Filton & South Glos Local Issues: Boules Court & Cycle Speedway Charging & South Glos. Youth Services Cuts.

I haven’t blogged on local politics for a long long time, mostly because I’ve been too tied up in family circumstances to be around & involved throughout the last 14 months or so, but partially because I also don’t want to bore the 35% or so of my readership that comes from America & Asia. I do have a few things I need to touch upon locally though, and whilst I’d usually do so in separate blog posts I’ll do something of a bumper post here to save bothering those who it has no relevance to too much.

Firstly: Filton Town Council’s Introduction of Charging for the Boules Court & Cycle Speedway – Evening Post Story

Fee introduction is something I’ve supported on these two sports/facilities for a fair old while now, albeit not that vocally as I felt Filton Town Council had more pressing issues, but I’m glad this issue has finally been resolved as it should’ve been some time ago.

The biggest issue for me is that use of sports facilities have been charged at Filton for as long as I can remember, with the exception of boules & the cycle speedway. Recently FTC passed a 5% price increase for the other sports facilities but boules & the cycle speedway remained free of charge; this exemption seemed fundamentally unfair & unreasonable to me. If you’ll excuse the pun charging should be a level playing field when it comes to sports facilities.

I see no legitimate reason for boules or the cycle speedway to remain free of charge while all of the other facilities are charged. True, the two sports are relatively specialist interests, but that doesn’t detract from the fact the speedway cost £50000 to construct & the boules court cost £8000 – Presumably given the lack of charging those costs haven’t been recovered. On the fiscal issue alone when the council is having to increase charges more widely it’s ludicrous to say these two sports shouldn’t start paying back some of that investment.

South Glos. Councillor Hutchinson raised the point that young children currently use the speedway for casual use, something I hadn’t witnessed personally but a claim others have verified. Youth issues have always been one of the fields I take a particular interest in, so I suggested making under-14s or a similar age bracket exempt from the charge as one that’d be fair, would ensure young people weren’t disproportionately hit by charges & something that’d be fiscally realistic. It needs to be raised before FTC, which I’m not in a position to do, but I’ll reach out to those I can with this suggestion.

I was somewhat surprised by the reaction my support for the introduction of fees created from a minority of people. Despite implied accusations, my support for the fee introduction isn’t born out of personal malice or malicious intention towards one individual or one group, and the suggestion it is actually quite offends me; as I’ve highlighted above it’s a simple matter of fairness & fair access. What is important to me is the financial issue & fairness issue, not whether the campaign to introduce fees was personal or ‘vindictive’.

There was also the accusation I didn’t ‘bother’ to find out both sides of the issue. Again this is something I resent being accused of. It’s public knowledge that I’ve been away from Bristol for about ½ of 2012 thus far spending time with family (New Baby Brother!) & then having the honour of being a SW Youth Delegate at Unite’s Conference down in Eastbourne, but everything about this debate that’s been pushed into the public domain I’ve paid attention to. If things have been said privately about the fees issue I can only apologise that I haven’t found a way to clone myself yet.

A point was also raised that the introduction of fees could be wildly unsuccessful & raise no income whatsoever; I personally consider this an extremely unlikely situation but I note that currently the boules court & cycle speedway don’t generate any revenue by themselves anyway, to my knowledge, and thus the idea the council could lose revenue that isn’t there is a puzzling one to me.

I would urge that small minority of accusatory voices to at least make the cheap shots in public so we can have a proper debate about these things, and so that people can see for themselves the full range of discussion. If those voices feel our differences locally are irreconcilable I’d be more than happy to explore the idea of challenging them at the next election so we can have that debate, publicly. These behind the scenes digs & petty squabbling frustrate me to no end; you can hardly blame those who run as far away from Filton & South Glos. politics as fast as they can & that must change and those resistant to that change must be swept away if we, as a community, as a council, are to move forwards positively & productively.

I’ve probably touched enough on that now. Moving on.

(Update 16 April 2012) Cllr Hutchinson released another statement to the press, which can be found Here. My response to that latest statement is as follows:

I don’t know how many times I’ve repeated here, in person & elsewhere this habit of Councillors releasing statements to the press where they know full well the ‘average joe’ won’t get nearly as much chance or coverage to reply instead of actually getting out there and holding regular meetings with constituents, instead of actually listening has to end, and having to repeat that hundreds of times is getting tedious.

