Charlie Brooker wrote a piece today about the phone hacking scandal. This has produced a few comments online of the "that's rich coming from someone who takes the p**s out of TV for a living" variety. He's taken in in good part, admitting that he never said he wasn't also "making the world worse" (except that he makes in immeasurably better for some of us).
What such people miss is that Brooker has no patience with bad, lazy TV (or journalism; rather the point of his piece). When something is good, he's very positive, and I defy anybody to have come up with a more genuine, appreciative tribute to Oliver Postgate than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAftt3UnzoI
If Brooker is scathing about you, it's probably because you deserve it.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Thursday, 14 April 2011
My Audience with Vince
The Right Hon Vince Cable MP came to Levenshulme today. Ostensibly, this was to meet local business people but I suspect it was actually because Leve's LibDems are severely rattled at the prospect of losing their grip on local politics in May.
I wandered along, not expecting much to be going on, although I'd heard that there might be a demonstration to welcome him, and I thought I'd go and man the barricades! In the event, I was invited in by one of those business people inside (I'm a regular customer), and was waved past what passed for security (the obligatory Hennigan).
Vince was over 40 minutes late and was ushered in through the back door to avoid the crowd outside. He shook our hands, in that politician's way (I have to report he has a limp handshake, the sure sign of a wrong 'un, according to my old mum), and commenced a short speech. You will not be surprised to hear that they inherited a mess, times are tough, etc, etc.
The crowd outside were good natured but vociferous and their chants could be heard over Vince. His speech was then curtailed by one of the demonstrators trying to charge into the building; it took several minutes for the police/PCSOs to subdue him and lead him out through the back of the bar. There was a bit of harrumphing, but frankly not as much as I expected.
Vince then cut straight to questions. These ranged from locally grown produce (he was surprised Manchester has an agricultural sector), through the inability of successive governments to get to grips with excessive bank charges ("If we succeed, it's in spite of banks rather than because of them") to the iniquities of the Compulsory Purchase Order legislation. His responses were pretty bland, most of them seeming to be of the 'can't comment on specifics' variety, and in spite of his assertion that small businesses are the key to growth, didn't elaborate on how this might happen in an area with little disposable income and a high proportion of public sector workers who have either lost their jobs or had pay freezes. Still, nice know there will be a recovery - not sure when, but.....
You'll be pleased to hear, though, that he enjoys a good relationship with David Cameron (not what it looks like from Twitter this morning, but there you go).
I didn't ask any questions. I had a feeling that I was being given the evil eye by the Party faithful as a possible infiltrator (which I suppose I was!); what I wanted to ask was:
Why, in the 20+ years I've lived here, under both Tory and Labour governments, my local elected (LibDem) representatives have done nothing to halt the decline of the area? It's all very well to blame the Labour majority on Manchester City Council, but if they can't bring about change, why should we vote for them? (I think this thought may appear in previous blogposts).
Why, if he feels David Cameron's views on immigration are wrong, he signed up to the Coalition agreement (the non-EU immigration limits are on page 21, I understand)?
Can he remember where he left his integrity? (my thanks to @Isdancing for that one).
Eventually, the meeting dissolved into photo opps with the candidate and associated movers and shakers (or what passes for them in LibDem circles) and out again through the back door where (I believe) there were some more friendly protestors waiting to greet him. It was a pretty lacklustre performance all round, really, and it didn't sound a if he'd won anyone round who wasn't already going to vote LibDem in May. At least he had the good grace to look haunted and weary.
Actually, lacklustre pretty much describes how the LibDems have been around here. Heavily dependent on their core vote, they don't reach out to the rest of the community. Far too keen to claim a bit of credit, whether it's due or not, and AWOL when things get sticky. How hard did they fight for the swimming baths in 2010? According to Labour, the council received no representations from any of our LibDem councillors - I sincerely hope that isn't true.
The very fact that they've dragged a (relative) big hitter like Vince up from London for a local election campaign suggests they're worried. It's notable that the usual 'LibDems winning here' placards are notably absent from windows and gardens this year. As they said in their election leaflet, "Only LibDems or Labour can win here." May's going to be interesting.
I wandered along, not expecting much to be going on, although I'd heard that there might be a demonstration to welcome him, and I thought I'd go and man the barricades! In the event, I was invited in by one of those business people inside (I'm a regular customer), and was waved past what passed for security (the obligatory Hennigan).
Vince was over 40 minutes late and was ushered in through the back door to avoid the crowd outside. He shook our hands, in that politician's way (I have to report he has a limp handshake, the sure sign of a wrong 'un, according to my old mum), and commenced a short speech. You will not be surprised to hear that they inherited a mess, times are tough, etc, etc.
The crowd outside were good natured but vociferous and their chants could be heard over Vince. His speech was then curtailed by one of the demonstrators trying to charge into the building; it took several minutes for the police/PCSOs to subdue him and lead him out through the back of the bar. There was a bit of harrumphing, but frankly not as much as I expected.
Vince then cut straight to questions. These ranged from locally grown produce (he was surprised Manchester has an agricultural sector), through the inability of successive governments to get to grips with excessive bank charges ("If we succeed, it's in spite of banks rather than because of them") to the iniquities of the Compulsory Purchase Order legislation. His responses were pretty bland, most of them seeming to be of the 'can't comment on specifics' variety, and in spite of his assertion that small businesses are the key to growth, didn't elaborate on how this might happen in an area with little disposable income and a high proportion of public sector workers who have either lost their jobs or had pay freezes. Still, nice know there will be a recovery - not sure when, but.....
You'll be pleased to hear, though, that he enjoys a good relationship with David Cameron (not what it looks like from Twitter this morning, but there you go).
I didn't ask any questions. I had a feeling that I was being given the evil eye by the Party faithful as a possible infiltrator (which I suppose I was!); what I wanted to ask was:
Why, in the 20+ years I've lived here, under both Tory and Labour governments, my local elected (LibDem) representatives have done nothing to halt the decline of the area? It's all very well to blame the Labour majority on Manchester City Council, but if they can't bring about change, why should we vote for them? (I think this thought may appear in previous blogposts).
