The first I heard of the death of Ivan Cameron was via a Burbler twitter, just as I was about to leave for work. Like parents the world over, that first euphoria on the birth of a child is quickly dented by an innate fear that this precious bundle you have been blessed with, may be taken from you. Newborn babies are scored (I think on a scale of 10), I remember how much I fretted when my son came out at 7 and we had to stay in hospital a couple of days longer. Since then he has been a constant source of anxiety (!) but I cannot imagine the anguish of dealing with the news the Camerons had to deal within a few days of the birth of Ivan. Even less their anguish this week.
What this reminds us of, as did the tragic death of Jennifer Brown, is that life is fragile and that such fragility touches us all however privileged or deprived. Certainly it is more a part of life if you live in Sudan or Gaza for example, but death is no respecter of rank, religion or race.
PMQs was rightly replaced with messages of condolence for the Camerons. If in politics we lose sight of our common humanity we lose sight of everything. But, I trust, as the Camerons come to terms with their loss, they will recognise the unique opportunity they have to fly the flag for other children and young people whose life chances are blighted, not only by their disabilities, but by a society that still continues to discriminate against them.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Will the Royal Mail debate damage Cameron and Clegg?
Two interesting articles today one in the Indy and one on Mike Smithson's Political Betting. The Indy points out that this is an issue splitting all the parties. Cameron has a dilemma, the best chance yet to see a Brown defeat and yet he is backing the idea that was an idea too far even for his great hero Margaret Thatcher. There is something totemic about "Royal" Mail in the psyche of our nation. Posties are universally loved (my brother is one so I understand why!), the idea of a universal service, that you can post a letter from anywhere to anywhere in the UK for the same price. But of course the danger with privatisation has to be that we will lose that, or alternatively see huge rises in the cost of the service.
The reason I was so vociferous in our own debate about this issue is very simple. Private companies are not altruistic charitable outfits. They really don't give a fig if Mrs Jack in the Outer Hebrides ends up paying through the nose for their service. In reality she won't have a choice. And secondly, private companies are there to make a profit. At the moment Royal Mail are in debt. So any private company interested in taking on this loss making business will have to include plans to massively hike costs. If you have to find the money just to clear debts that is one thing, but to make a profit too, is quite another.
In all this debate we seem to have lost sight of the fact that this is a public service - in the same vain as other public services that we subsidise through tax. For example, if the Police Service were subject to the same constraints as Royal Mail whatever mess would that be in now?
Nick Clegg has a similar dilemma to Cameron. Our current policy would make it difficult for him not to support Brown and I expect him to, but, as Mike Smithson observes concerning Cameron, it may turn out to be a mistake.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
I'd rather be hungry than cold
Last week I was in Belfast. I heard a story that no doubt could be multiplied thousands fold in this great country of ours. The story was of a young woman, 17 years of old, living alone. She was entitled from the state to £40 a week. £20 of this was paid in food vouchers. If she did not spend up to the amount, she lost the rest. She found this difficult - during a week there were items such as milk and bread that she could not buy on a weekly basis.
The past few weeks have been bitterly cold across the UK. This young woman could not afford heating, she has asked that she only be given £10 in food vouchers, so that she can have the other £10 to pay for her heating - she would rather be hungry than cold. The tears are again stinging my face as I write this. What are we doing to our children? A government that spews out weasel words about ending child poverty and yet creates a system that does this to one of our most vulnerable? A myriad of think tanks and policy wonks who pontificate about this and that and the other (I still haven't written my piece about the Centre Forum Equality debate a couple of weeks ago) in theoretical terms. Sorry, I confess, I am no academic - but I am someone who has spent most of her life working with "ordinary families" (can we come up with another term?) and extraordinary young people, surviving in spite of, not because of, enlightened public policy.
In May 1997, like many youth workers, I had high hopes that a Labour Government may do something to improve the lot of our young people. I am sure that they had similar ambitions - but - as is demonstrated time and time again - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you start with the wrong premise - you end up with nonsense. This government's obsession with control, its blind faith in private sector solutions and belief that young people can be coerced into being the people the government wants them to be - has ended in human misery and disaster for so many. They have from the beginning surrounded themselves with the great and the good, highly intelligent I don't doubt - in touch with the reality of people's lives?........I seriously doubt. Frankly, the people with the solutions to our most pressing problems, are the people themselves. But how often are they honestly and meaningfully consulted with?
I am unable to get the image of that young woman out of my head. By all accounts she is a feisty, determined character. But at 17, with no family to support her, is totally reliant on a system that is at best inept, at worst frankly criminal.
Do I think the Labour Party will ever be able to address this problem? They have palpably demonstrated they are incapable of doing so. Do I think "New Tory Party" will do so? They talk the talk, but walking the walk is not only unlikely it is totally against the values they hold dear. Do I think we can? If anyone seriously wonders why am I am in this party - this is why. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that this is the vision of Nick Clegg. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that this is the vision of our party. The only impediment to us really doing this will be trust in a flawed methodology. That is where our debate must be - that is where our battle lines must be drawn.
So, for this young woman and so many like her, who will tonight be going to bed hungry or cold, or both - will we be big enough for the challenge?
The past few weeks have been bitterly cold across the UK. This young woman could not afford heating, she has asked that she only be given £10 in food vouchers, so that she can have the other £10 to pay for her heating - she would rather be hungry than cold. The tears are again stinging my face as I write this. What are we doing to our children? A government that spews out weasel words about ending child poverty and yet creates a system that does this to one of our most vulnerable? A myriad of think tanks and policy wonks who pontificate about this and that and the other (I still haven't written my piece about the Centre Forum Equality debate a couple of weeks ago) in theoretical terms. Sorry, I confess, I am no academic - but I am someone who has spent most of her life working with "ordinary families" (can we come up with another term?) and extraordinary young people, surviving in spite of, not because of, enlightened public policy.
In May 1997, like many youth workers, I had high hopes that a Labour Government may do something to improve the lot of our young people. I am sure that they had similar ambitions - but - as is demonstrated time and time again - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you start with the wrong premise - you end up with nonsense. This government's obsession with control, its blind faith in private sector solutions and belief that young people can be coerced into being the people the government wants them to be - has ended in human misery and disaster for so many. They have from the beginning surrounded themselves with the great and the good, highly intelligent I don't doubt - in touch with the reality of people's lives?........I seriously doubt. Frankly, the people with the solutions to our most pressing problems, are the people themselves. But how often are they honestly and meaningfully consulted with?
I am unable to get the image of that young woman out of my head. By all accounts she is a feisty, determined character. But at 17, with no family to support her, is totally reliant on a system that is at best inept, at worst frankly criminal.
Do I think the Labour Party will ever be able to address this problem? They have palpably demonstrated they are incapable of doing so. Do I think "New Tory Party" will do so? They talk the talk, but walking the walk is not only unlikely it is totally against the values they hold dear. Do I think we can? If anyone seriously wonders why am I am in this party - this is why. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that this is the vision of Nick Clegg. I know, without a shadow of a doubt that this is the vision of our party. The only impediment to us really doing this will be trust in a flawed methodology. That is where our debate must be - that is where our battle lines must be drawn.
So, for this young woman and so many like her, who will tonight be going to bed hungry or cold, or both - will we be big enough for the challenge?
Shooting ourselves in the foot on the Working Time Directive
I really don't know where this party campaign comes from? Where is our policy on this? When did we become apologists for the Daily Mail approach to European legislation?
OK, it's taken me a week to respond.......I have allowed myself a modicum of time to calm down, but however much I try to understand.......I JUST DON'T!
I am talking of course about the campaign to maintain the UK opt out on the Working Time Directive. Hmmmmm yes........an opt out that allows exploitation and abuse of powerless workers to continue. Of course, we are all for that aren't we?
So, how is it that we (for we are all tarred with the Lib Dem brush when pronouncements, however unpalatable are pronounced!) are endorsing a position, which in my view, is contrary to our values. Those who are leading this campaign should know better, people who on other issues bang the drum for equality and fairness, who would throw up their hands in horror at any other oppressive or discriminatory practice.
What I also find astounding is that we have been invited to support this campaign without, as far as I know, any reference to the parliamentary party in Europe! The posting on the Scottish Lib Dem site is misleading, suggesting Lib Dem MEPs voted against, when only some of them did.
Liz Lynne, someone who I know is a staunch campaigner on so many other issues of human rights and equality, has lead the fight to keep the opt out. In a press release in September last year she argued "I welcome attempts to retain the UK's opt out with more stringent conditions on its use, anyone whose work does not have a direct consequence on life and death decisions should have a free choice as to what hours they work, so long as this is truly voluntary." Er.......retained fire fighters? Maybe I am missing something but I always thought they were involved in life and death decisions????
For me there are two important issues.
Firstly - the impact on the individual. Let's not forget, this 48 hour rule applies over a 17 week period, and in some cases longer. It is surely not healthy for anyone to consistently work over 48 hours?
Secondly - the impact on the family and wider society. We already work the longest hours in Europe, we know our children are the unhappiest, why do we think our right to work ridiculous hours is more important than our wider responsibilities to our families and community? Frankly, if someone is consistently working over 48 hours, it suggests to me that there is more than one job there. So, particularly at a time when we are facing mass redundancies, when we are creating a lost generation (40% of unemployed are 16-24), we think it is OK for those who are lucky enough to be in work, to consistently work as long hours as they like. In practice well over 25% more than a normal working week. Now, of course, I accept the argument that for some people they don't get a living wage and need to work those longer hours - but that is a different argument. That is an argument about the level of the minimum wage and level of tax they are expected to pay.