Someone will raise the point that I could’ve said as much at the Labour Branch Meeting this past week, but in the interest of full disclosure I’m happy enough to admit I didn’t attend; I’ve had stomach flu for the last 9 days or so, so disappointingly I had to cancel my plans to attend. (I also cancelled the other 4 sets of evening plans I had for the last week for the same reason, incase anyone from the branch wants to raise an eyebrow about that).

But if Cllr Hutchinson is in the mood to answer some public questions I’m still waiting on a reply to mine from March 29th, questions that have been raised in this group countless times too. I won’t clog this section up with questions, they remain there in the comments section of the blog I posted a while back: Clicky

This issue isn’t partisan for me; I’m a Labour member, indeed a former Labour candidate for Northville back in 2010, so I don’t have a partisan agenda or even a personal agenda here; I just simply want answers to these not insignificant concerns, as we all do.

Elected representatives simply shouldn’t be launching these attacks on residents of this area, however small or large a group they may be, from behind the press curtain. More openness & transparency is needed, right across the political divide.

Secondly: The Enormously Alarming Threat to Sure Start in South Gloucestershire – Consultation & Explanation of Plans on SGC Website

This is an issue I raised with my union, Unite, at a meeting on the 17th of March, and it’s an issue we were all extremely concerned about, especially given the haste to the consultation process. We agreed to take it forwards & have significant discussion on the issue & this is something I’ll try to hasten. We have till April 2013 before whatever changes are passed are implemented, but it’ll be difficult to reverse the council’s decision once it has been made. Realistically I’d say we’re working to the consultation timetable, which ends in May.

It’s concerning to see a political divide becoming more and more obvious on the issue of youth services; 60% of Conservative & Liberal Democrat controlled councils have made cuts to youth services. Unite estimates up to 3000 people could lose their jobs & 20% of youth centres in the England and Wales could be closed. I’m hoping South Glos will see less of a political emphasis on cuts to youth services & do what’s best for parents, families & the young and focus, but without a guarantee of that it’s vital for outside groups to get involved in the debate & mobilize in defence of what services we currently have.

Sure Start centres in particular are under threat in South Glos. It’s important to look at the research on Sure Start – Disadvantaged Children who use the service are less likely to be overweight by the time they reach age 5, were in better general health & had less chaotic home lives according to the official evaluation. Mothers using the programme also report a “more stimulating home learning environment for their children, disciplining them less harshly and being more satisfied with life.” (1)

Now, as the above link highlights Sure Start hasn’t been a perfect programme, but you don’t take something that has a greater positive impact than a negative impact and target it for cuts, that makes the programme worse & inefficient, not better. The support these centres offer to young children & their families cannot be downplayed or brushed over, nor can there be justification for shipping out high-quality services to the private sector where competition may hinder rather than help that level of quality.

That help to families & children should be there whatever income bracket a person comes from. Ensuring our children have the brightest possible future & best early intervention is not an issue that we can lay aside, because our future & a better, brighter future for our children is something that we cannot afford not to invest in. Sure Start provides a valuable, appreciated, effective service & we should be focused on improving that & investing in new, better methods of enhancing that rather than cutting back on the level of quality we have in place already. The truth is that Sure Start has been underfunded for years, not overfunded & certainly not needing to face cuts.

I’m deeply alarmed that South Glos’ best case scenario is to retain just 6 out of the 15 current centres in the area, with unfilled vacancies remaining so & training budgets cut to boot. Training budgets are something that’s extremely easy to cut on paper, it doesn’t show up as a statistic, most people don’t pay attention to the impact assessment behind such a move & cutting training sounds relatively harmless at quick glance. The truth is cutting training now will hurt long into the future & leave parents, families, children & the community worse off and less cohesive.

The ‘alternative’ South Glos. have offered for the 6 remaining centres is “The leadership, management and operation of the six Children’s Centres are commissioned from one or more external organisations.” – Essentially to privatise those centres.

I’m not against privatisation where it will help & raise standards – I’m a huge supporter of SMEs & favour giving them additional tax breaks on top of our low corporation tax rate; I’m not anti-business in the slightest. But you only have to look at our care service for the elderly & vulnerable and indeed in this region with the horrible, fresh memories of Winterbourne View Hospital to realise that privatisation is not the cure-all many would have us believe.

Repeated evidence shows privatisation of care & children’s services often results in a reduced level of care & service and when cuts to funding, training, staff or centres are made the council responsible previously simply shrug their shoulders & abstains from the political responsibility we elect them to exercise.