Why, if he feels David Cameron's views on immigration are wrong, he signed up to the Coalition agreement (the non-EU immigration limits are on page 21, I understand)?
Can he remember where he left his integrity? (my thanks to @Isdancing for that one).
Eventually, the meeting dissolved into photo opps with the candidate and associated movers and shakers (or what passes for them in LibDem circles) and out again through the back door where (I believe) there were some more friendly protestors waiting to greet him. It was a pretty lacklustre performance all round, really, and it didn't sound a if he'd won anyone round who wasn't already going to vote LibDem in May. At least he had the good grace to look haunted and weary.
Actually, lacklustre pretty much describes how the LibDems have been around here. Heavily dependent on their core vote, they don't reach out to the rest of the community. Far too keen to claim a bit of credit, whether it's due or not, and AWOL when things get sticky. How hard did they fight for the swimming baths in 2010? According to Labour, the council received no representations from any of our LibDem councillors - I sincerely hope that isn't true.
The very fact that they've dragged a (relative) big hitter like Vince up from London for a local election campaign suggests they're worried. It's notable that the usual 'LibDems winning here' placards are notably absent from windows and gardens this year. As they said in their election leaflet, "Only LibDems or Labour can win here." May's going to be interesting.
Friday, 8 April 2011
Chancellor Snivelling Little Worm Shocker!!
Today's Mirror is running a story about George Osborne's expenses claims, in particular the fact he is claiming petrol expenses for driving in his constituency.
Now let's leave aside the feeling that as a millionaire he has little need of reimbursement for this (MPs are entitled to claim some expenses and to get rid of this entitlement will inevitably preclude all but the very wealthy from standing for parliament) and have a look at some the detail:
"Mr Osborne asked to be reimbursed for £32.80 in one bill - 40p per mile - for an 82 mile journey from "Macclesfield to Wilmslow"
82 miles? How in hell did he manage to clock up 82 miles?! Macclesfield to Knutsford is, according to Google maps, 12.8 miles each way, even if he'd just gone from point A to point B. Let's assume, though, that he had to visit a number of places around the consituency - we're in the heart of Cheshire, don't forget, where some of the drives are longer than my journey to the shops. I did a bit of fiddling around with additional destinations to see if I could bump it up a bit, and I managed to do so. 86.7 miles, to be precise, but then I did have to go via Stafford to get that!
Another issue here, of course, is the rigour with which the claims are scrutinised (proved wanting under the old system, so one would hope improved under IPSA). Did no-one sitting in London, think to question this? Or is it just that if it's outside the M25 it's bandit country where no reliable maps are available? In my years as a pen-pushing, back office, enemy-of-enterprise local government officer, I dealt with travel and expenses claims for peripatetic staff. Had anyone put in a single claim for 80+ miles within their normal working area, I would have undertaken some serious questioning before agreeing it, because it was public money I would be spending, and (as a taxpayer myself) I always took the expenditure I was responsible for extremely seriously.
Of course, the story is in the Mirror, so will inevitably be looking to portray Osborne in the worst light (not that he needs much help with that!). It's possible that the claim was, in fact, thrown out, but the story highlights two things:
That, despite his personal wealth, he sees nothing wrong with claiming substantial amounts from the taxpayer. Would it hurt him to absorb the costs, if only for the PR coup of being able to claim that "we're all in this together"? [Cue High School Musical dance routine]. (Sorry, this always springs to mind when they trot this cliche out).
That the administration of the expenses system is still far from robust. A little local knowledge goes a long way - my fear is that stuck in an office somewhere in Westminster (and probably underpaid and overworked), IPSA staff may not recognise when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. True I have a bit of local knowledge - Cheshire is the bit us Manchester proles are allowed to visit at the weekends if we want our kids to see a cow - but if it took me 30 seconds to Google it, it really isn't that hard to work out whether someone's working the system.
I'd have thought the name "George Osborne" on the claim form would give that away!
Now let's leave aside the feeling that as a millionaire he has little need of reimbursement for this (MPs are entitled to claim some expenses and to get rid of this entitlement will inevitably preclude all but the very wealthy from standing for parliament) and have a look at some the detail:
"Mr Osborne asked to be reimbursed for £32.80 in one bill - 40p per mile - for an 82 mile journey from "Macclesfield to Wilmslow"
82 miles? How in hell did he manage to clock up 82 miles?! Macclesfield to Knutsford is, according to Google maps, 12.8 miles each way, even if he'd just gone from point A to point B. Let's assume, though, that he had to visit a number of places around the consituency - we're in the heart of Cheshire, don't forget, where some of the drives are longer than my journey to the shops. I did a bit of fiddling around with additional destinations to see if I could bump it up a bit, and I managed to do so. 86.7 miles, to be precise, but then I did have to go via Stafford to get that!
Another issue here, of course, is the rigour with which the claims are scrutinised (proved wanting under the old system, so one would hope improved under IPSA). Did no-one sitting in London, think to question this? Or is it just that if it's outside the M25 it's bandit country where no reliable maps are available? In my years as a pen-pushing, back office, enemy-of-enterprise local government officer, I dealt with travel and expenses claims for peripatetic staff. Had anyone put in a single claim for 80+ miles within their normal working area, I would have undertaken some serious questioning before agreeing it, because it was public money I would be spending, and (as a taxpayer myself) I always took the expenditure I was responsible for extremely seriously.
Of course, the story is in the Mirror, so will inevitably be looking to portray Osborne in the worst light (not that he needs much help with that!). It's possible that the claim was, in fact, thrown out, but the story highlights two things:
That, despite his personal wealth, he sees nothing wrong with claiming substantial amounts from the taxpayer. Would it hurt him to absorb the costs, if only for the PR coup of being able to claim that "we're all in this together"? [Cue High School Musical dance routine]. (Sorry, this always springs to mind when they trot this cliche out).
That the administration of the expenses system is still far from robust. A little local knowledge goes a long way - my fear is that stuck in an office somewhere in Westminster (and probably underpaid and overworked), IPSA staff may not recognise when the wool is being pulled over their eyes. True I have a bit of local knowledge - Cheshire is the bit us Manchester proles are allowed to visit at the weekends if we want our kids to see a cow - but if it took me 30 seconds to Google it, it really isn't that hard to work out whether someone's working the system.
