The news that my infamous MP had hotfooted it to the jungle hit me between the bleary eyes at some point during the Today programme this morning. A few minutes later I had ITV Daybreak on the phone, asking if I could come on the programme to talk about it tomorrow - swiftly followed by the BBC and Sky. Unfortunately I had to tell them I am currently the PCC candidate for Bedfordshire, which meant they all dropped me like a hot potato.
So, I am forced to resort to my blog. Of course the last time I resorted to my blog to take on Ms Dorries she contacted a dear friend and told him she was going to sue me. I confess my response was, bring it on. The fact is that she apparently lives under the misapprehension that she is "Teflon Woman" that nothing she says or does will have any consequence. She got away with lying to her constituents (admitting she pretended she was in the constituency when she was apparently in her "First Home" in the Cotswolds), and allegedly fiddling her expenses (apparently despite a police investigation the CPS didn't want to prosecute - Denis McShane come to mind?) oh and of course, Derek Conway may have paid the ultimate price for employing his children while they were students, but apparently that is OK for Ms Dorries.
But maybe this latest escapade will turn out to be that step too far. She has upset her constituency party once again (I understand they weren't best pleased when she spoke about "killing" Cameron) and at last has forced the hand of the parliamentary party who have now withdrawn the whip.
So, what would happen to you or me if we just decided, on a whim, to up and leave work for a week and let's say....swan off to Australia? Well, when I was in the army that would certainly have been considered going AWOL (Absent Without Leave) or desertion (once a capital offence). As an employee I would certainly have been on a disciplinary, and more than likely dismissed. But of course, when you are employed by 70,000 odd constituents.....it's not quite so easy to get dismissed - and even if you upset them all, you generally get a breathing space until the next election.
Ms Dorries claims that she is doing this because she can reach millions of people with her message about 20 weeks.........I don't want to rain on your parade Nadine, but I suspect it was more to do with the alleged £40,000 fee? But, you could prove me wrong and donate it to a local charity. Maybe a foodbank? They are after all the fastest growing charity sector at the moment. And maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but I thought the job of the MP was to reach out to their constituents - not half the known universe?
However, as a pal pointed out earlier this evening, you could see it as that she is only following in the footsteps of our erstwhile transported ancestors, but in this case, self sentencing herself!
I'm not usually too keen on 'I'm a Celebrity' but if the threatened Lib Dem phone bank comes off......we may be in for a treat in the Bushtucker Trials :-)
Showing posts with label Nadine Dorries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nadine Dorries. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Monday, August 29, 2011
Tulisa Contostavlos or Nadine Dorries - who would be your choice of Role Model?
Last week I watched "My Mum and Me" the inspirational documentary featuring Tulisa Contostavlos and exploring the challenges faced by young carers. She not only traced her own experience of growing up caring for a mother with schizoaffective disorder but introduced us to other young people in similar circumstances. It certainly struck a chord with me, having grown up with a bi-polar father and having a sister with schizoaffective/bi-polar disorder, I am only too aware of the impact living with someone with a mental health condition has on the whole family. For me, even at 14, it was terrifying when my father had his first "episode", but it only really hit me how terrible it was for my mum when at 18, stationed in Germany, I was sent home to care for the family since my mum had also had a breakdown, having been totally stressed out by watching for the signs of my dad becoming ill. She was always a buffer for all of us children, but even then, I know it had a negative impact on our schooling and sense of security. How can you concentrate on your studies when your father is seriously ill, behaving in a way that is at best unsettling and at worst terrifying? So how much more unsettling and terryfing must if have been for Tulisa, on her own, no father or brothers and sisters for support, being the only one having to deal with her mother's terrifying illness from 11 years old? No wonder it impacted on more than just her schooling!
So re-reading Nadine Dorries' self-righteous hypocritical rant against Tulisa becoming an X Factor judge has, I am afraid, initiated a right royal rant of my own! If Nadine was in any position whatsoever to pass judgement on anyone else, even then, what she says is cruel, self serving and ignorant. Her basic, flawed logic is apparently based on her view that no one deserves as second chance........oh, unless your name is Cameron or Coulson of course. So to take her argument to its logical conclusion, Cameron, who in his youth, despite coming from a privileged background, allegedly took drugs and smashed up places, really should never have been allowed to become an MP, let alone Prime Minister?
So this apparent paragon of virtue who pontificates on everyone else without allowing them the right to reply, thinks she can stand in judgement on a young woman who has taken on huge caring responsibilities at an early age, has had mental health issues to deal with herself and still managed to turn her life around? The most ridiculous comment in her blog claims "And for anyone who is even getting near to thinking it's ok, because she has turned her life around and what she is doing is showing teenagers that it's ok to behave badly, because they can turn it around too, let's get real shall we?" Who on earth would make that argument? No-one would argue it's OK to behave badly - but surely those who have been able to turn their lives around should be applauded? Where I do agree with Nadine is that not every young person can become a superstar, but whether we like it or not, many do look to the stars for their role models. What they also need are role models closer to home - sadly with the cuts to the voluntary and local authority youth provision many of those opportunities are being lost. And I haven't seen Nadine argue once against the swingeing cuts Central Beds have made to their Youth and Connexions services who for many young people would have offered just the kind of role models they need.