I’m not opposed to privatisation as an idea, but when it comes to the idea of shipping out Sure Start & Children’s Services Centres to private providers there is a deeply uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach & I will fight that potential privatisation every inch of the way. I come from a disadvantaged background, I grew up on a rough as hell council estate in Portsmouth; I know what its like to not have that support, that intervention & how hard it makes things for families and I find the idea of subjecting any family to that helpless frustrated feeling repugnant.

It is imperative that we rally against South Glos abstaining on their responsibility to provide quality Children’s Services & it is imperative that we extract more concessions on the already disappointing cutbacks they’re hoping to make to the present centres.

Savings have to be found thanks to central Coalition Government cuts, but we cannot afford to adopt a policy of cut the present, hurt the future. Children’s Services are an easy target, but they shouldn’t be – We can find compromise & we must find compromise.

(Apologies for the length of this post, trying to cram 2 rather complex issues into one post was harder than anticipated!)

Same-Sex Marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage is something I support, strongly. It’s something I’ve been meaning to write about for years, something I have penned over 20 different articles in support for, only to not publish them; I always felt I was never quite doing the issue the emotional credit it deserves.

But with the publication of this ‘Coalition for Marriage’ (1) I thought I’d try again, because if ‘Coalition for Marriage’ succeeds in redefining the debate around gay marriage as something other than mutual respect, human decency & equality I’d struggle to forgive myself for not chipping in what I could.

For me it comes down to this fundamentally: Do we want to be the kind of Britain that continues to legislate love between a woman & I is somehow more valid than the love between a same-sex couple?

The love I shared with a specific someone in the past is no different to the love two of my closest friends share. The only difference between my previous love & their love is that currently we live in a country that says the latter isn’t quite the same as mine was. However you frame it, our current law is discriminatory and it’s embarrassing.

Love isn’t something you choose; it’s a natural & beautiful human emotion. Regardless of gender and sexuality you don’t go shopping for love, you can’t buy love in a supermarket, it isn’t next to the yogurt in your local corner shop. It’s something you feel and something that touches you. That love is natural, and whether you feel that love for a woman, a man or both doesn’t stop it being love & it doesn’t stop it being natural.

Marriage is in decline and that’s actually something that’s quite sad to see. 40-45% of all marriages end in divorce. (2) Just 231000 couples married in 2009, the lowest figure since 1895 (3).  The institution of marriage is not strong; it is weaker than it has been for a significant period. You cannot reverse this trend long-term by telling people one form of love is more valid than another. Marriage is inclusive by design, it is designed to bring two people together, two families together & that inclusivity shouldn’t stop at sexuality.

There is no logic in the “tradition marriage” argument “Coalition for Marriage” and others promote. Can you imagine the world today if we stuck to everything traditional? That laptop or computer you’re currently reading this on would occupy an entire room. That phone in your pocket or hand would closely resemble a brick. Inter-racial & inter-religious couples wouldn’t be able to marry. Women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Some tradition is good, but staunchly refusing to progress & evolve our views & consequently humanity over time will lead to nothing good. Many of the things we take for granted today wouldn’t have happened if someone had stuck to the traditional way of things.

Yes same-sex couples have many of the same rights afforded to male-female couples thanks to legislation passed over the past decade, but still law limits where they can marry & what they can call themselves – In the eyes of the law they’re civil partners, they’re not married and that is wrong. I disagree with those who say same-sex marriage is a crusade for the politically correct, to paraphrase Birgitte Nyborg what some see as a political correctness many others & I see as a social responsibility.

I have always been incredibly proud of Britain, of being British, but I’m not indiscriminately proud. I’m proud of the things that make us distinctly British – Our National Health Service, our Humanitarian efforts worldwide, our tolerant attitudes to other cultures & our empathetic nature as a nation.

But I am not proud of falling behind America, the same America that is almost irrevocably divided along political, religious & cultural lines, on Same-Sex Marriage, the civil rights movement of our day. Even that America is ahead of us on recognizing same-sex couples & same-sex relations are equal to the love & relations a man & woman share. Britain must be that beacon of tolerance & freedom and till same-sex marriage is legalized that beacon shines more dimly by the day.

Saying same-sex couples shouldn’t marry isn’t any more acceptable or less discriminatory than the old argument that inter-racial couples shouldn’t marry and I notice the latter hasn’t caused the downfall of humanity or marriage.