So, to take the Facebook Campaign Group's position to its logical conclusion, I am anti worker, in particular, anti retained fire fighters. Hmmmm, funny that, given that the FBU position is very clear. They took issue with the way the arrangements
They had a model letter in the runup to the vote -
Dear [Name of MEP]
As you will be aware there is a vote to take place on 17 December 2008 at the European Parliament on the Second Reading on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The only defence of the UK opt-out that we have been given is that it provides ‘flexibility’. What the opt-out actually provides is the opportunity for employers to abuse their workers – all the flexibility they need is already set out in other parts of the Directive which provides for the 48-hour limit to be averaged over an entire year. It cannot be right for people to be working longer than 48 hours all year round, and indeed there is plenty of evidence that persistently working long hours is bad for people’s health as well as other people’s safety. This should not be a matter of choice – no one argues for an opt-out from the speed limit!I am aware of amendments being proposed by MEP Alejandro Cercas Alonso and would urge you to support those amendments in particular amendments 9 and 11-18. Could I ask that you write to inform me how your vote was cast on this most important matter?
So, it seems to me that we are choosing to be opportunist and bang an anti European drum on an issue we think that will make us look like we are right on with the workers...........except the representatives of those very workers, on this issue, support the current European position.
OK, it's taken me a week to respond.......I have allowed myself a modicum of time to calm down, but however much I try to understand.......I JUST DON'T!
I am talking of course about the campaign to maintain the UK opt out on the Working Time Directive. Hmmmmm yes........an opt out that allows exploitation and abuse of powerless workers to continue. Of course, we are all for that aren't we?
So, how is it that we (for we are all tarred with the Lib Dem brush when pronouncements, however unpalatable are pronounced!) are endorsing a position, which in my view, is contrary to our values. Those who are leading this campaign should know better, people who on other issues bang the drum for equality and fairness, who would throw up their hands in horror at any other oppressive or discriminatory practice.
What I also find astounding is that we have been invited to support this campaign without, as far as I know, any reference to the parliamentary party in Europe! The posting on the Scottish Lib Dem site is misleading, suggesting Lib Dem MEPs voted against, when only some of them did.
Liz Lynne, someone who I know is a staunch campaigner on so many other issues of human rights and equality, has lead the fight to keep the opt out. In a press release in September last year she argued "I welcome attempts to retain the UK's opt out with more stringent conditions on its use, anyone whose work does not have a direct consequence on life and death decisions should have a free choice as to what hours they work, so long as this is truly voluntary." Er.......retained fire fighters? Maybe I am missing something but I always thought they were involved in life and death decisions????
For me there are two important issues.
Firstly - the impact on the individual. Let's not forget, this 48 hour rule applies over a 17 week period, and in some cases longer. It is surely not healthy for anyone to consistently work over 48 hours?
Secondly - the impact on the family and wider society. We already work the longest hours in Europe, we know our children are the unhappiest, why do we think our right to work ridiculous hours is more important than our wider responsibilities to our families and community? Frankly, if someone is consistently working over 48 hours, it suggests to me that there is more than one job there. So, particularly at a time when we are facing mass redundancies, when we are creating a lost generation (40% of unemployed are 16-24), we think it is OK for those who are lucky enough to be in work, to consistently work as long hours as they like. In practice well over 25% more than a normal working week. Now, of course, I accept the argument that for some people they don't get a living wage and need to work those longer hours - but that is a different argument. That is an argument about the level of the minimum wage and level of tax they are expected to pay.
So, to take the Facebook Campaign Group's position to its logical conclusion, I am anti worker, in particular, anti retained fire fighters. Hmmmm, funny that, given that the FBU position is very clear. They took issue with the way the arrangements
- Put employees especially, but not solely new or prospective employees, under pressure to agree to alternative shift systems to those agreed with trade unions; with a view to
- Undermine collective bargaining including collective agreements on shift systems
They had a model letter in the runup to the vote -
Dear [Name of MEP]
As you will be aware there is a vote to take place on 17 December 2008 at the European Parliament on the Second Reading on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. The only defence of the UK opt-out that we have been given is that it provides ‘flexibility’. What the opt-out actually provides is the opportunity for employers to abuse their workers – all the flexibility they need is already set out in other parts of the Directive which provides for the 48-hour limit to be averaged over an entire year. It cannot be right for people to be working longer than 48 hours all year round, and indeed there is plenty of evidence that persistently working long hours is bad for people’s health as well as other people’s safety. This should not be a matter of choice – no one argues for an opt-out from the speed limit!I am aware of amendments being proposed by MEP Alejandro Cercas Alonso and would urge you to support those amendments in particular amendments 9 and 11-18. Could I ask that you write to inform me how your vote was cast on this most important matter?
So, it seems to me that we are choosing to be opportunist and bang an anti European drum on an issue we think that will make us look like we are right on with the workers...........except the representatives of those very workers, on this issue, support the current European position.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Twittererwittering
Until a few days ago I thought Twittering was yet another gimmick that wouldn't interest me, but then pal Louise Macdonald convinced me that I really should start and she was clearly hooked! So, I decided to give it a go, signing up to Stephen Fry, Al Gore and Louise immediately. I began to see the point, especially given the Euro campaign I could keep supporters up to date, texting snippets as I waited for the lift, tube, train, or as happened tonight waiting for the person (who will remain nameless except to my followers!) who I was supposed to meet for an exhibition who arrived as we were being chucked out! This could be fun, thought I.
But............one big problem...........I CAN'T SEND MESSAGES FROM MY PHONE! Now, answering the question, what am I doing, when what I am doing is sitting at my PC, either at home or at work.........seems to defeat the object, it loses the spontaneity of the moment. My excitement (yes I am easily pleased!) when I beat my record for getting to work - 1 hour and 7 minutes door to door! (OK the 2 hour journey home this evening kind of cancelled that out). My frustration when I got to London Bridge and discovered that the reason I couldn't find a train to Luton was because they weren't running after 10.30. My delight at finding a pic with me in it from the Children and Young People's Services Awards (I'm on the hunt for pix at the mo for my website). My curiousity when I got a message from a pal asking where to get an application form for MI5...................
So, I will just have to wait for one of you technowizards to explain to me the ancient art of twittering................please?!
But............one big problem...........I CAN'T SEND MESSAGES FROM MY PHONE! Now, answering the question, what am I doing, when what I am doing is sitting at my PC, either at home or at work.........seems to defeat the object, it loses the spontaneity of the moment. My excitement (yes I am easily pleased!) when I beat my record for getting to work - 1 hour and 7 minutes door to door! (OK the 2 hour journey home this evening kind of cancelled that out). My frustration when I got to London Bridge and discovered that the reason I couldn't find a train to Luton was because they weren't running after 10.30. My delight at finding a pic with me in it from the Children and Young People's Services Awards (I'm on the hunt for pix at the mo for my website). My curiousity when I got a message from a pal asking where to get an application form for MI5...................
So, I will just have to wait for one of you technowizards to explain to me the ancient art of twittering................please?!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Jewish Voice for Peace, Why is the Anti-Defamation League defending Lieberman?
The recent events in Gaza have receded in our conscience - yesterday's news, today's chip paper. But hiding in the shadows of the drama of Gaza lies an ominous racism towards the indigenous Palestinian citizens of Israel. i have been passed this article from Jewish Voice for Peace.
Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is defending one of Israel's most powerful far-right extremists and his plan to strip "unfaithful" citizens, mostly Arab Israelis, of their citizenship. The Anti-Defamation League is supposed to "secure justice and fair treatment to all." Instead, they are supporting a dangerous ideology that calls for taking citizenship away from Israelis for exercising their right to free speech. How can we expect the ADL to effectively defend the rights of Jews when they so easily step on the rights of Arabs?
Avigdor Lieberman now heads Yisrael Beytenu, the third largest party in Israel, and is likely to be a minister in a new Israeli government.
On February 10, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Abe Foxman defended Lieberman's plan, despite the fact that "Some liberal Israeli and Jewish groups have condemned Lieberman as a fascist - the left-wing Meretz Party even compared him to the late far-right Austrian politician Joerg Haider - for his proposal to require Israeli Arab citizens to sign an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state." (1)
Instead of defending Lieberman, the ADL should be condemning him.
Why should the Anti-Defamation League condemn Lieberman?
Avigdor Lieberman led the drive in Israel's Central Election Committee to have Arab political parties banned from running in the most recent election, which passed successfully and was overturned only by the Israeli Supreme Court. (2)
He has called for the expulsion of Arab Members of the Knesset, threatening them that "a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you." (3)
He has called for Arab citizens of Israel to sign an "oath of loyalty" to the state or be stripped of their citizenship. (4)
His party has been very clear about what being "loyal" means: If you are an Arab student and dare come to school wearing a kefiyah, you are "disloyal." (5)
Lieberman's party said that if you are a Muslim Israeli and collect money and medicines for Gaza relief, you are "disloyal." (6)
If Lieberman's plan is put into place, if you do not meet his standards of loyalty, you lose all the rights of a citizen; you lose the right to vote; and you lose the right to have a political party or to run for office - that is, the right to participate in Israel's political process. Is this what the ADL stands for?
It is ironic that the ADL understands as anti-Semitic the accusations of dual loyalty hurled against Jews in the US and elsewhere, but remains unconcerned about similar accusations against Arab Israelis.
Remind Abe Foxman that his organization was founded "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all" - and that all means all, including Arab Israelis.
Click here to sign the letter to Abe Foxman.