So, my message to Nadine is please, for once, start putting your money where your mouth is. If you really care about young people, demonstrate it by recognising the support they need and deserve. You clearly care deeply for children before they are born, if only that care and concern extended beyond the womb! I hope you will watch Tulisa's story with just a little compassion and perhaps think twice before judging her, or calling others "nutters" (something you also called me) without a modicum of understanding about the challenges many of our young people face. And I trust having watched it you may have the good grace to apologise.
And to Tulisa I would say thank you. Thank you for being so honest, for admitting to not only what you have done wrong in your life but also for speaking openly about what it is like to grow up caring for a parent with a mental health condition. Thank you for the genuine care and understanding you showed for other young carers and for drawing our attention to a group of young people who so often get ignored because they are not on the streets causing a problem, but dealing with fear, anxiety and isolation on their own. I think you are a fantastic role model and I am delighted that you are using that position to make a real difference to the lives of other young people.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Bring Back National Service............and the Birch........and Zero Tolerance..........and David Blunkett?....and Jack Straw?
The past week has seen a cornucopia of opinion and counter opinion in relation to the shocking events that swept so many cities in this country. From Melanie Phillips blaming the "liberal intelligentsia" (Melanie darling you are SO last season!) or the delightful Nadine Dorries citing the "moral vacuum"....ah yes dear, so that's what you are blaming for your own lack of moral fortitude is it? Now let's check out your alleged behaviour - hmmmm, adultery, lying and stealing? Not bad to be going on with. But of course, you haven't been caught looting Louboutins from Selfridges, no you were able to loot the public purse without breaking a single window! Rather like your millionaire pal George "we're all in this together" Osborne - you just don't get irony! This is in marked contrast it has to be said to the brave and perceptive Peter Oborne, whose analysis in his Telegraph piece this week was characteristically spot on. Ah, now there's a man the right could do well to look to for their moral compass.
Up and down the country, sorry England, sentences are being dished out like smarties. Sentences that on the face of it appear to betray a knee jerk response to a phenomenon that has at least unsettled and at worst shocked us all.
As a party we are committed to evidence based practice, now, more than ever, we need to demonstrate that this is what distinguishes us from our Tory partners. The likes of Phillips and Dorries may, rather like Cameron and May, want to absolve their class from any responsibility by dumping it in part on those immoral nasty liberals, but let's consider the facts. We have had decades of totally illiberal political leadership! Thatcher - liberal? Major - liberal? Blair - liberal? Brown - liberal? Cameron.........ah yes, claimed to be a liberal once, but prick him and does he not bleed pure illiberality?!
So this morning, as the dust of the last turbulent week (is it only a week?) settles - we have the unedifying spectacle of a prime minister, clearly out of his depth, calling for.......you've guessed it ZERO TOLERANCE. Oh and then we have that novel idea, being touted in the Express that the real answer is NATIONAL SERVICE (that'll sort them out, give'em some discipline in their lives........er......I joined voluntarily and look at me!). So let's look at what happens after people come out of the armed services - disproportionately homeless, disproportionately street drinkers, disproportionately suffering from mental health conditions. Now if our prime minister's argument is to be extended to its logical conclusion, given that our "feral youth" are the products of dysfunctional parents and a sick society, presumably there are some of our service personnel who are the product of our dysfunctional and sick armed forces??? But, maybe they're right, much better to train our "feral youths" to beat up and kill foreigners in Afghanistan Iraq or Libya than let them loose over here.
Having spent the best part of my life working with and for young people (and scarily that is now a very long time!) I have lived through many moral panics. The last week is no different. And frankly isn't that different from moral panics about youth throughout the ages. Even Socrates described the youth of his day as having contempt for authority, being disrespectful to their elders, tyrannising their teachers. But, what is different in every case is the environment in which such behaviour takes place - the values which people accept or reject - the messages our young people are getting from the society in which they either participate or feel disaffected from. And given this government's belief in "nudge" theory and behavioural economics, it seems extraordinary if they do not consider this as part of what must be a proper inquiry into what happened.
So it seems to me that what this country desperately needs is a truly liberal response to what are clearly complex problems. I may have been a little reticent in expressing my anxieties about the coalition, but surely this is a golden opportunity for us to stand up and challenge so much of this knee-jerk rhetoric? Most of us agree that short sentences don't work, and many Liberal Democrats (including myself) are ambassadors for Make Justice Work, the campaign which highlights the wastefulness of short term sentences and promotes more intensive community sentencing. We also agree with using restorative justice as an alternative to custodial sentences, surely given what as happened and the evidence of how effective this approach is, our leadership should be making this point? Being faced with the consequences of your criminal behaviour can be not only far more difficult for a young person to cope with, but also is far more likely to get them to reform their ways.
Up and down the country, sorry England, sentences are being dished out like smarties. Sentences that on the face of it appear to betray a knee jerk response to a phenomenon that has at least unsettled and at worst shocked us all.
As a party we are committed to evidence based practice, now, more than ever, we need to demonstrate that this is what distinguishes us from our Tory partners. The likes of Phillips and Dorries may, rather like Cameron and May, want to absolve their class from any responsibility by dumping it in part on those immoral nasty liberals, but let's consider the facts. We have had decades of totally illiberal political leadership! Thatcher - liberal? Major - liberal? Blair - liberal? Brown - liberal? Cameron.........ah yes, claimed to be a liberal once, but prick him and does he not bleed pure illiberality?!