Same-Sex Marriage is bigger than politics & it is bigger than religion; It is fundamentally about the kind of Britain we want to live in. A tolerant, modern, fair Britain or a Britain divided by battle lines drawn in age-old sands.

I’m not saying religion isn’t involved or shouldn’t be involved – It should. From a very personal viewpoint I struggle to fathom why many religions are so opposed to same-sex marriage, because although all religion can be interpreted uniquely to each & every person I can see the good religion does in the world and the work religion does to promote & assist equality. My view is that we should work with the religious leaders in our country to reconcile the differences there are on same-sex marriage. There shouldn’t be a forcing of views on each party, but I would hope in the desire for equality there is common ground to be found.

Legalising same-sex marriage won’t invalidate the definition of marriage, it won’t invalidate the love some of you may share with partners and it won’t cause the world to end. All legalizing same-sex marriage will do is offer the same opportunity to loving same-sex couples as is available to every man-woman couple in this country. As long as those who marry have mutual affection & consent to the marriage that is all that should matter.

We as a country cannot continue along a path where we actively encourage discrimination against same-sex couples. We can move forwards together and marriage & Britain will be stronger for it, or we can remain weakened & divided apart.

Update 22/2/2012 18:25 – Someone has been excellent enough to create a ‘Coalition for Equal Marriage’ which I’d encourage all to sign here.

Eoin’s Thirty Pieces of Silver.

Three days ago Dr Eoin Clarke, A well-known Labour Blogger of “The Green Benches” made a frankly outrageous attack (http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.com/2012/02/traumatic-news-of-labour-mp-who-wont.html) on Kerry McCarthy, Bristol East’s MP.

It’s worth noting Eoin describes Kerry not signing an EDM she’d discovered just a few days prior as “Traumatic” and says that decision “depresses and saddens” him; That is the level of hyperbole Eoin has decided to exercise against a Labour MP not signing an EDM she’d only recently discovered existed.

If Eoin truly feels those emotions I’d strongly suggest he lacks a sense of perspective but what I suspect to be the truth instead is Eoin is once again employing hyperbole to further his own political agenda. That said, to start attacking a Labour MP who has battled tirelessly against Lansley’s Health Bill is a new low.

As Eoin is well aware EDMs by an overwhelming majority go no-where; They are a convenient, easy tool to raise awareness for a specific event – Congratulating local football teams on promotion (That one was a ridiculous use of taxpayer money as far as I’m concerned) or in more worthwhile cases raising issues such as tackling the health dangers of people smoking in cars that carry children. There are entirely literally thousands of EDMs filed per Parliamentary Session, 99% of which go nowhere. They are ineffective, inefficient & expensive.

Further to his attack article Eoin had the audacity to post on Kerry’s explanatory blog (http://kerrymccarthy.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/health-and-social-care-bill-risk-register/) -

Frankly this comment stinks & is insulting, degrading & patronising. Kerry has asked upwards of 18 Health-related Written Questions since the 2010 General Election and has spoken in numerous health debates in Parliament, including asking Andrew Lansley about his suspect connections to private health providers.

Despite all of the above being on public record Eoin has the audacity to suggest he has sweated blood & walked over hot coals to defend the NHS & by implication Kerry hasn’t and really I think here Eoin needs to get a grip. Eoin’s attack is disingenuous & I suspect he well knows this and I would urge him to withdraw his remarks and apologise for them.

The EDM in question – EDM 2659 (PUBLICATION OF THE RISK REGISTER ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE BILL REFORMS) has just 38 signatures thus far. Some of the people who haven’t signed the EDM yet from the ‘red team’ include Andy Burnham, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Ed Miliband, The Leader of the Opposition. I notice Eoin hasn’t savagely attacked or attempted to undermine either Andy or Ed and I notice Eoin isn’t calling into question their commitment to defending the NHS.

Eoin’s attack is even more ridiculous when revealed by Kerry’s explanatory blog she’d raised the issue the EDM does in Parliament last November, months before this EDM was published. Even if every Labour MP signed this new EDM it wouldn’t force the publication of the risk register; Kerry has raised the subject in Parliament and it is there on Hansard for everyone to find & see. Kerry now signing an EDM on something she raised 3 months ago would be redundant.

