10th Anniversary

We were sitting in the hospital waiting room at Leeds General Infirmary, understandably nervous for M (3), undergoing her first dose of laser treatment under general anaesthetic. The Bob the Builder video on the waiting room TV ended, and the picture reverted to real television, and a newly-emerging news story of a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre. With no visuals, we imagined something a bit like King Kong - a light aircraft gone off course, perhaps? As the afternoon progressed M came out of surgery, and we all sat transfixed as the story developed and she recuperated. Medics came off duty and huddled around the TV rather than go home. 


Away from the two aircraft in New York, reports came in of another plane coming down in rural Pennsylvania, and my thoughts turned to my friends there - the only state where I knew anybody! We were discharged and headed over the our friend's house where we had left the infant J. She'd been in the garden with the children all afternoon and had only just heard that there had "been a plane crash in New York." It seems incredible in these days of 24 hour news and social networking, to think that only a decade ago you could remain unaware of a story for that long.

The journey back across the M62 had the quality of a particularly weird dream. The PM team on the car radio were trying to make sense of what was going on, the UK weather, unlike the clear blue skies of New York, was that oppressive low cloud through which you sense the sun might burst if it only had the courage. I remember it being muggy and uncomfortable, with a strange quality of light as we hit the 'split' section and summit of the motorway. At one point, M decided to extricate herself from her seatbelt and was sitting in the footwell in the rear passenger seats. In rush hour, it was impossible (and dangerous) to stop and re-seat her, so I just had to keep going, with OH coaxing her back to her seat.

The memories are still vivid. The images still powerful. On future trips to LGI I usually went alone with M, but on that day I was grateful I had my family with me - it was no time to be dealing with things on your own.  For my generation, this was probably our JFK moment. I wonder if my children will feel the same dislocation I do about that - old enough to have 'been there' but not old enough to remember it?

The reasons are still disputed, but in essence the attacks (and the response to them) stem from intolerance. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, the British government's decision to get into bed with an oil-hungry, none-too-bright leader of the free world has been catastrophic. It de-railed the social progress which 1997 promised, diminished us internationally; it has made us no safer, while at the same time curtailing civil liberties and stifling dissent. And it's bolstered extremism in all its forms - the 'moralisers' of the Christian right are every bit as dangerous.

So my thoughts today are with all those who lost their lives that day, and those who have suffered as a result since. Just as the UK is being buffeted today by the far-off effects of an Atlantic weather system, so we are all still feeling the after-effects of 9/11.

What gives me hope is that the 3 year old that day is now a thriving teenager who is at ease with her appearance and has elected to discontinue her laser surgery. Now that's a victory.

UPDATE: Another ten years, and we are really no better off. Intolerance, in all its manifestations, is on the increase. Maybe the world did change forever on that day, but not for the better. 

M said this morning, "I've been telling all my friends for a decade that I know where I was on 9/11, even though I was only 3." 

Gordon Brown

I have always liked Gordon Brown. 


He's always seemed to me to be an honourable man, an un-showy politician and (despite what the spinners would try and tell you) a highly successful Chancellor who quietly redistributed wealth in the early years of the Labour government. 


True, he was very much part of the New Labour project, but I saw him as a moderator, curbing the worst excesses of Tony Blair. Shortly after the election of May 1997, Tories of my acquaintance wagged their fingers at me and said, "You wait - we'll see their true colours now they're in power." I waited. And waited. The true colours I had hoped Labour would show never actually materialised and I was, like many people, bitterly disappointed that they had failed to act decisively on so many things that mattered to me. I put this down to Blair, and had great hopes that Brown's administration would roll back some of the more 'Tory-Lite' policies we'd seen from the Blair years. Brown was, I felt, more committed to social justice than his predecessor, more in touch with ordinary people (as far as one can be at the top of the political tree). True, he was mocked for his social awkwardness, the rictus smile which appeared in photo opps, but at heart I always felt that here was an honourable man whose real smile (on the few occasions we saw it), was genuine and full of joy.