So this morning, as the dust of the last turbulent week (is it only a week?) settles - we have the unedifying spectacle of a prime minister, clearly out of his depth, calling for.......you've guessed it ZERO TOLERANCE. Oh and then we have that novel idea, being touted in the Express that the real answer is NATIONAL SERVICE (that'll sort them out, give'em some discipline in their lives........er......I joined voluntarily and look at me!). So let's look at what happens after people come out of the armed services - disproportionately homeless, disproportionately street drinkers, disproportionately suffering from mental health conditions. Now if our prime minister's argument is to be extended to its logical conclusion, given that our "feral youth" are the products of dysfunctional parents and a sick society, presumably there are some of our service personnel who are the product of our dysfunctional and sick armed forces??? But, maybe they're right, much better to train our "feral youths" to beat up and kill foreigners in Afghanistan Iraq or Libya than let them loose over here.
Having spent the best part of my life working with and for young people (and scarily that is now a very long time!) I have lived through many moral panics. The last week is no different. And frankly isn't that different from moral panics about youth throughout the ages. Even Socrates described the youth of his day as having contempt for authority, being disrespectful to their elders, tyrannising their teachers. But, what is different in every case is the environment in which such behaviour takes place - the values which people accept or reject - the messages our young people are getting from the society in which they either participate or feel disaffected from. And given this government's belief in "nudge" theory and behavioural economics, it seems extraordinary if they do not consider this as part of what must be a proper inquiry into what happened.
So it seems to me that what this country desperately needs is a truly liberal response to what are clearly complex problems. I may have been a little reticent in expressing my anxieties about the coalition, but surely this is a golden opportunity for us to stand up and challenge so much of this knee-jerk rhetoric? Most of us agree that short sentences don't work, and many Liberal Democrats (including myself) are ambassadors for Make Justice Work, the campaign which highlights the wastefulness of short term sentences and promotes more intensive community sentencing. We also agree with using restorative justice as an alternative to custodial sentences, surely given what as happened and the evidence of how effective this approach is, our leadership should be making this point? Being faced with the consequences of your criminal behaviour can be not only far more difficult for a young person to cope with, but also is far more likely to get them to reform their ways.
At the moment there is talk of some 3000 arrests and no doubt there will be many more, like Cameron and Johnson in their youth, who will escape justice. Do we honestly believe ALL of these rioters were criminals? Or is it more logical to conclude that there was a hardened criminal element but that many more, particularly young people, were drawn in by the mob mentality? Those young people more than any will be far more likely to respond positively with being confronted with the enormity of the consequences of their behaviour. What's that saying about acting in haste and repenting at leisure? (both young people and politicians). Don't we know that our prisons are universities of crime?
What we need now is true political leadership, a recognition that if we truly are "all in this together" we all have to take some blame for what has happened as well as some responsibility for finding solutions. There are a good few things I disagree with Nick Clegg on (!) and we have had many arguments about, however, my primary reason for supporting his leadership was that I knew him to be a true liberal, I knew that on youth issues in general and youth justice in particular, he absolutely got the need to have a liberal approach. Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes, Lynne Featherstone (another two who absolutely gets it!) and our parliamentary team have never had a better opportunity to show that leadership, to take that opportunity we allegedly joined the coalition to promote - an opportunity to ensure we try that which has never been tried in living memory - that truly liberal response.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Will David Laws go while Nadine Dorries stays?
Over 20 years ago I was at a training course about work with young women organised by the NYA (National Youth Agency). It was in the days when "anti-oppressive practice" was high on the agenda - and a debate ensued about whether it was right for the two male members of the course to even be there. Inevitably the debate turned to who was most oppressed and the difference between sexism and racism. One of the participants turned to the colleague she had came with and said "but when you walk into the room I don't even notice that you are black" - her colleague's response has stayed with me ever since - "but I do" said she.
Those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably "right on" (sorry a blast from the past when my local newspaper used to refer to me as the most "right on" councillor!) when it comes to issues of discrimination can all to often forget that we firstly do not always really understand the discrimination and oppression others face, but also just how rich the seam of discrimination is, that despite legislation, still runs through our enlightened society.
This was brought home to me during the hustings for Mid Beds when all my opponents (Nadine Dorries I expected but the Labour candidate I was rather shocked at) appeared to be vying in playing to the gallery on the issue of whether or not it was right for Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane to have been sacked - the article by that bastion of liberal sensibilities Melanie Phillips more than sums up the attitudes expressed here. Some members of the audience were incandescent and saw all this as further evidence of Christianity being undermined. As I pointed out, there are some jobs that people cannot in all conscience do because of their faith - I personally wouldn't be able to work in a betting shop - so in my view, Gary McFarlane had chosen the wrong career path, it wasn't good enough to say it was OK for him to discriminate, so was he checking the marriage certificates of all the couples he counselled, would it have been OK for him to refuse to counsel a couple of different ethnic origin because he personally didn't believe in "mixed" marriage?
I only cite these examples because for some who are very quick to condemn David Laws are equally quick to forget that despite legislation, despite protestations that someone's sexuality in this day and age shouldn't be an issue, it clearly is. Just as the dismal lack of women and BME MPs in our modern parliament demonstrates, regardless of what we claim about equality in our country - in reality we don't live it out (or are we saying that women and BME candidates aren't as good as white middle class men and that is why they are underrepresented?).