Eoin knows an EDM is not the “grand gesture” he says it is, but rather a vessel that is frequently worthless, ignored by Parliament & nearly always ignored by the general public & press outside of the Westminster Bubble.

I’m afraid Eoin’s article was dishonest, disingenuous, deliberately undermining & I strongly believe there is need for him to withdraw his post & issue a full public apology for subjecting Kerry to a week of maliciously whipped up attacks in which she has been accused of everything from secretly being a Tory (sigh) to failing to represent her constituents and failing to defend the NHS.

Do the right thing & apologise for your article Eoin. I’m sure you can further your political profile in more productive ways than bottom of the barrel gutter attacks against Labour MPs working far harder than you to defeat Andrew Lansley’s attack on the NHS’ founding principles.

We Believe That The Time Has Come For Syrian Intervention.

If you would like to add your name please email harry [@] harrylangford.co.uk or direct message on Twitter @HarryLangford.

We the undersigned believe that it is time for the international community to take action in Syria to stop a preventable genocide of fellow human beings.

More than 2,000 people have died since Russia and China vetoed the first UN Security Council Resolution in October 2011. Between 6-8,000 people have died since the uprising began. Hundreds more have been tortured and illegally detained.

We believe that we should protect those who are striving to enjoy the same rights that we in the Free World enjoy every day as articulated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

A new standard for international intervention in the affairs of states that undermines those basic rights and freedoms must be developed. We believe that it is important that where the global community has the ability to save lives then it has the imperative to do so.

Intervention, where it is for humanitarian purposes, is not something to be feared. We believe that humanitarian intervention in states which torture and murder their own citizens as an act of political and social repression is not only justified but it is of the upmost importance.

We accept that in the past interventionism has not been as successful as it might have been; nonetheless, we see the action by the international community in Libya and that of NATO in the Bosnian and Yugoslav Wars as a model for intervention.

The Libyan no-fly zone prevented a potential massacre in Benghazi. We cannot allow that kind of mass killing to happen in Syria either. Iraqi Marsh Arabs, Rwandans, Bosniaks at Srebrenica and Kurds have suffered where the international community did not intervene, and we believe that that mistake cannot be repeated again.

We condemn the veto by China and Russia of the draft UN Security Council Resolution supporting Arab League efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria and calling for an immediate end to all violence.

A Syrian-led transition of power away from the corrupt and murderous Assad regime must happen as soon as possible to prevent further deaths in Syria.

Signatories (All in a personal capacity):

• Harry Langford (Author), What’s Next?, Labour.
• Daniel Furr, Too Liberal, Liberal Democrat.
• Cllr Pete Bowyer, Labour & Co-Operative Member for Stockwell.
• Dominyk Tiller, Weighing the World, Member of Unite, Progress and Former Labour Candidate for Northville
• Julie, Julie’s Think Tank
• Deanna Quirke, Exeter University Labour Club, Labour.
• Tom Williams, KCL Labour Society Executive, Labour.
• Daniel Mayhew, NTU Labour Club Executive, Labour.
• Max Wind-Cowie, Muscular Liberal, Conservative.
• Harry Matthews, Yellow Spectacles, Sheffield University Liberal Youth, Liberal Democrat.
• Brad Marshall, University of Leicester Labour Club, Labour.
• Jamil Dhanani, Vice-President, Thornhill Young Liberals.
• Danny Hackett, Labour
• Samuel Baxter, University of Manchester Conservative Future, Conservative.
• Jason Cowan, University of Manchester Conservative Future, Conservative.
• Mike Farrell, LawBlogOne
• Jon Boulton, Conservative.
• Ben McCabe, Conservative.
• Stephen Fulham, Socialist and Labour Party Member.
• Christopher Aldous, Community Activist.
• Brian Devlin, Labour.
• John Brooks.
• Liam Quinn, Conservative.
• Leon Ward.
• David Doig, Socialist
• Peter Lord
• Tariq Rahuma.
• Mike Knight.
• Adam Gray.
• Peter van Vilet.

Filton Airfield Developments.

Recently South Gloucestershire Council approved plans to build thousands of new homes over Filton Airfield, a decision that many locals & I find deeply disappointing and a decision that makes a mockery of the historic connections between Filton and aerospace.

During South Gloucestershire’s public consultation on the future of Filton Airfield I submitted a reply (South Glos FA Consultation). At the time it hadn’t come to light that BAE had made that profit by increasing landing fees but I still reject the premise that BAE did everything in its power to advertise the airfield & achieve profit.