----
(1) Back in 2006, the ADL condemned Lieberman's call to execute Arab legislators. But today, Abe Foxman defends Lieberman's loyalty oath
Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is defending one of Israel's most powerful far-right extremists and his plan to strip "unfaithful" citizens, mostly Arab Israelis, of their citizenship. The Anti-Defamation League is supposed to "secure justice and fair treatment to all." Instead, they are supporting a dangerous ideology that calls for taking citizenship away from Israelis for exercising their right to free speech. How can we expect the ADL to effectively defend the rights of Jews when they so easily step on the rights of Arabs?
Avigdor Lieberman now heads Yisrael Beytenu, the third largest party in Israel, and is likely to be a minister in a new Israeli government.
On February 10, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Abe Foxman defended Lieberman's plan, despite the fact that "Some liberal Israeli and Jewish groups have condemned Lieberman as a fascist - the left-wing Meretz Party even compared him to the late far-right Austrian politician Joerg Haider - for his proposal to require Israeli Arab citizens to sign an oath of allegiance to the Jewish state." (1)
Instead of defending Lieberman, the ADL should be condemning him.
Why should the Anti-Defamation League condemn Lieberman?
Avigdor Lieberman led the drive in Israel's Central Election Committee to have Arab political parties banned from running in the most recent election, which passed successfully and was overturned only by the Israeli Supreme Court. (2)
He has called for the expulsion of Arab Members of the Knesset, threatening them that "a new administration will be established and then we will take care of you." (3)
He has called for Arab citizens of Israel to sign an "oath of loyalty" to the state or be stripped of their citizenship. (4)
His party has been very clear about what being "loyal" means: If you are an Arab student and dare come to school wearing a kefiyah, you are "disloyal." (5)
Lieberman's party said that if you are a Muslim Israeli and collect money and medicines for Gaza relief, you are "disloyal." (6)
If Lieberman's plan is put into place, if you do not meet his standards of loyalty, you lose all the rights of a citizen; you lose the right to vote; and you lose the right to have a political party or to run for office - that is, the right to participate in Israel's political process. Is this what the ADL stands for?
It is ironic that the ADL understands as anti-Semitic the accusations of dual loyalty hurled against Jews in the US and elsewhere, but remains unconcerned about similar accusations against Arab Israelis.
Remind Abe Foxman that his organization was founded "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all" - and that all means all, including Arab Israelis.
Click here to sign the letter to Abe Foxman.
----
(1) Back in 2006, the ADL condemned Lieberman's call to execute Arab legislators. But today, Abe Foxman defends Lieberman's loyalty oath
Daniel Bar-Tal
I just got sent a copy of this moving open letter from Israeli social psychologist, Daniel Bar-Tal on the Gaza war :
This is probably one of the most difficult periods in my political life as a Jew living in the State of Israel. The events of the war in Gaza hit hard my foundations of hope that a peaceful conflict resolution between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved in the near future. Moreover, my trust in humanity has been weakened seeing the ease with which human beings rally for a war, exercise blind patriotism, express desire for vengeance, delegitimize the opponent, and develop insensitivity to human life, denial of responsibility, self-righteousness and moral entitlement. This is in contrast to the great difficulty that human beings have in mobilization for peace. We see over and over again that it takes many years and many efforts to persuade people in the importance of peace, but it takes an extremely short time to convince people in the need of war. It is even more difficult to establish moral considerations.
I have been agonizing for weeks whether to write an open letter. I could not bring myself to the paper and pencil or to the keyboard, feeling despair and helplessness. But only a responsibility to voice another opinion as an alternative to the officially presented views that are supported by the great majority of the Israeli Jews brought me to write this letter. It is important that you will know that there is a minority of us, Jews in Israel, who care about moral considerations and opposed this war.
What can I say when I know that about 1300 Palestinians killed, at least half of them innocent civilians, including children, women, and old people, over 4000 were injured, thousands of homes were destroyed and dozens of thousands became homeless. Also on the Israeli side 13 Israelis were killed, including 3 civilians, hundreds were wounded, and thousands had to escape from the hundreds of rockets that were fired on Israel. I could repeat the arguments of the Israeli government that through the years many hundreds of rockets were fired on the Israeli land west of Gaza, including populated settlements; that no government would allow that their citizens will be hurt; that "after eight years of restraint, Israel has decided to act against the terror attacks coming from the Gaza Strip. Israeli restraint was misinterpreted as weakness by Hamas and members of the vertical axis of extremism led by Iran";…that "Israel had given a mutual agreement to preserve peace its final chance when it agreed to the Egyptian brokered Period of Calm agreement in June 2008, whose terms were repeatedly transgressed by Hamas". It is just natural that those who sent the soldiers to the war have to defend it and rationalize it. This is a human principle.
But these arguments do not tell the whole story. Even if we take the Israeli arguments without the background and complexity, they cannot account for the scope of civilian losses and the destruction on the Palestinian side. The brutality and scope of the Israeli actions testify to deeper roots that are founded in the darker side of human beings. They express the wish to erase the feeling of failure in the Second Lebanese War during the summer of 2006; they reflect a deep sense of collective victimhood because of the continuous firing of rockets on civilian settlements in the south by the Hamas military organ-- this sense of victimhood led to the urge to revenge in order to punish for the harm done and prevent further firing. In addition, they are derived from the continuous dehumanization of the Hamas organization. Finally, they are based on the conviction that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, allowing Palestinians to live their lives and they instead engage in terror.
But, the reality is much more complex than the narrative perpetuated by the Israeli political and military establishments, which successfully constructed the beliefs of the Jewish public in Israel. This is a kind of irony because one of the objectives of the war was to carve the consciousness of the Palestinians so they will recognize the harm that Hamas is causing to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life. This objective was not achieved and instead the war strengthened the hatred and mistrust of both sides towards each other, reinforced the support of hawkish opinions on both sides, and as a result, the peaceful process is further greatly damaged. Moreover, it is hard to detect any meaningful political gains of Israel in the balance of this war. We are back to the same lines that were before the war ---with terrible losses and destruction.
The psychological analysis of the situation illustrates the selective, biasing and distorting transmission and dissemination of information by the Israeli channels of communication. It does not mean that the alternative information does not exist in Israel but very few are interested in knowing what is really happening. Thus, most of the Israeli Jews do not know what Israel perpetrated through the decades of occupying Gaza; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that originally Hamas was founded by the Israeli authorities to provide an alternative to the national movement of PLO; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas is a religious–fundamental movement that also provides welfare, health and educational services to the Palestinian people; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas was elected democratically (with the insistence of USA) to lead the government of the Palestinian authority because of Fatah corruption, and mostly because of the fruitless negotiations with Israel which did not provide any political solution of the conflict; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that the policy of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about ‘No Palestinian Partner’ led to unilateral disengagement from Gaza without negotiation with the Palestinian Authority. This act was done in order to delegitimize Palestinian Authority and in attempt to keep control over the West Bank. Moreover, the disengagement did not free Gaza but turned it into one big prison. Israel controls the entrances to Gaza and controls every aspect of human life in Gaza. It decided to change the support of Gazans in Hamas by carrying out a siege that allowed minimal living and brought Gaza to economic disaster. Israeli Jews know that even after disengagement, Hamas continues to fire rockets on the Israeli civil settlements but few know that during 2005– 2008, hundreds of Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces. Few know that the tunnels were built mainly to smuggle civil goods that could not be brought to Gaza and not only weapons as the great majority believe. Few know that there is a relationship between Israeli violence and Palestinian violence, preferring to see the latter as irrational, fanatic, and immoral while the former as defensive, moral and well justified.
Few of the Israeli Jews recognize that Israel during two years had at least two alternative strategies to prevent further escalation; either to talk with Hamas which is possible and negotiate long-term cease-fire, or take decisive actions of peace (for example, to ease conditions of life of the Palestinians by removing many of the checkpoints and to remove illegal settlements as required by the Israeli promise to U.S.) vis á vis President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to show the Palestinians that process yields tangible fruits that lead to prosperity and security. Even when we shift to the period before the war, most of the Israeli Jews do not know that it was possible to negotiate continuation of the cease fire with Hamas and do not remember that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire of November 4, 2008, killing 6 Palestinians. Hamas is not my cup of tea as it is a fundamentalist religious organization that practices also terrorism, but it is a social movement with wide support in the Palestinian society because it provides an alternative to humiliated Palestinian national identity. This movement is not homogenous and it is possible to hear in it different voices including ones that support negotiation with Israel and acceptance of the two state solution.
All these omissions are not surprising in view of the fact that the involved sides in conflict have been deeply embedded in the culture of conflict. They systematically try to construct the views of society members in a direction of presenting own society as being moral, just, peace loving, or moderate and the rival as being immoral, intransigent, violent, irrational, or extreme. In addition each side views itself as the victim of this conflict. This process goes on for decades. Only during few years during Rabin time it looked as the peace process is gaining momentum. But since the year 2000, when the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided on the policy of "no partner", the peace process is dying. It is true that Palestinians have their share in the failure of the Oslo process. But the tremendous asymmetry of power puts the responsibility for the continuation of the conflict mostly on the Israeli side. It is Israel that has almost all the cards to solve the conflict; it occupies the land, holds Eastern Jerusalem, controls the life of the Palestinians, controls the resources of the West Bank, expands constantly the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, exercises preventive and punishing violent acts according to own will and has (at least had until now) almost unconditional backing of the superpower.