I think Sarah Bedford has brilliantly summed up the issues here, so I just had a couple of other perspectives to add.
Let's look at the facts as we know them. It seems David rented a room from his partner before he was his partner. He didn't do what others have done and take out a mortgage in order to make a nice profit in the future, he rented (at what by any standards was a reasonable rent in central London and certainly a lot less than my MP is paying for her so called second home in rural Bedfordshire) a room. Now it is not unheard of for tenants to end up in relationships with their landlord - according to David this is what happened a couple of years later. So first question - when does a "relationship" become a "partnership"? 3 months? 6 months? A year? After all - lets not forget this was David's home when he was in Westminster - it wasn't nearly as straightforward as someone meeting, and ultimately deciding to move in together. And also it seems it is fair to say this relationship did not have the other hallmarks of a "partnership" - otherwise his partner would have been sharing the house in Somerset as well surely? But, I forget, the crucial ingredient, which is why I have banged on about it so much earlier - this was a relationship that David like so many before him and so many sadly in the future, felt unable to share with his friends and family. Having gone through the pain of losing half my family when I chose inconsiderately to marry someone I loved but who happened to have a different colour skin to me, I know how real the fear of losing those you love because of the one you love, is. I have a friend who, because he married someone of a different faith has never been able to tell his father. His father doesn't even know he has five grandchildren. So those of us who think the world is such an enlightened place because of our more enlightened legislation, should seriously think again.
So my second question is - for those who are simplistically looking at this as David Laws having wrongfully claimed money for rent - what are they saying should have happened? Clearly his landlord rented a room in his home in order to recoup some of the costs of his home - something many many people do. Should he have been expected then, having entered into a relationship with David, to foot the bill and lose out on the contribution to his costs? I know many of my friends who rent rooms have to in order to meet the cost of their mortgage. Should we have expected David to move out? The irony is that if they had entered into a more formal civil partnership, sharing everything they had, presumably David would have been able to claim for the whole cost of maintaining that home as his second home. And this is where for me the true absurdity lies and why it for me is SO linked to the underlying homophobia. When I got married I moved into my husband's home. He had a high mortgage and we split all the bills - I didn't pay him rent, I contributed to the costs. So at the very minimum, if David had felt able to declare his relationship he would have been quite within his rights to claim for half. But I doubt that Sam Cam has been paying half towards the cost of the Cameron second home? The hypocrisy is palpable.
But, the reality is that for all this, it doesn't look good - and I come back to what I said about David Laws yesterday - he has a brilliant mind but intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily co terminus. Given not only the expenses scandal, but also the way others of his colleagues have been mercilessly outed, did he not think this was something he should have taken advice about? Did he really think that when he took on such a high profile and controversial role, the press would not be digging around in his private life? Maybe he sadly confused cleverness for wisdom and thought he was clever enough to outwit them. I may not agree with his politics - the reason the Tories love him is the reason I always used to wish he would run along and join them - but over the years as I said yesterday, I have come to respect him as a man who is a true liberal and deeply committed to making our country fairer and more equal - even if I don't approve of his methodology in doing so. I can't help but compare David Laws' alleged sins with those alleged of my erstwhile opponent in Mid Beds, Nadine Dorries. She who can't decide where her second home is - is it the poky 1 bedroom jobby in Gloucestershire or is it her farmhouse mansion in Bedfordshire for which we are paying a fortune? Did she produce an annual report costing nearly £10,000 and which she published on her now defunct blog, or was she confused and didn't actually produce anything, paying the money back because of a mayoral election that took place months before? Did she take her Twitter and Blog down due to police advice and because of what happened to Stephen Timms a week afterwards? Will her daughter have time to work for her full time at a nice little income of £28,000, or may she be distracted studying for her degree? Bizarrely I think the allegations surrounding Ms Dorries are far more serious, potentially criminal, and yet she is still sitting pretty in the house of contradictions.
So, getting back to David Laws, I sadly fear he has no choice but to resign and allow the Standards Commissioner to adjudicate and on a personal level, I trust he will find that his family and friends still love him, just as Simon Hughes discovered a few short years ago.
Those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably "right on" (sorry a blast from the past when my local newspaper used to refer to me as the most "right on" councillor!) when it comes to issues of discrimination can all to often forget that we firstly do not always really understand the discrimination and oppression others face, but also just how rich the seam of discrimination is, that despite legislation, still runs through our enlightened society.
This was brought home to me during the hustings for Mid Beds when all my opponents (Nadine Dorries I expected but the Labour candidate I was rather shocked at) appeared to be vying in playing to the gallery on the issue of whether or not it was right for Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane to have been sacked - the article by that bastion of liberal sensibilities Melanie Phillips more than sums up the attitudes expressed here. Some members of the audience were incandescent and saw all this as further evidence of Christianity being undermined. As I pointed out, there are some jobs that people cannot in all conscience do because of their faith - I personally wouldn't be able to work in a betting shop - so in my view, Gary McFarlane had chosen the wrong career path, it wasn't good enough to say it was OK for him to discriminate, so was he checking the marriage certificates of all the couples he counselled, would it have been OK for him to refuse to counsel a couple of different ethnic origin because he personally didn't believe in "mixed" marriage?