Understandably there has been a degree of outrage from residents that it appears South Glos Council officials & BAE were actively colluding to close Filton Airfield, especially in regards to some within the council deliberately & undemocratically undermining Labour’s valid concerns about the possibility of redevelopment. The full document revealing the collusion can be seen on the South Glos Labour website (http://www.sglabour.org.uk/labour-fury-at-dodgy-dossier).

Given my own MPs (Jack Lopresti) strongly-pro Filton Airfield redevelopment stance I wondered how deep his involvement in the pro-development lobby had been & filed a series of Freedom of Information Requests, several of which I’m still awaiting reply on***. As some of you may be aware David MacLean attempted to pass an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act back in 2007 to protect MP’s correspondence from FOI Requests which ultimately failed to pass the Lords & somewhat muddied the waters on what you can request under the act & what you can’t.

After consulting several Parliamentary contacts who weren’t entirely certain where the line was I decided to FOI Jack Lopresti’s office & request correspondence between him & South Glos or BAE in relation to Filton Airfield. As it turns out (Since I’m presuming Jack did his research before replying) that is where the line lies, you cannot directly request an MP’s correspondence (Though I believe you can request correspondence from Government Departments between that department & specific MPs, which is an interesting loophole).

After contacting Jack this is the reply I received: Reply from Lopresti on FA

I replied: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/reply-to-jack-on-fa.png 

To which Jack Lopresti responded: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jl-reply-to-far.png

In a further development since I replied to Mr Lopresti the hundreds of jobs lined up for Filton are now confirmed to be headed overseas as widely suspected (http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Jobs-earmarked-Bristol-going-overseas/story-14389794-detail/story.html) which is obviously a massive disappointment for the area. Both Government & industry must be prepared to make the case for British manufacturing & Filton’s aerospace industry but sadly both are increasingly failing to do so; The opening of a new Boeing office in Filton is a welcome opportunity but when taken with the bigger picture of the loss of Filton Airfield & a large job-creating contract there’s still work to be done in ensuring Filton’s aerospace industry has a long & prosperous future.

***My two initial FOI Requests have now been answered:

Answer from Department of Business, Innovation & Skills: BIS FA FOI

Answer from the Ministry of Defence: http://ddom2006.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/screen-shot-2012-01-20-at-03-38-12.png

Your bridges are burning down, They’re all coming down, It’s all coming round, You’re burning them down.

The EU is complicated; in fact it’s perpetually complicated. It is an overly complicated, excessively bureaucratic, oftentimes ridiculous organisation. But Britain is better off within the EU than outside of it, because although rather imperfect it is the world’s largest economy & together we can and do achieve more than we ever will individually and together we’ve enjoyed peace & relatively warm relations within Europe for decades. Inside we can reform & repackage, what Cameron has finalised today is Britain being left us outside alone unable & unwilling to be part of the reforms the EU & Eurozone so obviously need.

I actually agree with David Cameron’s decision to veto the package offered to the UK from the EU today & I’d hope if landed in an identical situation Ed Miliband would do the same. I cringe at the idea of national governments (Only the Eurozone for now, but these things habitually expand) having to submit their budgets to the EU & then face being told to edit them by some central EU body & I find it difficult to accept an EU FTT without some protection for the City which would be disproportionally hit by such a tax. The City, although frequently flaw-ridden, is a huge job creator & taxpayer and neither of those two things can be understated.

I also don’t believe today’s EU Deal will do anything to stimulate much needed European Growth; It is for all intents & purposes a bad tasting austerity sandwich which this deal would dictate we’d all be forced to eat indefinitely. Austerity on top of austerity harms countries both in the short term and long term & that must be realised if a fix to the Eurocrisis is to be eventually found.

But that’s beside my point, the reason I’ve been so angry with Cameron on this is because we never should’ve reached this position.

For the last 18 months our Conservative-Liberal ‘Coalition’ Government has time after time disrespected & insulted our European friends and the European Union and then has the hypocritical cheek to be outraged when after yelling ‘Stuff off’ at the EU for 18 months someone finally yelled back ‘No, Why don’t you stuff off’.