I'd have thought the name "George Osborne" on the claim form would give that away!
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Social Mobility (Revisited)
One of the pleasures of researching you family history is finding out where you come from.
I, for example, have discovered an ancestor, Joseph Maiden, who was a hunt servant in Cheshire and Staffordshire during the 19th century. His reputation was such that there is a chapter devoted to him in a history of the Cheshire Hunt and he appears in a prominent position on a painting which hangs in the Hall at Tatton Park. There's certain irony in the fact that I have always been vociferously anti-blood sports, but yet owe my existence to fox hunting. Conversely, I am immensely proud of this ancestor, of low birth but revered by the aristocrats for whom he worked.
Moving on a couple of generations, my paternal great-grandfather, born in a small village near Bridport, Dorset, also spent his life in service to the aristocracy, becoming stud groom for the Earl of Guildford at his stately home in Kent. My grandfather also started his working life on the estate as a stable boy, but became a mechanic/chauffeur when his lordship invested in horseless carriages. World War I saw him enlist as a driver, and afterwards he joined Kent Police. With the advent of the Road Traffic Act in 1930, he was put in charge (as a sergeant) of the force's Transport section. He was a well-regarded officer whose reputation remained in the force long after retirement.
On my mother's side, my grandfather, abandoned by his father when his mother died, joined the Royal Navy and rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
My parents were bright kids. My dad won a scholarship to the local grammar school (pre-1944 Education Act) and my mother trained as a typist at a Commercial School (a forerunner of the Technical schools which came along in the 1950s). Dad had a career as an insurance underwriter, specialising in insuring transport fleets, and my mum realised an ambition to run her own dancing school. They grew up in wartime, with rationing, but for the whole of their adult lives they were able to enjoy free healthcare, a full, uninterrupted employment record, a retirement in their early 60s with a generous (non-contributory) final salary pension scheme. They sold their house in the south east and retired to Devon (a long-held ambition) and had over 20 years of leisure, supported by a good GP who kept them in good health well into their 80s.
I was part of the generation of girls, born in the 1960s, who were encouraged to believe that they could achieve everything that their male counterparts could. I, too, went to a grammar school (it was Kent, which never fully embraced the concept of comprehensive education). With a white-collar father and a dancing teacher mother, we had become middle class; not cash-rich but with the values and aspirations of the post-war middle classes.
I was the first generation to go to university. I forged a career in local government, providing administrative support in Education (in line with my philosophy that in order for teachers and schools to operate effectively, they need excellent admin support from a local authority which can serve the whole community).
Overall, then, our family has been one which has benefited from social mobility over the last 150 years. Each generation has done a little better than the last, and while none of us have changed the world individually, all of us have made a small difference. Joe Maiden proved that it was possible to beat the toffs at their own game; my grandfather went from serving the aristocracy to serving the public; my mother defied convention by running her own business at a time when married women did not usually go out to work (and giving up a 'safe' job in an office to do it).
So why, now, have we come to a point when this social mobility is moving rapidly into reverse? My local government career ended when I was outsourced and subsequently paid off. My partner, also a lifelong public servant, took a substantial pay cut in an organisation decimated by the sudden departure of hundreds of his colleagues before himself taking voluntary severance. My son, also a bright kid, is unlikely to be able to afford to go to university, thus reversing a one-generational trend of educational improvement. My daughter will have to overcome not only the challenges of having a disability, but the institutional discrimination of a welfare system which presumes malingering and fraud and insists on "work" at all costs while failing to offer support to the vulnerable in the workplace who will inevitably struggle in this new age of entrepreneurs (am beginning to hate that term!)
"Middle class" now seems to encapsulate people who would have been considered "very wealthy" when I was growing up, and who, to be frank, are little different from the super-wealthy who ran the country as their plaything under the coalition and the Nasty Party Redux that followed. Politicians were obsessed with "kids from poor backgrounds" while ignoring the millions of ordinary families who are above the breadline and not claiming benefits, but for whom social mobility is now proving just as difficult as for those from the poorest households. The difference is that there are no pupil premiums, bursaries or targeted schemes for them. One of the positive things about EMA was that it allowed families with an income of just under £30k pa to benefit in a small way (£10pw). There is very little support for anyone who is not actually on a "benefits-only" income. So, obviously, it was scrapped by Michael Gove in an early act of political spite. Tax credits are being reduced so even the small amounts that moderate earners receive is being scaled back, and now restricted to only the first two children, unless the mother can prove she was raped (how is that for dystopian?)
My partner and I spent nearly 20 years quietly contributing to the wellbeing of others. We were the sensible kids who worked hard at school, got our qualifications and sensible jobs. We sensibly paid into pension schemes. We did not earn huge bonuses; our salaries were modest (but good by local government standards). We were never in danger of losing our Child Benefit due to our income level. We did not live extravagantly or have huge amounts of personal debt. We had just reached a point where we did not have to check our bank balances before making any outgoing payment, and had even dared to hope we might be able to afford a second holiday each year. We have done everything that society has told us to do to be good citizens. And then all that was stripped out from under us.
Not only is the gap between the very rich and the very poor widening, but there is now a vast chasm opening up between the lower- and upper- middle classes and it is a cultural, rather than an economic divide, stoked by populism born of xenophobia. Despite the bleating of a few London journalists, most of us are never going to earn £80,000 a year (or anything close to it) no matter how aspirational we are or how hard we work
For those of you considering voting for the "strong and stable" government of Theresa May's Conservatives, know this. Despite her conciliatory tone on the steps of No 10 when she fell into the job of Prime Minister (most of us have to go through rigorous recruitment and selection to even get a job, much less run the country) she doesn't have ordinary people's best interests at heart. Another Tory government will be the end of the NHS, our children will again be subject to the educational segregation of grammar schools and we will be governed by those who think we should be grateful to do low paid work while they enjoy a good salary, expenses and substantial earnings outside of politics.