I only cite these examples because for some who are very quick to condemn David Laws are equally quick to forget that despite legislation, despite protestations that someone's sexuality in this day and age shouldn't be an issue, it clearly is. Just as the dismal lack of women and BME MPs in our modern parliament demonstrates, regardless of what we claim about equality in our country - in reality we don't live it out (or are we saying that women and BME candidates aren't as good as white middle class men and that is why they are underrepresented?).
I think Sarah Bedford has brilliantly summed up the issues here, so I just had a couple of other perspectives to add.
Let's look at the facts as we know them. It seems David rented a room from his partner before he was his partner. He didn't do what others have done and take out a mortgage in order to make a nice profit in the future, he rented (at what by any standards was a reasonable rent in central London and certainly a lot less than my MP is paying for her so called second home in rural Bedfordshire) a room. Now it is not unheard of for tenants to end up in relationships with their landlord - according to David this is what happened a couple of years later. So first question - when does a "relationship" become a "partnership"? 3 months? 6 months? A year? After all - lets not forget this was David's home when he was in Westminster - it wasn't nearly as straightforward as someone meeting, and ultimately deciding to move in together. And also it seems it is fair to say this relationship did not have the other hallmarks of a "partnership" - otherwise his partner would have been sharing the house in Somerset as well surely? But, I forget, the crucial ingredient, which is why I have banged on about it so much earlier - this was a relationship that David like so many before him and so many sadly in the future, felt unable to share with his friends and family. Having gone through the pain of losing half my family when I chose inconsiderately to marry someone I loved but who happened to have a different colour skin to me, I know how real the fear of losing those you love because of the one you love, is. I have a friend who, because he married someone of a different faith has never been able to tell his father. His father doesn't even know he has five grandchildren. So those of us who think the world is such an enlightened place because of our more enlightened legislation, should seriously think again.
So my second question is - for those who are simplistically looking at this as David Laws having wrongfully claimed money for rent - what are they saying should have happened? Clearly his landlord rented a room in his home in order to recoup some of the costs of his home - something many many people do. Should he have been expected then, having entered into a relationship with David, to foot the bill and lose out on the contribution to his costs? I know many of my friends who rent rooms have to in order to meet the cost of their mortgage. Should we have expected David to move out? The irony is that if they had entered into a more formal civil partnership, sharing everything they had, presumably David would have been able to claim for the whole cost of maintaining that home as his second home. And this is where for me the true absurdity lies and why it for me is SO linked to the underlying homophobia. When I got married I moved into my husband's home. He had a high mortgage and we split all the bills - I didn't pay him rent, I contributed to the costs. So at the very minimum, if David had felt able to declare his relationship he would have been quite within his rights to claim for half. But I doubt that Sam Cam has been paying half towards the cost of the Cameron second home? The hypocrisy is palpable.
But, the reality is that for all this, it doesn't look good - and I come back to what I said about David Laws yesterday - he has a brilliant mind but intelligence and wisdom are not necessarily co terminus. Given not only the expenses scandal, but also the way others of his colleagues have been mercilessly outed, did he not think this was something he should have taken advice about? Did he really think that when he took on such a high profile and controversial role, the press would not be digging around in his private life? Maybe he sadly confused cleverness for wisdom and thought he was clever enough to outwit them. I may not agree with his politics - the reason the Tories love him is the reason I always used to wish he would run along and join them - but over the years as I said yesterday, I have come to respect him as a man who is a true liberal and deeply committed to making our country fairer and more equal - even if I don't approve of his methodology in doing so. I can't help but compare David Laws' alleged sins with those alleged of my erstwhile opponent in Mid Beds, Nadine Dorries. She who can't decide where her second home is - is it the poky 1 bedroom jobby in Gloucestershire or is it her farmhouse mansion in Bedfordshire for which we are paying a fortune? Did she produce an annual report costing nearly £10,000 and which she published on her now defunct blog, or was she confused and didn't actually produce anything, paying the money back because of a mayoral election that took place months before? Did she take her Twitter and Blog down due to police advice and because of what happened to Stephen Timms a week afterwards? Will her daughter have time to work for her full time at a nice little income of £28,000, or may she be distracted studying for her degree? Bizarrely I think the allegations surrounding Ms Dorries are far more serious, potentially criminal, and yet she is still sitting pretty in the house of contradictions.
So, getting back to David Laws, I sadly fear he has no choice but to resign and allow the Standards Commissioner to adjudicate and on a personal level, I trust he will find that his family and friends still love him, just as Simon Hughes discovered a few short years ago.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Be Careful What You Wish For
Emerging from an interesting contest with the Tory Party's "pinup" (?) Nadine Dorries I am only just getting my thoughts together on what happened. In Mid Beds even Nadine was worried we would halve her majority (I heard this from two independent sources) and we really thought it was possible. I was even invited to meetings with ex Tory activists who were so disgusted with her they wanted to help me. Everyone was impressed with Nick's performance, everyone seemed up for something different, the polls, even at the last minute seemed to be in our favour. I fully expected to see Bridget Fox, Ed Fordham, Sal Brinton et al, easily elected on Friday morning. I certainly did not expect the shock of Evan Harris, Susan Kramer, Lembit Opik, losing their seats.