The contours of the potential settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more or less clear: If it will happen, it will be in accordance to Clinton proposal, Taba understandings, Geneva agreement, and Arab league proposal: Israel will have to return to 1967 borders with some swaps of land in order to hold the most populated clusters of Jewish settlements just beyond the green line of 1967, Jerusalem will be divided, most of the Jewish settlements inside the territories will be dismantled, and the refuges problem will have to be solved via common agreement with their compensation and settlement mostly in the future Palestinian state. The present Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined openly these principles to the Israeli public but did not take any concrete steps to implement them. Israeli public, while recognizing the need in two state solution (because of the demographic fear), objects to the outlined principles. The majority of the Israeli Jews object to divide Jerusalem, to withdraw to 1967 borders and to dismantle most of the Jewish settlements the West Bank. In fact I must admit that I do not see any Israeli government evacuating about 60,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank. Israeli Jewish public after the destruction of the peace camp in 2000 is moving steadily towards hawkish-nationalistic views. The present war provided additional blow to the peace camp. It is almost certainly that the next Israeli government will be very hawkish after the February 10 elections.
The rest will be written in the history books. …. The war did not erupt spontaneously but was well prepared, including its scope, the type of weapons to be used, and so on. Also it was consciously decided to use a disproportional might in order to save lives of Israeli soldiers and to teach the Palestinians a lesson. The results of the war are tragic for both nations. It provided unequivocal evidence to each side that the other side is evil and immoral. Now few of us here and there can only evaluate the tragedy, explain the events and pray for a miracle from outside forces that will come and save us from the worst human instincts.
Sincerely Daniel Bar-Tal
This is probably one of the most difficult periods in my political life as a Jew living in the State of Israel. The events of the war in Gaza hit hard my foundations of hope that a peaceful conflict resolution between Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved in the near future. Moreover, my trust in humanity has been weakened seeing the ease with which human beings rally for a war, exercise blind patriotism, express desire for vengeance, delegitimize the opponent, and develop insensitivity to human life, denial of responsibility, self-righteousness and moral entitlement. This is in contrast to the great difficulty that human beings have in mobilization for peace. We see over and over again that it takes many years and many efforts to persuade people in the importance of peace, but it takes an extremely short time to convince people in the need of war. It is even more difficult to establish moral considerations.
I have been agonizing for weeks whether to write an open letter. I could not bring myself to the paper and pencil or to the keyboard, feeling despair and helplessness. But only a responsibility to voice another opinion as an alternative to the officially presented views that are supported by the great majority of the Israeli Jews brought me to write this letter. It is important that you will know that there is a minority of us, Jews in Israel, who care about moral considerations and opposed this war.
What can I say when I know that about 1300 Palestinians killed, at least half of them innocent civilians, including children, women, and old people, over 4000 were injured, thousands of homes were destroyed and dozens of thousands became homeless. Also on the Israeli side 13 Israelis were killed, including 3 civilians, hundreds were wounded, and thousands had to escape from the hundreds of rockets that were fired on Israel. I could repeat the arguments of the Israeli government that through the years many hundreds of rockets were fired on the Israeli land west of Gaza, including populated settlements; that no government would allow that their citizens will be hurt; that "after eight years of restraint, Israel has decided to act against the terror attacks coming from the Gaza Strip. Israeli restraint was misinterpreted as weakness by Hamas and members of the vertical axis of extremism led by Iran";…that "Israel had given a mutual agreement to preserve peace its final chance when it agreed to the Egyptian brokered Period of Calm agreement in June 2008, whose terms were repeatedly transgressed by Hamas". It is just natural that those who sent the soldiers to the war have to defend it and rationalize it. This is a human principle.
But these arguments do not tell the whole story. Even if we take the Israeli arguments without the background and complexity, they cannot account for the scope of civilian losses and the destruction on the Palestinian side. The brutality and scope of the Israeli actions testify to deeper roots that are founded in the darker side of human beings. They express the wish to erase the feeling of failure in the Second Lebanese War during the summer of 2006; they reflect a deep sense of collective victimhood because of the continuous firing of rockets on civilian settlements in the south by the Hamas military organ-- this sense of victimhood led to the urge to revenge in order to punish for the harm done and prevent further firing. In addition, they are derived from the continuous dehumanization of the Hamas organization. Finally, they are based on the conviction that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, allowing Palestinians to live their lives and they instead engage in terror.
But, the reality is much more complex than the narrative perpetuated by the Israeli political and military establishments, which successfully constructed the beliefs of the Jewish public in Israel. This is a kind of irony because one of the objectives of the war was to carve the consciousness of the Palestinians so they will recognize the harm that Hamas is causing to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life. This objective was not achieved and instead the war strengthened the hatred and mistrust of both sides towards each other, reinforced the support of hawkish opinions on both sides, and as a result, the peaceful process is further greatly damaged. Moreover, it is hard to detect any meaningful political gains of Israel in the balance of this war. We are back to the same lines that were before the war ---with terrible losses and destruction.
The psychological analysis of the situation illustrates the selective, biasing and distorting transmission and dissemination of information by the Israeli channels of communication. It does not mean that the alternative information does not exist in Israel but very few are interested in knowing what is really happening. Thus, most of the Israeli Jews do not know what Israel perpetrated through the decades of occupying Gaza; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that originally Hamas was founded by the Israeli authorities to provide an alternative to the national movement of PLO; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas is a religious–fundamental movement that also provides welfare, health and educational services to the Palestinian people; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that Hamas was elected democratically (with the insistence of USA) to lead the government of the Palestinian authority because of Fatah corruption, and mostly because of the fruitless negotiations with Israel which did not provide any political solution of the conflict; most of the Israeli Jews do not know that the policy of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon about ‘No Palestinian Partner’ led to unilateral disengagement from Gaza without negotiation with the Palestinian Authority. This act was done in order to delegitimize Palestinian Authority and in attempt to keep control over the West Bank. Moreover, the disengagement did not free Gaza but turned it into one big prison. Israel controls the entrances to Gaza and controls every aspect of human life in Gaza. It decided to change the support of Gazans in Hamas by carrying out a siege that allowed minimal living and brought Gaza to economic disaster. Israeli Jews know that even after disengagement, Hamas continues to fire rockets on the Israeli civil settlements but few know that during 2005– 2008, hundreds of Palestinians were killed by the Israeli forces. Few know that the tunnels were built mainly to smuggle civil goods that could not be brought to Gaza and not only weapons as the great majority believe. Few know that there is a relationship between Israeli violence and Palestinian violence, preferring to see the latter as irrational, fanatic, and immoral while the former as defensive, moral and well justified.
Few of the Israeli Jews recognize that Israel during two years had at least two alternative strategies to prevent further escalation; either to talk with Hamas which is possible and negotiate long-term cease-fire, or take decisive actions of peace (for example, to ease conditions of life of the Palestinians by removing many of the checkpoints and to remove illegal settlements as required by the Israeli promise to U.S.) vis á vis President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to show the Palestinians that process yields tangible fruits that lead to prosperity and security. Even when we shift to the period before the war, most of the Israeli Jews do not know that it was possible to negotiate continuation of the cease fire with Hamas and do not remember that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire of November 4, 2008, killing 6 Palestinians. Hamas is not my cup of tea as it is a fundamentalist religious organization that practices also terrorism, but it is a social movement with wide support in the Palestinian society because it provides an alternative to humiliated Palestinian national identity. This movement is not homogenous and it is possible to hear in it different voices including ones that support negotiation with Israel and acceptance of the two state solution.
All these omissions are not surprising in view of the fact that the involved sides in conflict have been deeply embedded in the culture of conflict. They systematically try to construct the views of society members in a direction of presenting own society as being moral, just, peace loving, or moderate and the rival as being immoral, intransigent, violent, irrational, or extreme. In addition each side views itself as the victim of this conflict. This process goes on for decades. Only during few years during Rabin time it looked as the peace process is gaining momentum. But since the year 2000, when the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak decided on the policy of "no partner", the peace process is dying. It is true that Palestinians have their share in the failure of the Oslo process. But the tremendous asymmetry of power puts the responsibility for the continuation of the conflict mostly on the Israeli side. It is Israel that has almost all the cards to solve the conflict; it occupies the land, holds Eastern Jerusalem, controls the life of the Palestinians, controls the resources of the West Bank, expands constantly the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, exercises preventive and punishing violent acts according to own will and has (at least had until now) almost unconditional backing of the superpower.
The contours of the potential settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more or less clear: If it will happen, it will be in accordance to Clinton proposal, Taba understandings, Geneva agreement, and Arab league proposal: Israel will have to return to 1967 borders with some swaps of land in order to hold the most populated clusters of Jewish settlements just beyond the green line of 1967, Jerusalem will be divided, most of the Jewish settlements inside the territories will be dismantled, and the refuges problem will have to be solved via common agreement with their compensation and settlement mostly in the future Palestinian state. The present Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert outlined openly these principles to the Israeli public but did not take any concrete steps to implement them. Israeli public, while recognizing the need in two state solution (because of the demographic fear), objects to the outlined principles. The majority of the Israeli Jews object to divide Jerusalem, to withdraw to 1967 borders and to dismantle most of the Jewish settlements the West Bank. In fact I must admit that I do not see any Israeli government evacuating about 60,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank. Israeli Jewish public after the destruction of the peace camp in 2000 is moving steadily towards hawkish-nationalistic views. The present war provided additional blow to the peace camp. It is almost certainly that the next Israeli government will be very hawkish after the February 10 elections.
The rest will be written in the history books. …. The war did not erupt spontaneously but was well prepared, including its scope, the type of weapons to be used, and so on. Also it was consciously decided to use a disproportional might in order to save lives of Israeli soldiers and to teach the Palestinians a lesson. The results of the war are tragic for both nations. It provided unequivocal evidence to each side that the other side is evil and immoral. Now few of us here and there can only evaluate the tragedy, explain the events and pray for a miracle from outside forces that will come and save us from the worst human instincts.
Sincerely Daniel Bar-Tal
Bankers
A few years ago i had my interview for my current post at the FSA. One of the questions I was asked was "How do you think you will get on with a bunch of bankers?" Well, as I often say - it was a bit of a culture shock for me, but I like to think it was more of a culture shock for them!
