sized majority of them are floating voters who vote Tory because their parents did or they've never voted anything else but are willing to change their vote if the right person is selected as candidate, and more to the point want to be talked with about politics . 

At a time of recession and self imposed "Austerity" by the Tory led government, the rural economy is often overlooked. Or rather, used as a tool to test out which policies can be U-turned over and then left to fend for itself e.g. Forests (U-turn), Blue Tongue Vaccine (fend for yourself), the list goes on. I know that farmers receive a high level of subsidy and that some people think that this is wrong, but in a world where food security is becoming increasingly important the need for a secure level of income is too. British Farming has often been fairly low down on the list of policy areas for Labour, but if we felt able to come out with a policy that suggested we were on the side of farmers/producers we would be opening ourselves up to a pool of voters not seen since 1950s and the shift away from large numbers of farm workers to mechanised farming.

So why talk about this now? Well, if the article is anything to go by, it looks as though the Tory-led government is showing itself to be totally in hoc to big business, only wanting to protect big business and unwilling to listen to rural communities thereby unwilling to confront the first two about food prices. Intelligent governance now over keeping food prices low-ish (although we all need to understand that food will become slowly more expensive) would mean better value for money for consumers and more to the point a better deal for Farmers. We used to be a "nation of shop keepers" I see no reason why we can't become a "nation of small holders" or at the very least supportive of our producers both personally and through government. 

Gordon Brown and Labour Launch

Today I went to the event that has become known on Twitter as #labourlaunch where Gordon Brown put his, and therefore the Party's,  ideas across for the election, and it was the best speech I think I have ever seen him give. It felt like he was talking to you personally and not a whole room of people, rather like the photo below before the event began. 

The main things covered in the speech were:

"First, we must secure the recovery. Not put it at risk.

Second, we must support new industries and future jobs

Third, as we reduce the deficit by half, we must protect and not cut frontline services

Fourth, we must stand up for the many not the few."

After this little snippet, Gordon Brown really took the fight to the Tories and then asked the general public to take a second look at Labour and then take a long hard look at the other parties who are in opposition to us and their policies. We need to see more of this from the PM, indeed we need to see more of the below from the central party:

It's about time we all saw Gordon Brown in a different light, in so far as what he believes in, and the more the party can help do this the better. It means that connections can be reformed between the electorate and Labour, and at the same time it means we can get our policies, record and ideas for the future across in one fell swoop. It's about time passion is restored to politics on the left and if it is to happen the passion needs to come from the front first! That passion was shown today in a completely different way to that which we normally expect, Gordon Brown was relaxed, he knew exactly what he was talking about and why. I don't know whether it was to do with the fact that he knew he'd connected with the voters by being open and honest during the interview with Piers Morgan or whether he has been told to relax by his team or a combination of both, but it really has worked. 

Just a quick video to finish off as this is what we are fighting for in the end:

And one last shout of for #Toryfail's everywhere, if this is all they can come up with then the #GameON and #LabourWIN campaigns/pressure must be working. With thanks to Labour Matters for using my photo in their blog - http://www.labourmatters.com/Editor/secret-conservative-demo-on-expenses-falls-flat/

The Weather and Stormin' Teacups

This week we've seen some unprecedented (at least in the last decade or two) weather, and needless to say we've seen a Tory come out from under his cloak to denounce the problems with National Grid PLC as the government's fault. Well, I know most modern Tories are deniers of their respective pasts but can they really deny the fact that it was their own party that sold of most of this countries greatest assets, including The National Grid? The Shadow Energy Minister sat there quite happily crying wolf over the govt. I very much doubt that the problems we are seeing now - with NG plc taking ages getting round to sorting out ruined power lines or improving them for that - would be around (to such a large extent) had the company not been sold off in the first place, thus opening them up to keeping their shareholders happy over and above their customers!

In the same time as the above has happened, Gordon has come out with some of the best lines we've heard from him in yonks! His remarks in PMQ's about Dave's Married Couple's Allowance were excellent, his "storm in a teacup" and "Yesterday, I didn't think I'd be here" at the Business Secretary's meeting were just what the doctor ordered. Quite honestly, thank God for the massive cow pat that was HoonPatgate - it was after all just about as effective as a wet fart - it has brought the party together and now we move forward to go and knock on doors, deliver leaflets and above all to make sure that people know what we stand for; a country that is egalitarian and non-elitist!