So, at some point there will be a post mortem, but not yet. Locally we did at least increase our share of the vote and open up the gap between us and Labour. Right now we have what we wished for, a hung parliament. Interestingly Cameron's dire warnings didn't work, we have what the public wished for, a hung parliament. But now, having had a very idealistic perspective until the early hours of Friday morning, I find myself feeling rather queasy. As others have commented, if we believe in PR we have to believe in coalition governments - so we have to be prepared to work with others.
In principle there are issues I think we could work with the Tories on, in practice I wonder how possible that would be. Cameron has exhibited his characteristic arrogance on the issue of a referendum on PR. He has a place for us all in government, so long as we do as we are told! He will listen to us, so long as we are saying what he wants to hear, as soon as we say we want to make the electoral system fairer - he puts his fingers in his ears and turns his back. He is the Daddy (sorry Richard and Alex!) and we will do as we are told - however much we whine, don't we know that STV cookie is not good for us and we can't have it! Cameron also displayed his approach to partnership working by pulling the eminently reasonable Andrew Lansley out of the cross party talks Norman Lamb instigated on tackling the huge problem of how we pay for care for the elderly. And there is the little matter of the commitment to clean up politics, interestingly he was quick to call for the whip to be taken away from Labour MPs accused of false accounting, but not a murmur about Nadine Dorries?
So do I think we can really do any kind of deal with the Tories? I absolutely accept that Nick has had to talk to them as they do have the biggest share of the vote, but lets not forget, more people voted against them than for them. I accept that there has to be compromise on both sides, but if we are genuinely putting the country first can we really sign up to an approach to tackling the deficit that flies in the face of our policy, that we believe will threaten the future security of the country, not secure it. And the problem, even if we get support on everything except electoral reform (which 62% of us want), we run the risk of being part of what can only be a decidedly insecure government.
So what of the alternative, the "Rainbow" alliance? Clearly with Brown in the loop this is likely to be strangled at birth, and even if he wasn't there it would still be a risky strategy, to be seen to be propping up a Labour government. And would Labour be prepared to curtail and row back their attack on civil liberties? Could we ever sign up to their unenlightened approach to tackling crime and dealing fairly with asylum seekers? What would it look like if we ignored the verdict of the country on this moribund and clapped out government?
Yes, indeed, be careful what you wish for!
So what would I do? You shouldn't have to ask :-)
So, at some point there will be a post mortem, but not yet. Locally we did at least increase our share of the vote and open up the gap between us and Labour. Right now we have what we wished for, a hung parliament. Interestingly Cameron's dire warnings didn't work, we have what the public wished for, a hung parliament. But now, having had a very idealistic perspective until the early hours of Friday morning, I find myself feeling rather queasy. As others have commented, if we believe in PR we have to believe in coalition governments - so we have to be prepared to work with others.
In principle there are issues I think we could work with the Tories on, in practice I wonder how possible that would be. Cameron has exhibited his characteristic arrogance on the issue of a referendum on PR. He has a place for us all in government, so long as we do as we are told! He will listen to us, so long as we are saying what he wants to hear, as soon as we say we want to make the electoral system fairer - he puts his fingers in his ears and turns his back. He is the Daddy (sorry Richard and Alex!) and we will do as we are told - however much we whine, don't we know that STV cookie is not good for us and we can't have it! Cameron also displayed his approach to partnership working by pulling the eminently reasonable Andrew Lansley out of the cross party talks Norman Lamb instigated on tackling the huge problem of how we pay for care for the elderly. And there is the little matter of the commitment to clean up politics, interestingly he was quick to call for the whip to be taken away from Labour MPs accused of false accounting, but not a murmur about Nadine Dorries?
So do I think we can really do any kind of deal with the Tories? I absolutely accept that Nick has had to talk to them as they do have the biggest share of the vote, but lets not forget, more people voted against them than for them. I accept that there has to be compromise on both sides, but if we are genuinely putting the country first can we really sign up to an approach to tackling the deficit that flies in the face of our policy, that we believe will threaten the future security of the country, not secure it. And the problem, even if we get support on everything except electoral reform (which 62% of us want), we run the risk of being part of what can only be a decidedly insecure government.
So what of the alternative, the "Rainbow" alliance? Clearly with Brown in the loop this is likely to be strangled at birth, and even if he wasn't there it would still be a risky strategy, to be seen to be propping up a Labour government. And would Labour be prepared to curtail and row back their attack on civil liberties? Could we ever sign up to their unenlightened approach to tackling crime and dealing fairly with asylum seekers? What would it look like if we ignored the verdict of the country on this moribund and clapped out government?
Yes, indeed, be careful what you wish for!
So what would I do? You shouldn't have to ask :-)
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Nadine Dorries AWOL for PBR (but don't worry, she has a security guard)
The observant among you will have noticed that Nadine Dorries revealed last week that she was going to take this week off to take part in a Channel 4 reality show. No expense spared she is being shipped off to a high rise in London - apparently being issued with her clothes when she gets there. To quote Nadine "Security will be with us the whole time, even when sleeping." Wow, I know MPs are a pretty unpopular bunch, but I had no idea they were quite that unpopular!
Apparently "One of the objectives is for me to experience the problems that the residents have to face on a daily basis and for residents to challenge and get to know an MP."
Er........now. That is odd. I would have thought the most important MP for residents to get to know would have been their own? And I am sure if she ends up in a Lib Dem constituency she will find that the residents probably do know their MP!