So I have been following the debate of the last few weeks and the comments from my bosses with interest. As a trade union negotiator when "Single Status" was being agreed, one big issue was the unfairness of bonuses that were paid to predominantly male roles such as refuse workers, as opposed to predominantly female workers, such as school meals staff. So from my perspective this current debate, which rightly points out how bonuses have fuelled a risk culture, is missing one big point. Bonuses are demonstrably discriminatory. Harriet Harman has correctly pointed this out, but her words appear to have fallen on deaf ears. We need to look at bonuses, not just in the banks in near public ownership, not just in the banks more widely, but across the board. I am pleased the EHRC are doing some work on this. Having represented a black woman banker at a hearing where the bonus system had clearly discriminated against her (interesting in the light of the revelations last week about senior bankers not being qualified, she was the only one in her department who WAS qualified, had been tipped for greatness by the press when she was in her 20s and yet had seen all her male white colleagues leapfrog over her when it came to promotion and bonuses), I had my eyes opened to how the system is open to abuse, both directly and indirectly.
Two or three days before it sunk the Titanic was warned it was approaching an ice field, ignorance, arrogance or indifference meant it ignored the warnings. Vince Cable has been a clear and lone voice about the banks and personal debt for many years. No one listened. The tragedy is that it is not the wealthy bankers who may miss out on the odd £million who will suffer, no, they will already have their lifeboats ready and their life jackets at hand. It is those (rather like the poor souls on the Titanic in third class) who bear no responsibility for this situation whatsoever, they don't have loans or mortgages or credit cards, they struggle to make ends meet already, but it is their jobs that are going and it is their futures that is being blighted.
So I have been following the debate of the last few weeks and the comments from my bosses with interest. As a trade union negotiator when "Single Status" was being agreed, one big issue was the unfairness of bonuses that were paid to predominantly male roles such as refuse workers, as opposed to predominantly female workers, such as school meals staff. So from my perspective this current debate, which rightly points out how bonuses have fuelled a risk culture, is missing one big point. Bonuses are demonstrably discriminatory. Harriet Harman has correctly pointed this out, but her words appear to have fallen on deaf ears. We need to look at bonuses, not just in the banks in near public ownership, not just in the banks more widely, but across the board. I am pleased the EHRC are doing some work on this. Having represented a black woman banker at a hearing where the bonus system had clearly discriminated against her (interesting in the light of the revelations last week about senior bankers not being qualified, she was the only one in her department who WAS qualified, had been tipped for greatness by the press when she was in her 20s and yet had seen all her male white colleagues leapfrog over her when it came to promotion and bonuses), I had my eyes opened to how the system is open to abuse, both directly and indirectly.
Two or three days before it sunk the Titanic was warned it was approaching an ice field, ignorance, arrogance or indifference meant it ignored the warnings. Vince Cable has been a clear and lone voice about the banks and personal debt for many years. No one listened. The tragedy is that it is not the wealthy bankers who may miss out on the odd £million who will suffer, no, they will already have their lifeboats ready and their life jackets at hand. It is those (rather like the poor souls on the Titanic in third class) who bear no responsibility for this situation whatsoever, they don't have loans or mortgages or credit cards, they struggle to make ends meet already, but it is their jobs that are going and it is their futures that is being blighted.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Exclusive - Clegg's Views on Looz Muze
A mixture of sickness, moving and losing my Dad has kept me from the blogosphere recently, neither contributing or reading much. So much to say about so many things, some of you will be grateful I have kept my thoughts to myself!
With much needed help from Andy Strange I am getting my Euro Campaign website in shape (more on that later) - so have asked a few people for quotes, one being our illustrious leader. Unfortunately I must have been a little obtuse in my request because I got the message back that he was happy to do a tagline for my blog "I always read Linda's blog with a mixture of interest and trepidation!"
Anyway if Duncan or Paul can tell me how to do it I will insert it somewhere on a banner......and Nick........trepidation? Never!!!!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The man responsible for Looz Muze
I am sure many of us feel the same. As soon as we become aware of the reality of death we start to worry about losing our parents - that probably started for me around the time, aged four or five, when I sat on our garden wall wondering if there was a God or not. I came to the conclusion that if not ,that would mean the Queen was in charge.......wasn't quite sure how I felt about that! - and I guess we never stop worrying, the only difference being is that as they age the inevitable draws closer.
A few weeks before Christmas my Dad was admitted to hospital following a stroke. Although he was weak we were delighted he was allowed out a few days before Christmas, just as we were moving back into Luton. I was looking forward to being near to my parents and being able to invite the family round on Christmas Day was a great blessing. Sadly on Christmas Day evening my Dad had another fall and was readmitted to hospital. Early on New Year's Day we were all called down as he had taken a turn for the worse. Thankfully he pulled through, but never regained his ability to swallow. We had another precious few days with him before he slipped away early this Monday morning. After the distress he had often been in, finding it difficult to communicate, hating the drips and masks and other restrictions, we were thankful his final hours were peaceful.
In the midst of the carnage in Gaza, which in normal circumstances as you would expect, I would have a lot to say, it may seem an indulgence to talk about the death of a man who at 79 had had "a good innings" , but I guess for me it is a reminder of how precious every human life is. I have the comfort of knowing my Dad got the best care in hospital, has lived in peace and security all his adult life and had been able to have his family around him without restriction. In Gaza, he may well have already had to deal with the intense pain of losing children and grandchildren, or have seen them suffer through lack of proper medical care, or have lived with the constant fear of attack. But, since I have this blog, it would seem a huge omission to allow his passing to go without comment, please indulge me, or turn off now.
My Dad loved children, having along with my Mum produced five of us I am glad he did! As a child I remember the fun we had, he always had the most amazing sense of humour, which endured right until the end. Although it would probably be frowned upon now, every Saturday night we had a family "Port and Lemon" party (only the smallest dash of port of course!) dancing to Herb Alpert, Jim Reeves et al, and then, quite regularly, that party would be extended to include all the neighbours. Of course we would get packed off to bed, but would often stay awake listening to the singing, or peeping through the curtains as my Dad lead the revellers around Corncrake Close doing the conga! Sometimes, we would wake at 6 or 7 in the morning to find the party still in full swing, amused to see the adults taking turns on the slide.
My Dad also had a very caring side. He could never bear to see anyone suffering and would always go out of his way to help others. I will never forget the day he came home in tears and asked us all to sort out toys for him. He had been to a family where they also had many children, but they had no toys. And it wasn't our cast offs he took, I will never forget that he also took our much loved rocking horse, but gave us all a better understanding of how privileged we were. When his best friend developed motor neuron disease he was devastated and constantly tried to come up with inventions to make life easier for Tom. I well remember the contraption he devised that meant Tom could turn pages by slightly moving his head, in order to be able to continue to read.
He was also a bit clever, with an IQ of 160, but always regretted that his family had not been able to afford to send him to university. A veracious reader with an amazing general knowledge, we always used to urge him to go on Mastermind, his response was that he wouldn't have a specialist subject. This despite the fact that he would read and reread Churchill, Pepys, Kipling.........and of course Spike Milligan :-).
Unlike his shop steward, old Labour brother Ken (who was nick named Red Ken at Vauxhall in the days of Red Robbo), my Dad did not have a strong political allegiance. He would waver among the parties, but I am pleased to say that in later years he was a Lib Dem voter! But he and his sister Lindy, did instill in me a strong commitment to social justice and an irreverent attitude to authority!
All over Luton are buildings designed by my Dad and he has left a physical legacy in bricks and mortar, but he has also left a far more important legacy in our hearts. I know I will never match him in intellect, compassion or humour......................but I know he will continue to be my inspiration for as long as I live.
A few days before he died I passed on messages from two dear friends, Chrissie and Simon, that they sent their love and were praying for him. Though his speech was so difficult to understand he asked why was anyone interested in him, Denis Jack? Well Dad, lots of us were interested in you, and loved you so much. You have enriched all our lives and y
our memory will continue to do so. Pam, your wife for nearly 58 years, your five children, twelve grandchildren and one great grandchild will all miss you so much, but I trust, we will all in different ways, continue to reflect aspects of your amazing character.
our memory will continue to do so. Pam, your wife for nearly 58 years, your five children, twelve grandchildren and one great grandchild will all miss you so much, but I trust, we will all in different ways, continue to reflect aspects of your amazing character.Saturday, December 20, 2008
Tory Central Office in a Spin..............
Well, Bedford may be the centre of the universe, but this evening it may well be the seedbed of the demise of the Tory facade of being electable. News comes to me from a very reliable source that one Cllr Peter Hand, lately of Nadine Dorries office, has resigned as a councillor on both the County and Borough. Not only that, but he has set in motion a domino effect. Two more candidates have resigned and others are due to follow.
This is serious, not only for the Tories locally, but it could cause national embarrassment, hence my intelligence that Central Office is already involved. The word on the street is that activists and candidates are a tad peed off with their candidate Richard Fuller. Now, it is not unusual for MPs to represent constituencies they don't live in. Some live relatively near, 10, 20 miles, others rather further away......Richard Fuller has taken virtual representation to the nenth degree, he thinks he can represent Bedford from.....New York! I am not sure if this is the underlying issue for Bedford Tories. I actually get along with Richard rather well, he is always charming, chivalrous and engaging, so I have to admit to being rather surprised that he has allegedly become unpopular with his own kin. This turn of events is even more surprising given the formidable current leader of the Tories on Bedford Borough, Nicky (she who must be obeyed) Attenborough. Now for Nicky to lose control so spectacularly is astounding and paves the way for us to be the largest group on the new unitary authority in June.