The Labour Party is not perfect, and anyone who's seen some of the right of the party pontificating on social media (and regular readers of this blog) will know how utterly venal some of its members can be towards so-called comrades, but the policies the party is putting forward now represent a sea change from the timid neoliberalism of the New Labour years. We've gone from "not wanting to be the party of people on benefits" to being"the party of giving a toss about things" in just a few short years
So you don't like Jeremy Corbyn? He's "unelectable" (apart from two leadership elections and most of the by-elections fought under his leadership). He's "not a leader" (as if hiding away from the public in your £1,000 leather trousers and only taking questions from chosen journalists is "leadership"). OK, so which of his policies don't you like? Only taxing the 5% at the top of the income scale? Building really affordable homes? Keeping the NHS free from US-style markets and insurance-based services? No. Most objections seem to be that he's a bit weird/scruffy. The most serious charge levelled against him ("friend of terrorists") might be defendable if it weren't for the people his opponents call friends. Let's face it, compared with the dystopian future we all face under the Conservatives, I think we can put up with a man with a bike and a beard, don't you?
Oh, and fox hunting? My ancestors notwithstanding, it's a barbaric sport which should have died out in the 19th century.
I, for example, have discovered an ancestor, Joseph Maiden, who was a hunt servant in Cheshire and Staffordshire during the 19th century. His reputation was such that there is a chapter devoted to him in a history of the Cheshire Hunt and he appears in a prominent position on a painting which hangs in the Hall at Tatton Park. There's certain irony in the fact that I have always been vociferously anti-blood sports, but yet owe my existence to fox hunting. Conversely, I am immensely proud of this ancestor, of low birth but revered by the aristocrats for whom he worked.
Moving on a couple of generations, my paternal great-grandfather, born in a small village near Bridport, Dorset, also spent his life in service to the aristocracy, becoming stud groom for the Earl of Guildford at his stately home in Kent. My grandfather also started his working life on the estate as a stable boy, but became a mechanic/chauffeur when his lordship invested in horseless carriages. World War I saw him enlist as a driver, and afterwards he joined Kent Police. With the advent of the Road Traffic Act in 1930, he was put in charge (as a sergeant) of the force's Transport section. He was a well-regarded officer whose reputation remained in the force long after retirement.
On my mother's side, my grandfather, abandoned by his father when his mother died, joined the Royal Navy and rose to the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
My parents were bright kids. My dad won a scholarship to the local grammar school (pre-1944 Education Act) and my mother trained as a typist at a Commercial School (a forerunner of the Technical schools which came along in the 1950s). Dad had a career as an insurance underwriter, specialising in insuring transport fleets, and my mum realised an ambition to run her own dancing school. They grew up in wartime, with rationing, but for the whole of their adult lives they were able to enjoy free healthcare, a full, uninterrupted employment record, a retirement in their early 60s with a generous (non-contributory) final salary pension scheme. They sold their house in the south east and retired to Devon (a long-held ambition) and had over 20 years of leisure, supported by a good GP who kept them in good health well into their 80s.
I was part of the generation of girls, born in the 1960s, who were encouraged to believe that they could achieve everything that their male counterparts could. I, too, went to a grammar school (it was Kent, which never fully embraced the concept of comprehensive education). With a white-collar father and a dancing teacher mother, we had become middle class; not cash-rich but with the values and aspirations of the post-war middle classes.
I was the first generation to go to university. I forged a career in local government, providing administrative support in Education (in line with my philosophy that in order for teachers and schools to operate effectively, they need excellent admin support from a local authority which can serve the whole community).
Overall, then, our family has been one which has benefited from social mobility over the last 150 years. Each generation has done a little better than the last, and while none of us have changed the world individually, all of us have made a small difference. Joe Maiden proved that it was possible to beat the toffs at their own game; my grandfather went from serving the aristocracy to serving the public; my mother defied convention by running her own business at a time when married women did not usually go out to work (and giving up a 'safe' job in an office to do it).
So why, now, have we come to a point when this social mobility is moving rapidly into reverse? My local government career ended when I was outsourced and subsequently paid off. My partner, also a lifelong public servant, took a substantial pay cut in an organisation decimated by the sudden departure of hundreds of his colleagues before himself taking voluntary severance. My son, also a bright kid, is unlikely to be able to afford to go to university, thus reversing a one-generational trend of educational improvement. My daughter will have to overcome not only the challenges of having a disability, but the institutional discrimination of a welfare system which presumes malingering and fraud and insists on "work" at all costs while failing to offer support to the vulnerable in the workplace who will inevitably struggle in this new age of entrepreneurs (am beginning to hate that term!)
"Middle class" now seems to encapsulate people who would have been considered "very wealthy" when I was growing up, and who, to be frank, are little different from the super-wealthy who ran the country as their plaything under the coalition and the Nasty Party Redux that followed. Politicians were obsessed with "kids from poor backgrounds" while ignoring the millions of ordinary families who are above the breadline and not claiming benefits, but for whom social mobility is now proving just as difficult as for those from the poorest households. The difference is that there are no pupil premiums, bursaries or targeted schemes for them. One of the positive things about EMA was that it allowed families with an income of just under £30k pa to benefit in a small way (£10pw). There is very little support for anyone who is not actually on a "benefits-only" income. So, obviously, it was scrapped by Michael Gove in an early act of political spite. Tax credits are being reduced so even the small amounts that moderate earners receive is being scaled back, and now restricted to only the first two children, unless the mother can prove she was raped (how is that for dystopian?)
My partner and I spent nearly 20 years quietly contributing to the wellbeing of others. We were the sensible kids who worked hard at school, got our qualifications and sensible jobs. We sensibly paid into pension schemes. We did not earn huge bonuses; our salaries were modest (but good by local government standards). We were never in danger of losing our Child Benefit due to our income level. We did not live extravagantly or have huge amounts of personal debt. We had just reached a point where we did not have to check our bank balances before making any outgoing payment, and had even dared to hope we might be able to afford a second holiday each year. We have done everything that society has told us to do to be good citizens. And then all that was stripped out from under us.