I wonder if today would’ve been mightily different if Cameron & co hadn’t spent the last 18 months so smugly berating Europe. All evidence suggests it may well have been with Ireland reportedly being offered an exemption from a European Financial Transaction Tax. So whilst I don’t fault Cameron for today’s decision, though it may well have difficult political & economic consequences over the medium-term for Britain, I do fault Cameron for pigeonholing himself into having to make this decision, I do fault Cameron for miserably failing to follow through on his leadership promise to move the Conservative party beyond its Europe obsession and I do fault Cameron for being naïve enough to believe playing up to the Eurosceptic wing of his party wouldn’t have diplomatic ramifications in Europe.

For years we have allowed the French to weave a relationship with the Germans that has left Britain sitting on the sidelines all too often. We should exploit the natural cohesion between Britain & Germany and we must become a driving force within the EU. The Anglo-German relationship cannot be underestimated moving forwards & understandably it is the Germans we frequently infuriate the most with our dallying around the edges of the EU. If Cameron continues on this course I can see a time when the Germans may finally turn around and present us with a ‘Get in or Get out’ moment.

Thanks to Cameron’s Flashman-esk posturing Britain is now left more isolated within Europe than ever. We are still paying a huge sum of money towards the EU, we are still in the EU, but we’ve been relegated to the fringes without any addition protections for the City & most sources (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/world/europe/britain-isolated-after-vetoing-euro-zone-pact.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto) indicate if the EU go ahead and set up a Financial Transactions Tax it will hit those City > Europe transactions and Britain will be powerless to bar that from happening. David Cameron didn’t exercise a veto, because a veto stops something from happening, what David Cameron exercised was a white flag.

History has been made today; We can all just hope that in 10-20 years we don’t look back and bitterly realise we were on the wrong side of it.

(Title Lyrics from Bridges Burning by the Foo Fighters, Video embedded below)

In Response to Alex White on November 30th Strikes

As a member of a union Alex White’s article on Labour List (http://labourlist.org/2011/11/labour-backed-strikes-not-in-my-name/) doesn’t just offend me but infuriates me.

Labour are wrong and cowardly to stay neutral on November 30^th Strike Action but Alex’s article goes further than that; His article actively seems to try and rip the labour from the Labour Party.

Alex bemoans the lack of mandate the Unions have to strike but this argument is farcical in our democracy. He highlights that circa 30% of eligible voters voted in the Unite Strike Ballot and calls for a 50% turnout on his Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/#!/iamalexwhite/status/140906461357277184).

By the same logic would he declare Dan Jarvis’ 36.5% Turnout, Debbie Abraham’s 48% Turnout, the Alternative Vote Referendum’s 42.2% Turnout or indeed the 23/35 wards in South Gloucestershire whose turnout was below 50% to be invalid? His point was very poorly thought out indeed & if enforced nationwide would have us voting possibly every month to achieve his desired 50% mark.

What Alex miserably fails to realise is that we unions do not strike for fun, or because what we all really want is a day off work. People lose a day’s pay for striking, a day’s pay in this economy that many families up and down this country need. Striking is never a decision union members take lightly.

The Labour Party should be supporting the November 30^th Strikes not because as Alex claims we are held to ransom by the Unions but because the Conservative-Liberal Government’s ‘reforms’ to pensions are genuinely harmful & the deal on the table, even the improved deal, is disgusting.

The changes to public sector pensions are unnecessary. As Owen Jones (Who I rarely quote to say the least) highlights Public Sector Pensions won’t rise above 2% as a proportion of GDP in the next 20 years. These changes aren’t fiscally driven; they’re massively ideologically driven & that’s why Labour should support the November 30^th Strikes.

Private Sector pensions leave a lot to be desired, but the way forward on that is to improve Private Sector Pensions; Taking a sledgehammer to Public Sector Pensions is self-defeating & encourages this race to the bottom the Conservatives crave.

Yes, Striking is a failure of both sides. Very little disappoints me more than the two sides walking away from negotiations and throwing their arms in the air declaring their differences to be irreconcilable; Both sides lose when it comes to that. However it is exceptionally difficult to negotiate with a Government who declared their deal to be final before negotiations even started.

This financial crisis we’re in today wasn’t caused by hard working public sector workers, people like nurses, doctors, teachers, the police & fire service and it wasn’t caused by giving them a decent pension. It is unjust to screw the public sector just because you believe it should be screwed, which is exactly what this Conservative-Liberal Government is doing. I am disappointed & offended Alex has swallowed the rhetoric offered by the Government instead of listening to the suffering of his fellow Labourites & union members.