"The programme is being screened at prime time in February in four one hour programmes, one night after the other." Ah.......that explains why she has taken 6 days off from her parliamentary duties. I have to say I mentioned this to one of our London MPs, Lynne Featherstone this evening. Lynne demonstrated why she is in the running for "best MP" and Nadine is not. Lynne had also been asked to take part in this programme but had flatly refused - how could she possibly take 6 days out, particularly when the house was sitting? So my question, on behalf of the constituents of Mid Beds has to be - why was this more important than doing what she is paid to do - represent them? Now, had she wanted to take time out during the seemingly endless recesses - fair enough. But now? In the week of the PBR? In the week when parliament is debating the Energy Bill, Child Poverty, Disability Benefits for the Elderly, Local Government Financial Settlement and Council Tax...........?
"If I said I wasn't scared, I would be lying." Yes, very scary mixing with poor people.
"I will be swapping my ivory tower in Westminster for a tower block in London – the kind of accommodation that houses many thousands of people across the UK. These are people who may be in a constant state of being overwhelmed with the sheer scale of problems they face on a day-to-day basis." Yes Nadine, and even in leafy Mid Beds, there are people with the same problems. The problems of the inner city are well known and well documented. Less so the very real problems of rural deprivation and what can be even more stark social and physical exclusion. Having taught and been a youth worker in the constituency, I am well aware of what that can mean for communities. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to have carried out the same exercise in your constituency?
"My objective for the week is to survive. To learn as much as I can. To leave something behind, even if it's only friendship." Surviving - SURVIVING?!!!! Heavens dear, what on earth do you think you are going into? People who live in high rises in London are not an alien race. They are people just like you and me, with hopes, aspirations, fears. Some are nice and some are nasty. Some are loving and some are not so loving. Much like the rest of us. This is not "I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here" - now that would be scary and I for one would certainly not survive!
"I must not slip into the C4 trap of creating good TV. I'm only too aware that they will attempt to exhaust and challenge me in an attempt to provoke an adverse reaction which would look good on the telly." Hmmmmmm
"I've told my girls not to worry. The only violence likely to occur is if C4 try to prise my mascara wand out of my hand. Security will be necessary then! Big time." If ever someone betrayed their prejudices this was it.
Well, I do genuinely hope some good comes out of this "I'm a Celebrity get me in There" stunt. Maybe it will change Nadine, maybe, just maybe, she will see the consequences of decades of Tory indifference and Labour ineffectiveness. Maybe, just maybe, she will realise that the only hope for our country lies with the Liberal Democrats. Maybe, just maybe, she will decide to become a full-time campaigner for change. But, I'm not holding my breath.
Apparently "One of the objectives is for me to experience the problems that the residents have to face on a daily basis and for residents to challenge and get to know an MP."
Er........now. That is odd. I would have thought the most important MP for residents to get to know would have been their own? And I am sure if she ends up in a Lib Dem constituency she will find that the residents probably do know their MP!
"The programme is being screened at prime time in February in four one hour programmes, one night after the other." Ah.......that explains why she has taken 6 days off from her parliamentary duties. I have to say I mentioned this to one of our London MPs, Lynne Featherstone this evening. Lynne demonstrated why she is in the running for "best MP" and Nadine is not. Lynne had also been asked to take part in this programme but had flatly refused - how could she possibly take 6 days out, particularly when the house was sitting? So my question, on behalf of the constituents of Mid Beds has to be - why was this more important than doing what she is paid to do - represent them? Now, had she wanted to take time out during the seemingly endless recesses - fair enough. But now? In the week of the PBR? In the week when parliament is debating the Energy Bill, Child Poverty, Disability Benefits for the Elderly, Local Government Financial Settlement and Council Tax...........?
"If I said I wasn't scared, I would be lying." Yes, very scary mixing with poor people.
"I will be swapping my ivory tower in Westminster for a tower block in London – the kind of accommodation that houses many thousands of people across the UK. These are people who may be in a constant state of being overwhelmed with the sheer scale of problems they face on a day-to-day basis." Yes Nadine, and even in leafy Mid Beds, there are people with the same problems. The problems of the inner city are well known and well documented. Less so the very real problems of rural deprivation and what can be even more stark social and physical exclusion. Having taught and been a youth worker in the constituency, I am well aware of what that can mean for communities. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for you to have carried out the same exercise in your constituency?
"My objective for the week is to survive. To learn as much as I can. To leave something behind, even if it's only friendship." Surviving - SURVIVING?!!!! Heavens dear, what on earth do you think you are going into? People who live in high rises in London are not an alien race. They are people just like you and me, with hopes, aspirations, fears. Some are nice and some are nasty. Some are loving and some are not so loving. Much like the rest of us. This is not "I'm a Celebrity get me out of Here" - now that would be scary and I for one would certainly not survive!
"I must not slip into the C4 trap of creating good TV. I'm only too aware that they will attempt to exhaust and challenge me in an attempt to provoke an adverse reaction which would look good on the telly." Hmmmmmm
"I've told my girls not to worry. The only violence likely to occur is if C4 try to prise my mascara wand out of my hand. Security will be necessary then! Big time." If ever someone betrayed their prejudices this was it.