Not only is the gap between the very rich and the very poor widening, but there is now a vast chasm opening up between the lower- and upper- middle classes and it is a cultural, rather than an economic divide, stoked by populism born of xenophobia. Despite the bleating of a few London journalists, most of us are never going to earn £80,000 a year (or anything close to it) no matter how aspirational we are or how hard we work
For those of you considering voting for the "strong and stable" government of Theresa May's Conservatives, know this. Despite her conciliatory tone on the steps of No 10 when she fell into the job of Prime Minister (most of us have to go through rigorous recruitment and selection to even get a job, much less run the country) she doesn't have ordinary people's best interests at heart. Another Tory government will be the end of the NHS, our children will again be subject to the educational segregation of grammar schools and we will be governed by those who think we should be grateful to do low paid work while they enjoy a good salary, expenses and substantial earnings outside of politics.
The Labour Party is not perfect, and anyone who's seen some of the right of the party pontificating on social media (and regular readers of this blog) will know how utterly venal some of its members can be towards so-called comrades, but the policies the party is putting forward now represent a sea change from the timid neoliberalism of the New Labour years. We've gone from "not wanting to be the party of people on benefits" to being"the party of giving a toss about things" in just a few short years
So you don't like Jeremy Corbyn? He's "unelectable" (apart from two leadership elections and most of the by-elections fought under his leadership). He's "not a leader" (as if hiding away from the public in your £1,000 leather trousers and only taking questions from chosen journalists is "leadership"). OK, so which of his policies don't you like? Only taxing the 5% at the top of the income scale? Building really affordable homes? Keeping the NHS free from US-style markets and insurance-based services? No. Most objections seem to be that he's a bit weird/scruffy. The most serious charge levelled against him ("friend of terrorists") might be defendable if it weren't for the people his opponents call friends. Let's face it, compared with the dystopian future we all face under the Conservatives, I think we can put up with a man with a bike and a beard, don't you?
Oh, and fox hunting? My ancestors notwithstanding, it's a barbaric sport which should have died out in the 19th century.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Why I'm Marching (Virtually) Today
I was 16 and taking my O Levels in a Home Counties grammar school when the Conservatives last came to power in their own right. I left school two years later in the middle of a major recession. I was lucky - with 2 A levels I was able to get a succession of temporary jobs and, eventually, a permanent post with a local authority. It didn't pay well, but the work was interesting and, at eighteen, I got the public service bug.
I was the product of a One-Nation Tory household, and worked for a Tory council. The funny thing is that over the course of the six years I spent there, I came to realise that the Conservatives did not have the answers to the problems of the age. Two things happened:
During the miners's strike, a miners' wife applied to me for a uniform grant for her 12 year old son. These grants were only payable when the child moved from primary to secondary school, so I approached my supervisor to see if an exception could be made due to their financial hardship. "No", came the reply (from an otherwise decent human being, for whom I had great respect), "It's his father's choice to be on strike." The Kent coalfield (an area where I had family; my dad's cousin was a Bevin Boy) is now long gone, of course, and who knows what happened to that woman, her husband and her son - I doubt any of them benefitted from the 'economic miracle' of the Yuppie era.
In 1985, I happened to be off sick during the week of the Labour Party conference and happened to be watching the TV coverage of 'that speech' from my sofa. Wrapped in a blanket, and downing Lemsip, I suddenly realised that what he was saying made more sense to me than the conservative values I'd been brought up with.
A couple of years later, I realised that I probably should have gone to university after all, and took the decision to leave my local authority job and return to full-time education. I moved to Manchester and found, to my delight, that I felt 'at home' in a way I no longer did in the south east. As a mature student, I was eligible to receive a full grant. I had a part-time job while I was a student, which helped a bit, but I was able to live well, if frugally, on a student grant and left more or less debt free in 1991, emerging back into the workforce in the middle of another Tory-fuelled recession!
At this point, young (ish), and with a good degree from a decent university, I could have headed for the private sector, but I chose to return to local authority work. I spent the next 17 years working to improve the education and life chances of Manchester children. I went in at a fairly low level (this was before the days of graduate recruitment schemes) and it took a while to work my way up the career ladder, but I was proud of the organisation I worked for and that I was giving something back to the city I love. Slowly, my partner and I built quiet, unassuming careers in local government, had children (one of whom is on the autistic spectrum and therefore has a lifetime of misunderstanding and discrimination to overcome in addition to the difficulties her generation will suffer). Life was pretty good from 1997 onwards. We weren't wealthy, but we were finally comfortable (and not having to check every outgoing expense to make sure we weren't overdrawn), our children benefitted from good local authority-run nursery provision and excellent state schools
Nearly two years ago, my career was whipped out from under me like the tablecloth under a full-laid dining table in that rather cheesy Variety trick. The government project I'd been working on was put out to tender, a national contract so large that Manchester City Council was unable to bid for it and it went (inevitably) to one of those faceless BPO's who run so many of our back-office 'public' functions these days. So I, and about 50 colleagues with 200+ years of accumulated experience, were outsourced (and subsequently laid off). And this, it pains to to say, from the New Labour government who were just as blinded by the "private always more efficient" mantra that the Tories trot out. Having now worked in both sectors, the most charitable description I can come up with is that the private sector isn't more effective, it's just differently ineffective.
Nearly a quarter of a century after I first arrived in Manchester, I'm still here, still loving it and desperate about what's being done to it by the current, mandate-less coalition government. I was in local government when George Osborne was doing his (short) stint in Selfridges; I was working for local people when no-one had heard of Nick Clegg (actually, that doesn't give it much age, does it?). For how this government is affecting our family, see my post Incandescent elsewhere on this blog
Only an idiot would claim that no cuts were necessary - thanks to the mess we inherited from an under-regulated banking sector - but I am furious at being labelled a 'deficit denier'. I know that there's a deficit, I acknowledge it needs to be brought down. What I do not accept is that it needs to be brought down at the speed proposed by the coalition, at the expense of growth and by targeting those least able to defend themselves from the impact of the cuts. There is also no way that the un-mandated 'reform' of the NHS or Michael Gove's education policies will bring the deficit down - quite the reverse. They should be seen for what they are - the means by which this morally-bankrupt administration can feather the nests of its shadowy, neocon supporters in the health, education and BPO companies all currently snuffling around the trough.