It has to be confessed that Peter Hand, along with Andrew McConnell, is one of my "Tory Boys" - I may not share his politics, but I like him enormously. So, despite that fact that I have no truck with the Tories, I think they have shot themselves in both feet by peeing off such a talented and promising young man. This exposes the fault lines in the party in Bedford.........but I am very sure these fault lines extend far beyond Bedford.
This is serious, not only for the Tories locally, but it could cause national embarrassment, hence my intelligence that Central Office is already involved. The word on the street is that activists and candidates are a tad peed off with their candidate Richard Fuller. Now, it is not unusual for MPs to represent constituencies they don't live in. Some live relatively near, 10, 20 miles, others rather further away......Richard Fuller has taken virtual representation to the nenth degree, he thinks he can represent Bedford from.....New York! I am not sure if this is the underlying issue for Bedford Tories. I actually get along with Richard rather well, he is always charming, chivalrous and engaging, so I have to admit to being rather surprised that he has allegedly become unpopular with his own kin. This turn of events is even more surprising given the formidable current leader of the Tories on Bedford Borough, Nicky (she who must be obeyed) Attenborough. Now for Nicky to lose control so spectacularly is astounding and paves the way for us to be the largest group on the new unitary authority in June.
It has to be confessed that Peter Hand, along with Andrew McConnell, is one of my "Tory Boys" - I may not share his politics, but I like him enormously. So, despite that fact that I have no truck with the Tories, I think they have shot themselves in both feet by peeing off such a talented and promising young man. This exposes the fault lines in the party in Bedford.........but I am very sure these fault lines extend far beyond Bedford.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Back in the Saddle...........be warned!
Phew, at last I am feeling almost back to normal (OK James Graham et al I know you may consider that a contradiction in terms!). Being reminded that I am no spring chicken and unable to shake of bugs the way I used to (cue violins)........but I have managed a trip Belfast and back and have regained enough energy to return to throwing in my 10penneth on matters political once again. Not being arsed isn't something I am often prone to, but that would be an accurate description of how I have felt for the past three weeks.
So, what to chat about? Now there's the thing. We are rapidly approaching silly season, time for the next chapter of my fairy story methinks. I suppose what has been exercising me somewhat is how we muscle in on what has been a Tory Labour ping pong game with us still struggling to get a shot in. With, of course, the notable exception of Vince. But we can't build a credible alternative government without a team where all are pulling their weight. We have no choice but to do what Nick Clegg said we would do, be radical and risky..........er...........yes. To be honest I am a tad disappointed with our front bench, imagine if they all had the "Vince" factor, how formidable would we be then? OK, Vince is a man whose time has come, there is no doubt, but there are issues across the portfolios where we could be offering intelligent, reasoned and heavyweight analysis and ideas. We can't just blame the media, this is the media after all, who can't get enough of Vince. It is surely time for a shift in policy towards ideas that contrast sharply with both Labour and Tory, to offer the people of this country a truly radical alternative. To start with, of course, we will lose support, but in my view pruning is essential to strong growth. Can't we seek to build something along the lines that Labour did so successfully early in the last century, that was prepared to start small, to challenge, to draw clear lines in the sand, to give ordinary people something they could not only believe in but trust. I honestly believe we can, but it will mean some sacrifices. It may mean some of our MP's lose their seats because we are no longer fudging the issues we fear will alienate some of our supporters. But for me it is the only hope for us to ever truly become the force in British politics we all know we could and should be.
OK, well, indulge me, I haven't had a good rant for a while!
Well, that's it, my starter for ten, for the mo. Vintage readers will remember however the nightmare I had when I moved last time, well, all being well I am on the move again at the end of the week, so may enter into another period of enforced purdah. I will say no more about it until I am safely deposited in my new place, having had two fall through already, I am trying not to get too excited.
So, what to chat about? Now there's the thing. We are rapidly approaching silly season, time for the next chapter of my fairy story methinks. I suppose what has been exercising me somewhat is how we muscle in on what has been a Tory Labour ping pong game with us still struggling to get a shot in. With, of course, the notable exception of Vince. But we can't build a credible alternative government without a team where all are pulling their weight. We have no choice but to do what Nick Clegg said we would do, be radical and risky..........er...........yes. To be honest I am a tad disappointed with our front bench, imagine if they all had the "Vince" factor, how formidable would we be then? OK, Vince is a man whose time has come, there is no doubt, but there are issues across the portfolios where we could be offering intelligent, reasoned and heavyweight analysis and ideas. We can't just blame the media, this is the media after all, who can't get enough of Vince. It is surely time for a shift in policy towards ideas that contrast sharply with both Labour and Tory, to offer the people of this country a truly radical alternative. To start with, of course, we will lose support, but in my view pruning is essential to strong growth. Can't we seek to build something along the lines that Labour did so successfully early in the last century, that was prepared to start small, to challenge, to draw clear lines in the sand, to give ordinary people something they could not only believe in but trust. I honestly believe we can, but it will mean some sacrifices. It may mean some of our MP's lose their seats because we are no longer fudging the issues we fear will alienate some of our supporters. But for me it is the only hope for us to ever truly become the force in British politics we all know we could and should be.
OK, well, indulge me, I haven't had a good rant for a while!
Well, that's it, my starter for ten, for the mo. Vintage readers will remember however the nightmare I had when I moved last time, well, all being well I am on the move again at the end of the week, so may enter into another period of enforced purdah. I will say no more about it until I am safely deposited in my new place, having had two fall through already, I am trying not to get too excited.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Taking a leaf out of Obama's book - Yes WE CAN!
He may not have managed to take the Henley seat, but Stephen Kearney is using his vast experience of community development to help us build this party.
Tonight Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats have Stephen and Julia Olson as their guest speakers following their AGM (8pm at the South London Mission).
During the late 1980s Stephen and Julia set up a charity that creates networks of individuals who take a role in changing the way public services are delivered and changing the priorities of politicians through social action. In 1993 they trained in Citizen Organising with Ed Chambers and Ernie Cortez from the Industrial Areas Foundation in the States, the same organisation that trained Barack Obama to be an organiser. Tonight they will be speaking about how they could apply their unique organising process and training to equip the most energetic "agents of change" in the Liberal Democrats, to transform and shape British politics in the next 5 years.
I am sorry, that since I am only slowly emerging from my duvet chrysalis I will miss it, but I know Stephen and Julia are committed to sharing their knowledge with the wider party and I am excited about the impact they can and will have on our grass roots organisation.
Tonight Bermondsey and Old Southwark Liberal Democrats have Stephen and Julia Olson as their guest speakers following their AGM (8pm at the South London Mission).
During the late 1980s Stephen and Julia set up a charity that creates networks of individuals who take a role in changing the way public services are delivered and changing the priorities of politicians through social action. In 1993 they trained in Citizen Organising with Ed Chambers and Ernie Cortez from the Industrial Areas Foundation in the States, the same organisation that trained Barack Obama to be an organiser. Tonight they will be speaking about how they could apply their unique organising process and training to equip the most energetic "agents of change" in the Liberal Democrats, to transform and shape British politics in the next 5 years.
I am sorry, that since I am only slowly emerging from my duvet chrysalis I will miss it, but I know Stephen and Julia are committed to sharing their knowledge with the wider party and I am excited about the impact they can and will have on our grass roots organisation.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Hiding under the duvet - the end of Looz Muze?
I am shocked to note I last posted almost two weeks ago. I have a good excuse, having been unable to make the short journey from my bed to my PC - no emails, no Facebook, no Lib Dem Blogs - no Looz Muze...........perhaps the world is a shinier place with me hiding under the duvet coughing for England! But, I was given some wise advice a couple of weeks ago by a fellow blogger (who will remain nameless but a prize for anyone who picks up the clue!), who felt I should consider putting my blog to bed - not allowing it even the occasional cough or splutter, confining meself to anonymous comments on LDV et al whenever I found my knickers in a twist about this that or the other.
Well, I enjoy a challenge, it will be a bit like being on a diet - will I reach that unobtainable goal - or will I give in and indulge in the odd Blogger's Pavlova of light and airy musings toned down with a dollop of opinionated cream? It will be a difficult process for me - I will have to vent my spleen elsewhere.............hmmmmmmmmmmm
Anyway - I have until the end of the year to put in a few more tuppence worths. I intend to make the most of it!
Well, I enjoy a challenge, it will be a bit like being on a diet - will I reach that unobtainable goal - or will I give in and indulge in the odd Blogger's Pavlova of light and airy musings toned down with a dollop of opinionated cream? It will be a difficult process for me - I will have to vent my spleen elsewhere.............hmmmmmmmmmmm
Anyway - I have until the end of the year to put in a few more tuppence worths. I intend to make the most of it!
Friday, November 21, 2008
What's the difference between the LGA and the GLA?
As already reported - I have had a bit of a week. It started on Sunday when I met with a fellow blogger (guess who) who advised me that my blog had to die. On Monday I went to a Polish reception at the LGA................except that no one at the LGA knew what I was talking about! I called Fiyaz and Meral, no reply, Nick and Simon, no reply. Now what? A flash of inspiration - Nick's office must know where he is speaking. Yes, they did. It was City Hall......GLA not LGA.............
I jumped in a cab with no money and asked if he would accept a card, yes, but could he swipe it? Er.........declined. Next card? Declined. The cab driver, Darrell, kindly dropped me at Westminster and told me to take the tube to Tower Hill and cross the bridge. Could I find the bridge? No. I set off in the wrong direction and jumped in another cab telling him he would have to go via a cash point. Then the traffic was so bad I said I would jump out and walk.