Labour should support the November 30^th Strikes, but even if Labour fail to, I will & so will many of my fellow Labourites. Let’s all be thankful Alex’s contemptuous attitude to this strike is not the popular opinion within the party.

Oh Democracy, Where Art Thou?

Yesterday afternoon, very briefly, I threw my hat into the Feltham & Heston selection process. Not because I felt I deserved to win, not because I felt I could win, Not because I thought I would win; It was an act of symbolism.

Obviously if I had been selected it’d have been a tremendous honour, but by my own admission I’m not at a point of my life yet where Parliament is a plausible aspiration and indeed the only area I have any possible medium-term interest in is Filton and Bradley Stoke, my home constituency that’s been so let down by our current Conservative MP this last year.

The beauty of living in a democracy is that anyone, however unqualified others declare them to be, can throw their hat into a selection process. Yesterday the general opinion wavered two ways; Firstly that Sunny Hundal shouldn’t be allowed to stand, a frankly ridiculous outburst from some within the party and secondly that people under 35 should be barred from standing for candidacy.

By about midday I was resolved that if Sunny didn’t throw his hat into the ring I’d do so to demonstrate that our democratic process isn’t something that people have the right to harangue people out of. We cheapen ourselves as a party with such haranguing. One of the largest problems with politics is it’s so unrepresentative of the United Kingdom; Parliament is, for the majority, full of white middle aged men. Labour has been the party working hardest to ensure women get representation in Parliament, but we must work harder on ethnic minorities & younger people too.

You’ll be so hard pressed to find many members of Parliament who can truly empathise with the views & frustrations of young people today. Many claim to, very few actually do. The generation gap will only widen & widen & widen over time unless politicians start to understand & further enfranchise young people and the quickest way to do that is to get young people involved with politics.

People have consistently belittled others by telling them they lack real life experience outside of politics and as such they aren’t entitled to have just as much democratic right as everyone else. ‘Real life experience’ is one of the most ridiculous & empty phrases there is; the idea that anyone has the right to judge someone else’s life experience on minimal knowledge is outrageously elitist and must be rejected. To suggest life experience is something you can tally is laughable.

My point is this: Don’t little others badger you out of your democratic rights. If you want to throw your hat into the ring, do so. Don’t listen to others telling you you aren’t qualified enough, or don’t deserve it, or don’t stand a chance. Nolan Bushnell, Founder of Atari, once said: “Everyone who’s ever taken a shower has an idea. It’s the person who gets out of the shower, dries off and does something about it who makes a difference.” Heed those words, not the words of those who constantly try to justify belittling others with the words ‘Not qualified’.

The NEC has my total appreciation for taking the time to consider my application rather than rejecting it off-hand as being from someone too young, or too unqualified; If only the rest of the party would take such an attitude. Saying that, I was mightily relieved when the NEC finally came back last night to tell me I hadn’t made the longlist. By my own admission it wasn’t my time, it was never intended to be, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be your time.

Hardest Hit Rally Bristol 22/10/2011

Today was the day of the HardestHit Rally on and around College Green in Bristol, a rally designed to peacefully protest the Conservative-Liberal Government’s unfair & regressive cuts to Disability Benefits, something it was successful in achieving.

As they say a picture is worth a thousand words, in which case here’s the equivalent of 30 thousand words & two videos:

Flickr Gallery - http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddom2006/sets/72157627828761815/

A Speaker from the Hardest Hit Campaign - http://youtu.be/_hEqk_a1CBk?hd=1

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, Speaking at the Hardest Hit Rally- http://youtu.be/gGy37af4Fts?hd=1

Representation of bodily perfection in contemporary culture.

Beauty is an interesting concept and a fascinating discussion.

Earlier this year I wrote a piece on beauty and representation of bodily perfection in contemporary culture for my Culture and Communications A-Level Coursework (The Daily Mail hate the course, so of course I delighted in taking it).

I suspect some will gasp at how left-wing it is or how anti-capitalism it can be in places, but I stand by every word because everything we write has meaning and intention… and because it earned me an A, which is always nice too.

Because it was a piece of Coursework I am duty bound to note to other students that plagiarism of this piece would be foolish, to say the least, and I’d urge you very strongly to not copy any part of the material; There is no enjoyment to be had from stealing the ideas of others, despite what Picasso once said. You are of course more than welcome to read it and build your own ideas and elaborations on my writing.

Click to read the piece –> Representation of bodily perfection in contemporary culture