So, I am not marching today - despite the fact that it's their future we're marching for, I don't want to subject the kids to the tender mercies of the Met, and it would not be fair to subject an autistic child to the level of (good) noise and crowds. I did, though, run my partner into the city centre at 6.30am so he could pick up the Unison coach, and will be doing what I can from a computer.
There is an Alternative, and we should insist on it before George Osborne's ineptitude wrecks the country completely.
I was the product of a One-Nation Tory household, and worked for a Tory council. The funny thing is that over the course of the six years I spent there, I came to realise that the Conservatives did not have the answers to the problems of the age. Two things happened:
During the miners's strike, a miners' wife applied to me for a uniform grant for her 12 year old son. These grants were only payable when the child moved from primary to secondary school, so I approached my supervisor to see if an exception could be made due to their financial hardship. "No", came the reply (from an otherwise decent human being, for whom I had great respect), "It's his father's choice to be on strike." The Kent coalfield (an area where I had family; my dad's cousin was a Bevin Boy) is now long gone, of course, and who knows what happened to that woman, her husband and her son - I doubt any of them benefitted from the 'economic miracle' of the Yuppie era.
In 1985, I happened to be off sick during the week of the Labour Party conference and happened to be watching the TV coverage of 'that speech' from my sofa. Wrapped in a blanket, and downing Lemsip, I suddenly realised that what he was saying made more sense to me than the conservative values I'd been brought up with.
A couple of years later, I realised that I probably should have gone to university after all, and took the decision to leave my local authority job and return to full-time education. I moved to Manchester and found, to my delight, that I felt 'at home' in a way I no longer did in the south east. As a mature student, I was eligible to receive a full grant. I had a part-time job while I was a student, which helped a bit, but I was able to live well, if frugally, on a student grant and left more or less debt free in 1991, emerging back into the workforce in the middle of another Tory-fuelled recession!
At this point, young (ish), and with a good degree from a decent university, I could have headed for the private sector, but I chose to return to local authority work. I spent the next 17 years working to improve the education and life chances of Manchester children. I went in at a fairly low level (this was before the days of graduate recruitment schemes) and it took a while to work my way up the career ladder, but I was proud of the organisation I worked for and that I was giving something back to the city I love. Slowly, my partner and I built quiet, unassuming careers in local government, had children (one of whom is on the autistic spectrum and therefore has a lifetime of misunderstanding and discrimination to overcome in addition to the difficulties her generation will suffer). Life was pretty good from 1997 onwards. We weren't wealthy, but we were finally comfortable (and not having to check every outgoing expense to make sure we weren't overdrawn), our children benefitted from good local authority-run nursery provision and excellent state schools
Nearly two years ago, my career was whipped out from under me like the tablecloth under a full-laid dining table in that rather cheesy Variety trick. The government project I'd been working on was put out to tender, a national contract so large that Manchester City Council was unable to bid for it and it went (inevitably) to one of those faceless BPO's who run so many of our back-office 'public' functions these days. So I, and about 50 colleagues with 200+ years of accumulated experience, were outsourced (and subsequently laid off). And this, it pains to to say, from the New Labour government who were just as blinded by the "private always more efficient" mantra that the Tories trot out. Having now worked in both sectors, the most charitable description I can come up with is that the private sector isn't more effective, it's just differently ineffective.
Nearly a quarter of a century after I first arrived in Manchester, I'm still here, still loving it and desperate about what's being done to it by the current, mandate-less coalition government. I was in local government when George Osborne was doing his (short) stint in Selfridges; I was working for local people when no-one had heard of Nick Clegg (actually, that doesn't give it much age, does it?). For how this government is affecting our family, see my post Incandescent elsewhere on this blog
Only an idiot would claim that no cuts were necessary - thanks to the mess we inherited from an under-regulated banking sector - but I am furious at being labelled a 'deficit denier'. I know that there's a deficit, I acknowledge it needs to be brought down. What I do not accept is that it needs to be brought down at the speed proposed by the coalition, at the expense of growth and by targeting those least able to defend themselves from the impact of the cuts. There is also no way that the un-mandated 'reform' of the NHS or Michael Gove's education policies will bring the deficit down - quite the reverse. They should be seen for what they are - the means by which this morally-bankrupt administration can feather the nests of its shadowy, neocon supporters in the health, education and BPO companies all currently snuffling around the trough.
So, I am not marching today - despite the fact that it's their future we're marching for, I don't want to subject the kids to the tender mercies of the Met, and it would not be fair to subject an autistic child to the level of (good) noise and crowds. I did, though, run my partner into the city centre at 6.30am so he could pick up the Unison coach, and will be doing what I can from a computer.
There is an Alternative, and we should insist on it before George Osborne's ineptitude wrecks the country completely.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Levenshulme and the LibDems (Warning: May Contain Party Politics)
Once upon a time, on the edge of a conservation area in the West Point area of Levenshulme, there were three Victorian houses which had been sub-divided into 12 apartments. Some of the residents had lived there for many years, and were good neighbours. True, there was an old ambulance in the front garden and it looked a bit run-down but no-one really objected, and most people in the area had either lived there themselves or knew someone who had at some time. It was a community.
Then, about seven years ago, the three houses were bought by a property developer, and all the residents departed very shortly afterwards. The developer called on us, as neighbours, to explain the wonderful plans he had for the site. Now, we've watched Grand Designs and we don't necessarily disapprove of new developments, so we were interested to see what he proposed.
What he proposed to replace the 3 storey Victorian frontage, was a 5 storey, flat roofed development which towered above the existing 2 storey houses adjacent to it, with windows overlooking neighbouring properties, and containing 23 (yes, you read that right) "luxury apartments" with a basement car park (the fumes from which were evacuated by means of vents over my neighbours' boundary about 2 metres away). All this on a corner plot with existing parking problems and at an accident black spot.
Dismayed by these proposals, the community rallied to object to the planning proposal. We put out flyers (this was in the days before social networking sites) and were amazed that the public meeting we convened filled my neighbours's house, with people standing out in the garden to try and hear what was being said. Two of our elected Liberal Democrat councillors attended this meeting. My abiding memory of their contribution was that they bickered with each other, virtually ignoring the contributions of others present.