I finally arrived, an hour later, just as Nick Clegg was finishing his speech. Thankfully Jeremy, sorry Jonathan Fryer was there to record the event. I did get to hear Simon (is there any country in the world he hasn't visited?) Hughes and enjoy supper with Fiyaz, Iman and Jeremy er Jonathan, afterwards.
The following morning I went into panic mode, my Blackberry was missing! All you Blackberry owners will understand my distress (by the way do read Who Moved my Blackberry - hilarious!)........but I had been in work less than half an hour when Darrell called. He had found my Blackberry in his cab. Thankfully it displays my name and where I work, so he had kindly phoned the FSA and asked for me. What a darling, he then made a detour in the evening to drop it off at the Sanctuary pub where we had all gathered after FPC. How lucky am I???!
I jumped in a cab with no money and asked if he would accept a card, yes, but could he swipe it? Er.........declined. Next card? Declined. The cab driver, Darrell, kindly dropped me at Westminster and told me to take the tube to Tower Hill and cross the bridge. Could I find the bridge? No. I set off in the wrong direction and jumped in another cab telling him he would have to go via a cash point. Then the traffic was so bad I said I would jump out and walk.
I finally arrived, an hour later, just as Nick Clegg was finishing his speech. Thankfully Jeremy, sorry Jonathan Fryer was there to record the event. I did get to hear Simon (is there any country in the world he hasn't visited?) Hughes and enjoy supper with Fiyaz, Iman and Jeremy er Jonathan, afterwards.
The following morning I went into panic mode, my Blackberry was missing! All you Blackberry owners will understand my distress (by the way do read Who Moved my Blackberry - hilarious!)........but I had been in work less than half an hour when Darrell called. He had found my Blackberry in his cab. Thankfully it displays my name and where I work, so he had kindly phoned the FSA and asked for me. What a darling, he then made a detour in the evening to drop it off at the Sanctuary pub where we had all gathered after FPC. How lucky am I???!
A Sizemic Shift in the Lib Dems goes Unnoticed?
Well, having had a week and a half (more later) I have scoured Lib Dem Blogs for any reporting of Tuesday's FPC.........the most exciting night of the year and it goes uncommented on??! Bring back Alex Wilcock - that's wot I say!
A couple of weeks ago I was en route to the member's dining room with a pal when I bumped into Steve Webb - he congratulated me on my re election to FPC and commented about how many "lefties" had been elected..........hmmmmmm. So, little miss big mouth is no longer in a minority in shouting the odds about Trident, Tax Cuts et al?
Tuesday evening was elections night. Elections were held for a number of FPC positions, most importantly vice-chairs to Nick Clegg. The MP vice chair, Danny Alexander, was elected unopposed, but there were 4 contenders for the 2 ordinary member positions, current v-c, fellow blogger and Looz Muze chaperone - Jeremy Hargreaves, ex head of Policy - Richard Grayson, former v-c Ruth Coleman and former chair of the Security Working Group, Julie Smith. The result was a clear win for Richard Grayson and a tie between Jeremy and Julie - leading to a run off. While we were awaiting the result of that contest, we held hustings for FPC rep to ELDR Council. Two candidates, myself and Julie Smith. Julie has been the incumbent for the past couple of years but I had decided to stand on the basis that we both offered something quite different. Julie is an expert in European Politics and clearly brings a knowledge and expertise to the table that I never could, however I felt my strength was in representing the progressive wing of our party, as well as bringing a desire to ensure we really begin to connect with people on European issues. So I was really pleased to win the nomination, although felt bad that Julie, who I had expected to get v-c, ended up with nothing. But, I think both Richard's and my elections demonstrate that shift in the composition of the FPC, a perspective confirmed when I was chatting to an MP this morning (who will remain nameless!) I asked if I had told him about my election, no I hadn't, but he had heard about it - someone else had commented on the fact that a "non establishment" candidate had won.
So we have an interesting year ahead on FPC. It will no longer be quite so easy to push through controversial policy. As my dear readers know, I am still a Cleggophile, but that doesn't mean I agree with all his policy priorities. I trust he will read the runes and consider how we as a party can arrive at more of a consensus on those issues that divide us, rather than it always boiling down to an adversarial battle of wills and manufactured challenge to the leadership.
A couple of weeks ago I was en route to the member's dining room with a pal when I bumped into Steve Webb - he congratulated me on my re election to FPC and commented about how many "lefties" had been elected..........hmmmmmm. So, little miss big mouth is no longer in a minority in shouting the odds about Trident, Tax Cuts et al?
Tuesday evening was elections night. Elections were held for a number of FPC positions, most importantly vice-chairs to Nick Clegg. The MP vice chair, Danny Alexander, was elected unopposed, but there were 4 contenders for the 2 ordinary member positions, current v-c, fellow blogger and Looz Muze chaperone - Jeremy Hargreaves, ex head of Policy - Richard Grayson, former v-c Ruth Coleman and former chair of the Security Working Group, Julie Smith. The result was a clear win for Richard Grayson and a tie between Jeremy and Julie - leading to a run off. While we were awaiting the result of that contest, we held hustings for FPC rep to ELDR Council. Two candidates, myself and Julie Smith. Julie has been the incumbent for the past couple of years but I had decided to stand on the basis that we both offered something quite different. Julie is an expert in European Politics and clearly brings a knowledge and expertise to the table that I never could, however I felt my strength was in representing the progressive wing of our party, as well as bringing a desire to ensure we really begin to connect with people on European issues. So I was really pleased to win the nomination, although felt bad that Julie, who I had expected to get v-c, ended up with nothing. But, I think both Richard's and my elections demonstrate that shift in the composition of the FPC, a perspective confirmed when I was chatting to an MP this morning (who will remain nameless!) I asked if I had told him about my election, no I hadn't, but he had heard about it - someone else had commented on the fact that a "non establishment" candidate had won.
So we have an interesting year ahead on FPC. It will no longer be quite so easy to push through controversial policy. As my dear readers know, I am still a Cleggophile, but that doesn't mean I agree with all his policy priorities. I trust he will read the runes and consider how we as a party can arrive at more of a consensus on those issues that divide us, rather than it always boiling down to an adversarial battle of wills and manufactured challenge to the leadership.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"What next for Lembit"...........Big Brother?
Having been away for a few days I caught up with the Lib Dem Blogosphere this evening and noticed the speculation about what next for Lembit. This following the day that I awoke to the news that Brian Paddick was to star in I'm a Celebrity. I scoured the posts, expecting them to be full of the news, but very few picked it up and with none of the vitriol clearly reserved for Lembit.
Given the fuss about Lembit's alleged appearance in Big Brother and the concerns that his celebrity status somehow made him a joke, I had, it has to be said, expected more comment about Brian's decision.
Actually, my view is that the success or failure of Brian's decision rests entirely with him. As an ardent anti-war campaigner I had really hoped that George Galloway's appearance on Big Brother may have resulted in opportunities for him to get a powerful anti-war message across. Instead, sadly, he totally punctured his credibility and will forever be remembered not for his anti war stance, or incredible oration.........no, he will be remembered for making a complete **** of himself. So Brian is taking a huge risk. Maybe the money is reward enough for that risk. Maybe he is banking on being elevated to the Lords where he no longer has to run the gauntlet of having to persuade the great unwashed of his worth. Maybe he doesn't really care. Whatever. Despite his infuriating statements about not being a politician et al, I wish him well and hope he will take the opportunity to get across at least something about why he is a Lib Dem and why he believes it is our policies that can ultimately really make a difference to people's lives.
So what about Lembit? Well, the same surely applies? Frankly, given the kick in the teeth he has been given by the party, I wouldn't blame him if he decided to take up the offer on Big Brother. At least then he would have the chance to talk directly to the electorate, rather than spend his time talking to the converted like most of the rest of us.
Given the fuss about Lembit's alleged appearance in Big Brother and the concerns that his celebrity status somehow made him a joke, I had, it has to be said, expected more comment about Brian's decision.
Actually, my view is that the success or failure of Brian's decision rests entirely with him. As an ardent anti-war campaigner I had really hoped that George Galloway's appearance on Big Brother may have resulted in opportunities for him to get a powerful anti-war message across. Instead, sadly, he totally punctured his credibility and will forever be remembered not for his anti war stance, or incredible oration.........no, he will be remembered for making a complete **** of himself. So Brian is taking a huge risk. Maybe the money is reward enough for that risk. Maybe he is banking on being elevated to the Lords where he no longer has to run the gauntlet of having to persuade the great unwashed of his worth. Maybe he doesn't really care. Whatever. Despite his infuriating statements about not being a politician et al, I wish him well and hope he will take the opportunity to get across at least something about why he is a Lib Dem and why he believes it is our policies that can ultimately really make a difference to people's lives.
So what about Lembit? Well, the same surely applies? Frankly, given the kick in the teeth he has been given by the party, I wouldn't blame him if he decided to take up the offer on Big Brother. At least then he would have the chance to talk directly to the electorate, rather than spend his time talking to the converted like most of the rest of us.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Lembit's support for Ros
In between house hunting (North Herts fell through) babysitting and charging down to Portsmouth for a meeting, I am late to the post presidential debate. Well done to Ros, regular readers will know that I had a difficult decision about who to back and I have no doubt she will do a great job of representing the activists and implementing the recommendations of the Bones commission. Also it is great to see a little more gender balance within the hierarchy in the party!
For those who missed it I wanted to reproduce Lembit's statement following Ros's victory -
"I congratulate Ros for her clear victory. If Barack Obama had employed Ros Scott as his campaign manager, he'd have won by even more than he did!
As a seasoned local government campaigner Ros has reflected and represented the needs of the Party. Her insights are things which she can now put into practice. I know she will do her absolute best to achieve exactly this.