When my 10 year old daughter, facing a major operation on her eye to try and save it after a retinal detachment caused by Sturge Weber Syndrome, wrote to him because she knew he, too, had had problems with his eyesight, she received a letter back from 10 Downing Street. Now, we know it came from the Direct Communications Unit, and was not hand-written by him, but it was written in a very informal style and detailed the accident which had caused him to lose his sight. Even if Brown himself never set eyes on her original letter, his team cared enough to pitch the response just right for a scared 10 year old, rather than giving a stock response. (Compare that with the non-response Brown got from the Met when he wrote to them regarding being a possible victim of hacking).


After the initial honeymoon period (he was impressive in response to the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, for example), my faith in him started to wobble. His "government of all the talents" appeared to comprise the talents of slapstick and self-harm, to a point where I started to wonder if some of those allegedly working for him didn't have some other agenda (how far-fetched that seemed at the time!). His decision not to call an early general election seemed strange, as it would have given him extra legitimacy and drawn a definite line between him and Blair. The policies I had been appalled to see a Labour government introduce (academies, outsourcing of government contracts to the profit-driven private sector BPOs) continued seemingly unabated, and so much of it seemed at odds with what I knew of Brown's views and convictions. 


I concluded that although he might be a decent man, and a fine Chancellor, maybe he'd fallen victim to the Peter Principle. Maybe he just couldn't hack it in the top job? Perhaps being decent and having values was no longer enough? Maybe the Blairites were still exerting too much power for him to make any real difference?


During the 2010 election campaign, as one gaffe led to another disaster, it seemed clear that the value- and charm-free glibness of David Cameron and the student-bribing antics of Nick Clegg were probably going to sink Gordon. Both were more at home with the sound-bite populism of the leaders' debates than Brown, even though they had little to say of any real worth. Occasionally, in the big speeches, there were glimpses of the man I hoped Gordon was, but it was not enough, and so we now have the Slash and Burn Coalition wrecking British society to line the pockets of their influential, tax-avoiding cronies and its "Greasy Pole Social Mobility", where a few 'entrepreneurs' (God, how I'm growing to hate that term) make good from humble beginnings (and then pull the drawbridge up behind them) rather than real mobility (ie, modest improvements in living standards) for the majority.


Back in December 2010 when I started this blog I wrote about the last Labour government and what it had done for me, my family and millions of other ordinary citizens (all of which is now being unravelled). I also stated that:


Some of the trashing of Brown has been, frankly, disgraceful and I think it shows the mettle of the man that he's put up with it. In time, I think his reputation may recover - after all, John Major is now seen as a genial elder statesman!




I think that process may now be beginning. Yesterday's revelations about the 10 year campaign of hacking/blagging to trawl personal information on not just Brown, but on his son's medical condition, will have made all but the most venal commentators (and there are some, if you look at the comments on any given news story) feel compassion for a man whose family life had already been touched by the tragedy of his infant daughter's death. I remember the awful moment we received our daughter's diagnosis - how on earth would we have coped in similar circumstances if we had been - effectively - doorstepped by an extremely powerful and ruthless newspaper editor telling us that she was going to make our family front page news for no other reason than because she could? 


Suddenly, the inaction, the 'gaffes', the seeming ineffectiveness of Brown's term of office, start to make some sense. I doubt Gordon Brown is the sort of man for whom sucking up to the Murdoch Empire came easily, but knowing that they were always hovering around him, waiting to pounce, effectively hobbled his government. He was, no doubt, advised that he had to keep Murdoch and his henchmen/women sweet, the received wisdom of the time being that News International/Corporation were the king-makers. How much do you imagine it stuck in his craw to have to attend the harpies' wedding, knowing what she was capable of?


In fact, as I write this, another vile revelation has just appeared on my Twitter feed via the redoubtable Marina Hyde. 


Not only was Brown battling the Blairites (although given Blair's closeness to Murdoch, we probably can't rule out some additional influence there, too). Trying to run a country under the constant threat of blackmail (not that you've done anything wrong, but just that your personal life might be spread across the media). Throw in a global financial crisis to throw all your figures off-balance, and that's game over.