When the day of the planning meeting came, a lot of us took time off work to attend, and were heartened to find that the council had received over 50 letters of protest about the proposal. The developer, hoping to wrong-foot us, submitted an amended proposal, with a couple of apartments fewer, on 4 storeys, but with a roof garden! Thankfully, the council saw sense and refused the application as being antagonistic to the local plan for the area and a gross over-development of the site. A group of us went and have a coffee in Starbucks and celebrated at least a temporary victory before heading back to Leve.
Within hours of getting back home, leaflets had come through local doors in Levenshulme, with a photograph of the aforementioned LibDem councillors beaming in front of the derelict site, claiming that they had secured a victory over the developer! Those of us who had campaigned to raise awareness locally and printed and delivered publicity, tried to think what the councillors' contribution had actually been and concluded...... very little.
As I say, it was only a temporary victory. Thwarted, the developer threw his toys out of the pram and let the site deteriorate to the point where demolition rather than restoration is now the only option for the site (and thus, another part of Victorian Levenshulme disappears). Eventually, he was subject to an Enforced Sale and the site offered to a housing association for development. However, with the advent of the Coalition, funding for social housing ground to a halt and the site is now back up for sale as a development, so the whole cycle will start again.
The interesting thing about this about this story, though, is the attitude of the LibDem councillors who, unaccountably, continue to represent Levenshulme. In the 20+ years I've lived here under their stewardship, I've seen the area fall victim to continual neglect, getting very little benefit from the A6 regeneration monies which have been available elsewhere in the area. The Lib Dems are keen to blame the majority Labour council for this (and yes, they do have 'previous' on this - the baths and Arcadia have been under threat for years), but it does beg the question - "If you are so powerless against the 'tyranny' of the Labour majority, why on earth should we continue to elect you to represent us?"
I see from my Twitter feed from the council meeting this morning that they are continuing with their usual modus operandi of claiming credit for anything good and being conspicuous by their absence when things look bad for them. In a world of change, I suppose we should at least be grateful that this never changes.
Then, about seven years ago, the three houses were bought by a property developer, and all the residents departed very shortly afterwards. The developer called on us, as neighbours, to explain the wonderful plans he had for the site. Now, we've watched Grand Designs and we don't necessarily disapprove of new developments, so we were interested to see what he proposed.
What he proposed to replace the 3 storey Victorian frontage, was a 5 storey, flat roofed development which towered above the existing 2 storey houses adjacent to it, with windows overlooking neighbouring properties, and containing 23 (yes, you read that right) "luxury apartments" with a basement car park (the fumes from which were evacuated by means of vents over my neighbours' boundary about 2 metres away). All this on a corner plot with existing parking problems and at an accident black spot.
Dismayed by these proposals, the community rallied to object to the planning proposal. We put out flyers (this was in the days before social networking sites) and were amazed that the public meeting we convened filled my neighbours's house, with people standing out in the garden to try and hear what was being said. Two of our elected Liberal Democrat councillors attended this meeting. My abiding memory of their contribution was that they bickered with each other, virtually ignoring the contributions of others present.
When the day of the planning meeting came, a lot of us took time off work to attend, and were heartened to find that the council had received over 50 letters of protest about the proposal. The developer, hoping to wrong-foot us, submitted an amended proposal, with a couple of apartments fewer, on 4 storeys, but with a roof garden! Thankfully, the council saw sense and refused the application as being antagonistic to the local plan for the area and a gross over-development of the site. A group of us went and have a coffee in Starbucks and celebrated at least a temporary victory before heading back to Leve.
Within hours of getting back home, leaflets had come through local doors in Levenshulme, with a photograph of the aforementioned LibDem councillors beaming in front of the derelict site, claiming that they had secured a victory over the developer! Those of us who had campaigned to raise awareness locally and printed and delivered publicity, tried to think what the councillors' contribution had actually been and concluded...... very little.
As I say, it was only a temporary victory. Thwarted, the developer threw his toys out of the pram and let the site deteriorate to the point where demolition rather than restoration is now the only option for the site (and thus, another part of Victorian Levenshulme disappears). Eventually, he was subject to an Enforced Sale and the site offered to a housing association for development. However, with the advent of the Coalition, funding for social housing ground to a halt and the site is now back up for sale as a development, so the whole cycle will start again.
The interesting thing about this about this story, though, is the attitude of the LibDem councillors who, unaccountably, continue to represent Levenshulme. In the 20+ years I've lived here under their stewardship, I've seen the area fall victim to continual neglect, getting very little benefit from the A6 regeneration monies which have been available elsewhere in the area. The Lib Dems are keen to blame the majority Labour council for this (and yes, they do have 'previous' on this - the baths and Arcadia have been under threat for years), but it does beg the question - "If you are so powerless against the 'tyranny' of the Labour majority, why on earth should we continue to elect you to represent us?"
I see from my Twitter feed from the council meeting this morning that they are continuing with their usual modus operandi of claiming credit for anything good and being conspicuous by their absence when things look bad for them. In a world of change, I suppose we should at least be grateful that this never changes.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Dear Insurance Industry.....
I phoned my insurer the other day to amend my cover as we are buying a very safe, boring, MPV to accommodate our growing family. I was quoted an additional £200 to take me up to my renewal date in September, which seemed a bit steep for 6 months, but there you go. It's a slightly bigger car and so forth...
When I called back today to confirm this, I was informed that the additional premium was, in fact, £300. When I queried this, the call handler checked my records and found that the lower quote originally given reflected my status as 'married' whereas in fact, I am a co-habitee, and therefore classed as 'single'
A co-habitee, I might add, of 23 years with 2 children by the same partner, a joint mortgage taken out in 1993 and a bread-maker - how much more "responsible" does it get?
I explained that had there been an option of 'cohabiting' when I first applied for the insurance, I would have selected it, and would only have opted for 'married' as the status which most closely matched my lifestyle (and therefore insurance risk). On checking back at the website, 2 options are given: "Married or Civil Partner" (ie, a couple) or "Single" (er- single). I had made the not unreasonable presumption that what they were asking was "Are you part of a couple or on your own?", which would have made some sense in order to determine whether I was likely to go gallivanting off at high speed without a care in the world, or try and keep my family safe on the road.