Well, I do genuinely hope some good comes out of this "I'm a Celebrity get me in There" stunt. Maybe it will change Nadine, maybe, just maybe, she will see the consequences of decades of Tory indifference and Labour ineffectiveness. Maybe, just maybe, she will realise that the only hope for our country lies with the Liberal Democrats. Maybe, just maybe, she will decide to become a full-time campaigner for change. But, I'm not holding my breath.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Nadine Dorries and the Mystery of the First Home
OK, I admit it - I am a bit of an Agatha Christie addict. When I broke my leg I amused myself by watching endless episodes of Poirot. I like nothing more than a good mystery, with just enough of a hint of the solution to keep you guessing. In Nadine Dorries' case - its not so much guessing, it's more - do you really think we are that stupid? Like the culprit with the smoking gun crying "it wasn't me guv" - the hole she has dug for herself just gets deeper.
Wednesday night I missed the News at 10 piece about her. Here is this poor unfortunate MP travelling home to her SECOND home and complaining about it! She travelled all the way to her constituency - arriving home at gone 1am. Yes, she gets on the train in the morning with her constituents but they don't have to come home at the same ungodly hour as she. I do have some sympathy, I also often find myself arriving home at gone 1am which isn't that pleasant, especially this time of year on cold and dirty First Capital Connect trains, but I don't have an alternative.
Now, maybe I am missing something. There are some MPs whose second homes are near Westminster - this is because their first home is in their constituency, so that when they have a late sitting they can hit the sack relatively quickly. There are other MPs whose first homes are near Westminster. This is because their second homes are in their constituencies and so that they can not only hit the sack relatively quickly, but have their families with them when they are carrying out their parliamentary duties. Frankly, I don't care which way they do it, but whichever way, there is a logic.
Not so with Ms Dorries. To hear her bleating about getting home so late, when the only reason she gets home so late is because she has (unless she has changed the arrangement since it all came out in May) chosen to designate her first home as being absolutely nowhere near either her constituency or Westminster, beggars belief. Does she take the good people of Mid Beds for complete fools? Does she think they will all just accept that it is OK for her to take advantage of an antiquated system that effectively allows her to have a holiday home? She has apologised, but what has changed? If she is so concerned about arriving home late at night she could do what others do. Jacqui Smith got rightly lambasted for designating her sister's home as her main home - but at least she could argue she spent more nights there (which I thought was the definition). Nadine Dorries firstly tried to keep secret where her first home was, even admitting that she only spent the odd weekend and holiday there. By no stretch of the imagination is that a first home. So, to coin a phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to get home at a Godly hour, then you need to use the second home allowance as it was surely intended. Otherwise as the saying goes - put up or shut up!.............Although, from the perspective of her prospective opponent maybe that is bad advice - carry on dear, carry on!!!
Wednesday night I missed the News at 10 piece about her. Here is this poor unfortunate MP travelling home to her SECOND home and complaining about it! She travelled all the way to her constituency - arriving home at gone 1am. Yes, she gets on the train in the morning with her constituents but they don't have to come home at the same ungodly hour as she. I do have some sympathy, I also often find myself arriving home at gone 1am which isn't that pleasant, especially this time of year on cold and dirty First Capital Connect trains, but I don't have an alternative.
Now, maybe I am missing something. There are some MPs whose second homes are near Westminster - this is because their first home is in their constituency, so that when they have a late sitting they can hit the sack relatively quickly. There are other MPs whose first homes are near Westminster. This is because their second homes are in their constituencies and so that they can not only hit the sack relatively quickly, but have their families with them when they are carrying out their parliamentary duties. Frankly, I don't care which way they do it, but whichever way, there is a logic.
Not so with Ms Dorries. To hear her bleating about getting home so late, when the only reason she gets home so late is because she has (unless she has changed the arrangement since it all came out in May) chosen to designate her first home as being absolutely nowhere near either her constituency or Westminster, beggars belief. Does she take the good people of Mid Beds for complete fools? Does she think they will all just accept that it is OK for her to take advantage of an antiquated system that effectively allows her to have a holiday home? She has apologised, but what has changed? If she is so concerned about arriving home late at night she could do what others do. Jacqui Smith got rightly lambasted for designating her sister's home as her main home - but at least she could argue she spent more nights there (which I thought was the definition). Nadine Dorries firstly tried to keep secret where her first home was, even admitting that she only spent the odd weekend and holiday there. By no stretch of the imagination is that a first home. So, to coin a phrase, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to get home at a Godly hour, then you need to use the second home allowance as it was surely intended. Otherwise as the saying goes - put up or shut up!.............Although, from the perspective of her prospective opponent maybe that is bad advice - carry on dear, carry on!!!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
"Celebrity" challenge to Nadine Dorries
Yet another "celebrity" has jumped on the "let's kick out the MPs" bandwaggon. David Van Day, late of I'm a Celebrity get me out of here (which may be what he would be saying if elected!) is apparently to challenge Mid Beds MP Nadine Dorries - I would put a link to her website but it has been shut down by the Telegraph. Interestingly Mr Van Day has been a Tory candidate before.
So it looks like the good people of Bedfordshire are to have the option of sending both Esther Rantzen and David Van Day to Westminster to represent us. There is a danger of the Palace of Westminster truly turning into the Palace of Varieties - perhaps they will end up hosting the Royal Variety Performance - no need to go anywhere else!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)