Chandila Fernando ' the Troubleshooter! ' has impressed a huge number of people with his strategic look at what the Party does well and how it could do better. His outspoken mission to introduce a more professional and externally orientated approach is tremendously valuable and we need to see how best to implement his suggestions.
I thank my team for a clear, honest and genuine campaign. We got on with the job of putting forward our proposition, and what we intend to do for the Lib Dems. We kept it positive and we 'kept it real.' The best way I can pay you back is by living up to your political expectations as we pursue our inspiring agenda within the Party.
As Ros embarks on her role, she can be assured of one thing: my absolute and unconditional support. She will be President and let me make this clear: I'm in her team now.
Personally, it's been a hard year, not least because of the death of a very close friend, David Hamer in August. It knocked me back a lot, especially over summer and there's no point pretending it didnt. It's also made me stronger. I feel more centred, more focussed, more ready to contribute in the public square than ever before. So for me this result is a knock back, but its not a knock out. I will continue to use my skills to my best ability to push the boundaries, and do what I try to do best - taking politics to people who aren't political but who do care.
And in this spirit I'll be working on four areas of policy I feel I have something unique and distinctive to contribute, and on which, since I am not President, I am now free to campaign. These are: promoting serious political engagement in the field of international terrorism, the prescription of hard drugs to recorded addicts, a reassessment of our attitude towards nuclear power and a commitment to positive campaigning. I will also use my profile to engage people in civic society. But no more of this today, because today is not my day. It is the day for the President-elect.
Till January 1st we continue to be guided by President Simon Hughes. He's a great inspiration to the membership, and a great friend to me personally. You've done good mate, and I'm proud to have been your Second in Command.
So now we've got President Obama in America, and President Scott in Britain! Democrats are on the move. He'll make it happen over there. She'll make it happen over here. And as you do Ros, I'm with you all the way."
For those who missed it I wanted to reproduce Lembit's statement following Ros's victory -
"I congratulate Ros for her clear victory. If Barack Obama had employed Ros Scott as his campaign manager, he'd have won by even more than he did!
As a seasoned local government campaigner Ros has reflected and represented the needs of the Party. Her insights are things which she can now put into practice. I know she will do her absolute best to achieve exactly this.
Chandila Fernando ' the Troubleshooter! ' has impressed a huge number of people with his strategic look at what the Party does well and how it could do better. His outspoken mission to introduce a more professional and externally orientated approach is tremendously valuable and we need to see how best to implement his suggestions.
I thank my team for a clear, honest and genuine campaign. We got on with the job of putting forward our proposition, and what we intend to do for the Lib Dems. We kept it positive and we 'kept it real.' The best way I can pay you back is by living up to your political expectations as we pursue our inspiring agenda within the Party.
As Ros embarks on her role, she can be assured of one thing: my absolute and unconditional support. She will be President and let me make this clear: I'm in her team now.
Personally, it's been a hard year, not least because of the death of a very close friend, David Hamer in August. It knocked me back a lot, especially over summer and there's no point pretending it didnt. It's also made me stronger. I feel more centred, more focussed, more ready to contribute in the public square than ever before. So for me this result is a knock back, but its not a knock out. I will continue to use my skills to my best ability to push the boundaries, and do what I try to do best - taking politics to people who aren't political but who do care.
And in this spirit I'll be working on four areas of policy I feel I have something unique and distinctive to contribute, and on which, since I am not President, I am now free to campaign. These are: promoting serious political engagement in the field of international terrorism, the prescription of hard drugs to recorded addicts, a reassessment of our attitude towards nuclear power and a commitment to positive campaigning. I will also use my profile to engage people in civic society. But no more of this today, because today is not my day. It is the day for the President-elect.
Till January 1st we continue to be guided by President Simon Hughes. He's a great inspiration to the membership, and a great friend to me personally. You've done good mate, and I'm proud to have been your Second in Command.
So now we've got President Obama in America, and President Scott in Britain! Democrats are on the move. He'll make it happen over there. She'll make it happen over here. And as you do Ros, I'm with you all the way."
Monday, November 03, 2008
Time to let peace break out in our party?
Just back from the ELDR congress in Stockholm. Great company, great food and outstanding debate. There is something so much more grown up about European politics. A system based on the need for consensus, hasn't resulted in stalemate. The ya boo politics we have grown up with in this country, the need to "beat" the opposition, sadly even extends into the shenanigans in our party.
I travelled with Paul Reynolds, an economics professor and a good friend..........but politically sitting almost diametrically from me. We had lots of debates where neither convinced the other, but we began to think about what consensus might look like. As Paul sagely observed, if we could begin to crack some of the nuts on policy that so divides our party, we could be so much more effective. Those almost 50% of us who opposed Trident and the tax position on "Make it Happen" have been slapped down by this system. Ming Campbell was wheeled out to swing the Trident debate because it was played up as an attack on his leadership, similarly the great and good were wheeled out to sway the doubters in "Make it Happen". Wouldn't it be good if our elders and betters were more concerned about developing policy we could all live with, rather than having to prevail all the time?
OK, I can already hear the cogs wheeling in the heads of my detractors and of course there will be issues where we can never reach that point, but isn't it time we considered that as a last rather than first resort?
The issue that of course is foremost in many minds for the next conference is of course tuition fees. If we thought Trident was bloody, this I fear may all end in more than tears. I know that the working party has gone back to try and find a solution and I would so strongly urge them to do so. But, I am not convinced that will happen. And of course, as someone who likes a good argument and a bit of drama at conference, there are many who would be disappointed if we lost all that.
However, what was clear in Stockholm is that it is still possible to have robust debate but there is an underlying and overwhelming respect for the notion that where possible we need to be able to take everyone with us. An example was on the issue of a European Army, a concept many are wedded to, however, the congress was willing to accept that this was something that many member states were not ready to consider and pushing for it would cause some of us real problems. This approach did not make the debate any less passionate, but I would argue enabled the result to be far more effective.
I am reminded of the time, many years ago now, when I was speaking on the same platform as Malcolm Wicks about his bold new idea for the "Connexions Service". I had serious concerns, which I expressed. On the way to the conference I had been very busy looking up to see the street names to check I was heading in the right direction - I was wearing a skirt with a split in the front and consequently, not looking where I was going, ended impaled on a bollard! This became a great metaphor to finish my speech "It's all very well knowing where you want to get to, but you need to be careful how you get there". We can be so obsessed with our ultimate goal that we can leave others and even ourselves, impaled on the invisible bollards - with absolutely no chance of ever arriving at our dreamed of destination.
I travelled with Paul Reynolds, an economics professor and a good friend..........but politically sitting almost diametrically from me. We had lots of debates where neither convinced the other, but we began to think about what consensus might look like. As Paul sagely observed, if we could begin to crack some of the nuts on policy that so divides our party, we could be so much more effective. Those almost 50% of us who opposed Trident and the tax position on "Make it Happen" have been slapped down by this system. Ming Campbell was wheeled out to swing the Trident debate because it was played up as an attack on his leadership, similarly the great and good were wheeled out to sway the doubters in "Make it Happen". Wouldn't it be good if our elders and betters were more concerned about developing policy we could all live with, rather than having to prevail all the time?
OK, I can already hear the cogs wheeling in the heads of my detractors and of course there will be issues where we can never reach that point, but isn't it time we considered that as a last rather than first resort?
The issue that of course is foremost in many minds for the next conference is of course tuition fees. If we thought Trident was bloody, this I fear may all end in more than tears. I know that the working party has gone back to try and find a solution and I would so strongly urge them to do so. But, I am not convinced that will happen. And of course, as someone who likes a good argument and a bit of drama at conference, there are many who would be disappointed if we lost all that.
However, what was clear in Stockholm is that it is still possible to have robust debate but there is an underlying and overwhelming respect for the notion that where possible we need to be able to take everyone with us. An example was on the issue of a European Army, a concept many are wedded to, however, the congress was willing to accept that this was something that many member states were not ready to consider and pushing for it would cause some of us real problems. This approach did not make the debate any less passionate, but I would argue enabled the result to be far more effective.
I am reminded of the time, many years ago now, when I was speaking on the same platform as Malcolm Wicks about his bold new idea for the "Connexions Service". I had serious concerns, which I expressed. On the way to the conference I had been very busy looking up to see the street names to check I was heading in the right direction - I was wearing a skirt with a split in the front and consequently, not looking where I was going, ended impaled on a bollard! This became a great metaphor to finish my speech "It's all very well knowing where you want to get to, but you need to be careful how you get there". We can be so obsessed with our ultimate goal that we can leave others and even ourselves, impaled on the invisible bollards - with absolutely no chance of ever arriving at our dreamed of destination.
The Opik Obama Connection.................
Responding to claims in the weekend papers that the campaign to stop MP Lembit Öpik becoming President of the Liberal Democrats “has turned nasty,” Lembit said: “I think we need to calm down a bit here. It seems some fellow Lib Dems have mixed up which Presidential election this is. Well, I’m not running for the Whitehouse! We’re talking about the Presidency of the Liberal Democrats which is important, but it’s not about the leadership of the free world. In that spirit, I wish Mr Obama every success, and I’d like to think that, if he wasn’t so busy at the moment, he’d do the same for me!”
So, what is the connection? Both running for President, both with unusual names beginning with O, and elected, both will be the first Presidents of their respective country/party with a surname beginning with O........something quite symmetrical about that don't you think!!!!
So, what is the connection? Both running for President, both with unusual names beginning with O, and elected, both will be the first Presidents of their respective country/party with a surname beginning with O........something quite symmetrical about that don't you think!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)