Price comparison websites do give the option of 'cohabiting' and government agencies use the definition of 'living with someone as if you are married' for a whole range of benefits, taxation, etc. (for this reason, I am unable to claim JSA because of my partner's income), so why on earth should I be classed as single? I haven't been single since the 80's!
A very quick web search suggests that insurers often lower premiums for married couples as this, apparently, equates to "responsibility" regardless of the length of marriage or quality of driving. In a week that saw a challenge to the discounts applied to female drivers on the grounds of discrimination, surely it's time to look at all generic discounts which are not directly related to claims experience and risk? In an age when the pop-up ads on Facebook can be directly targeted at the individual, it should be possible for car insurance to be based on the individual's circumstances and driving history.
A friend of mine, of a similar age and with a similar vehicle and driving history, is separated from her husband but cannot afford to go through formal divorce proceedings. As a result, she can still claim to be married and receive the discount, even though she is living as a single person. True, she is no less "responsible" because of that, but then neither am I.
I have held a full UK licence for 25 years, have never had to make a claim, never had any penalty or speeding points added to my licence. My driving ability is in no way connected to my marital status, and so to penalise me for not holding a wedding certificate seems entirely nonsensical. Having said that, I'm quite used to being considered a second class citizen in the eyes of politicians and moralisers for my stand against the dubious institution of marriage; I am hoping that the pending court case regarding heterosexual civil partnerships is successful, as this far better reflects the commitment that I wish to make to my partner. Some inheritance rights would be nice, too.
I don't really complain about the cost of fuel (the price, after all, of polluting the planet) or road tax, What I do object to is the obscene amounts of money insurance companies grab from us for compulsory insurance, based on actuarial tables which deal in generalities. My Manchester post code immediately hikes up the premium, despite the fact that ours is a relatively law-abiding area without too much vehicle crime. By the standards of some of my friends, my premium is fairly low - many younger drivers, even those with excellent driving histories, are paying thousands a year just to stay on the road. And, of course, this leads to increasing numbers of uninsured drivers, thus causing a vicious cycle of rising premiums for the rest of us. The question, "Why do they charge so much?" appears to have one answer - "Because they can."
The one advantage of the 'Big Brother' level of personal information which is held about us today should surely be that goods and services can be fine-tuned to our circumstances? It would be nice to get recognition that a 48 year old co-habitee with 2 kids and a good driving record is just as good a claims risk as a 48 year old married woman with 2 kids. Since when was my driving ability determined by the man ( in my case, a non-driving man) in my life?
When I called back today to confirm this, I was informed that the additional premium was, in fact, £300. When I queried this, the call handler checked my records and found that the lower quote originally given reflected my status as 'married' whereas in fact, I am a co-habitee, and therefore classed as 'single'
A co-habitee, I might add, of 23 years with 2 children by the same partner, a joint mortgage taken out in 1993 and a bread-maker - how much more "responsible" does it get?
I explained that had there been an option of 'cohabiting' when I first applied for the insurance, I would have selected it, and would only have opted for 'married' as the status which most closely matched my lifestyle (and therefore insurance risk). On checking back at the website, 2 options are given: "Married or Civil Partner" (ie, a couple) or "Single" (er- single). I had made the not unreasonable presumption that what they were asking was "Are you part of a couple or on your own?", which would have made some sense in order to determine whether I was likely to go gallivanting off at high speed without a care in the world, or try and keep my family safe on the road.
Price comparison websites do give the option of 'cohabiting' and government agencies use the definition of 'living with someone as if you are married' for a whole range of benefits, taxation, etc. (for this reason, I am unable to claim JSA because of my partner's income), so why on earth should I be classed as single? I haven't been single since the 80's!
A very quick web search suggests that insurers often lower premiums for married couples as this, apparently, equates to "responsibility" regardless of the length of marriage or quality of driving. In a week that saw a challenge to the discounts applied to female drivers on the grounds of discrimination, surely it's time to look at all generic discounts which are not directly related to claims experience and risk? In an age when the pop-up ads on Facebook can be directly targeted at the individual, it should be possible for car insurance to be based on the individual's circumstances and driving history.
A friend of mine, of a similar age and with a similar vehicle and driving history, is separated from her husband but cannot afford to go through formal divorce proceedings. As a result, she can still claim to be married and receive the discount, even though she is living as a single person. True, she is no less "responsible" because of that, but then neither am I.
I have held a full UK licence for 25 years, have never had to make a claim, never had any penalty or speeding points added to my licence. My driving ability is in no way connected to my marital status, and so to penalise me for not holding a wedding certificate seems entirely nonsensical. Having said that, I'm quite used to being considered a second class citizen in the eyes of politicians and moralisers for my stand against the dubious institution of marriage; I am hoping that the pending court case regarding heterosexual civil partnerships is successful, as this far better reflects the commitment that I wish to make to my partner. Some inheritance rights would be nice, too.
I don't really complain about the cost of fuel (the price, after all, of polluting the planet) or road tax, What I do object to is the obscene amounts of money insurance companies grab from us for compulsory insurance, based on actuarial tables which deal in generalities. My Manchester post code immediately hikes up the premium, despite the fact that ours is a relatively law-abiding area without too much vehicle crime. By the standards of some of my friends, my premium is fairly low - many younger drivers, even those with excellent driving histories, are paying thousands a year just to stay on the road. And, of course, this leads to increasing numbers of uninsured drivers, thus causing a vicious cycle of rising premiums for the rest of us. The question, "Why do they charge so much?" appears to have one answer - "Because they can."
The one advantage of the 'Big Brother' level of personal information which is held about us today should surely be that goods and services can be fine-tuned to our circumstances? It would be nice to get recognition that a 48 year old co-habitee with 2 kids and a good driving record is just as good a claims risk as a 48 year old married woman with 2 kids. Since when was my driving ability determined by the man ( in my case, a non-driving man) in my life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)