Unlike Cameron, Brown has never used his children to further his career and appeal to the masses, so why is their medical history of any 'public interest'? It's been pointed out today that the Murdoch-friendly Blair's refusal to admit whether Leo had had his MMR was 'respected' (if that's a term which could ever be applied to the Murdoch media).


So, I'm a little happier. I didn't want to think that Brown was a) just like Blair b) incompetent, and now it looks like I was right all along. What we are learning now explains so much about the Brown years which seemed inexplicable at the time. It explains why he never seemed to have the "courage of his convictions" (although now it seems there was a different kind of courage he was having to employ), why he always looked like a haunted man (because the Brooks ghoul was hovering over him) and why, as he left Downing Street with his family just over a year ago, we finally saw that 'real' smile which had not made much of an appearance in recent years. 

Homelessness and the Private Sector

I see that Grant Shapps MP has "called on councils to start forging closer links with landlords and letting agents", presumably because with waiting lists for council housing running to years in most authorities and the coalition starving housing associations of the funding which would have allowed more homes to be built, there is very little option but to put homeless people into private rented accommodation. In reality, a lot of councils already do this - my partner has worked in Homelessness for 20 years and says that most placements of homeless families in our authority are now in private rental properties.

Mr Shapps has stated that "[councils] will need to ensure that vulnerable or at-risk families are not inappropriately housed. And they must ensure that the accommodation is suitable, safe and secure and available for a minimum of 12 months", which sounds lovely and supportive, doesn't it? Private landlords are benevolent and have the best interests of their tenants at heart, so what could possibly go wrong?

Case History

My sister and her husband have never been wealthy; they managed to get by on a low income in rented accommodation, supported by HB and tax credits. Five years ago, they took the decision to relocate in order to be closer to my elderly parents. My brother in law, employed by HMRC [the irony of someone administering Tax Credits only surviving financially because of them was not lost on them], applied for a transfer on compassionate grounds and was told this would be possible.They started searching for properties in East Devon, but were unable to find anything suitable initially. Then my mother had to go into hospital for a knee operation and required substantial care on her return home; at the same time, my niece was due to start secondary school so in order to minimise disruption for her, my sister and the two children moved down and stayed with my parents while my brother in law remained in the midlands, awaiting news of his transfer. 

Eventually this came through, but the only job they could offer was in an office which was difficult to commute to (he's a non-driver in a rural county which has minimal rail services, thanks to Beeching). Their only option was to move nearer to the office, which would have meant my niece changing schools again after only a few months; this was untenable so he started looking for alternative jobs nearer to 'home'. Eventually, he was able to find a job in the town (albeit with a substantial pay cut), but still nowhere to live, so they ended up living with my parents - 4 adults and 2 children (4 and 12) in a 3 bedroomed semi. The council agreed that they were homeless, and that they had local connection, but simply did not have anywhere they could offer them. There are also precious few housing association properties in the area, so they were looking at private rental sector. 

Eventually, after a rather fraught 6 months, they found a property and were able to put down some roots and get their furniture out of (expensive) storage. For a while, things were fine, but then the owner, who had put the house up for rental while working away, came home again, so they were served with notice to quit. this time, they were luckier and managed to find a suitable property in a village about 5 miles away from my parents. Nice house, good landlord, all going well....

... and then the marriage failed. My sister ended up back at mum and dad's; my brother in law stayed in the house until he could find himself a smaller flat. After another six months back with my parents, my sister thought her luck was beginning to change, when the letting agent for the previous house contacted her to say that it was available again and was she interested? It was a three bedroomed house and there were now only two of them, but the rent was within HB limits and, with a lot of borrowing of deposits, etc, she was able to move in in time for Christmas.

At last things, seemed to be calming down and the following May she came to stay with us for a much-needed holiday. On her return, she found a notice to quit; her initial 6 month assured tenancy was up and the owner had decided to sell. The house was never advertised as being on the market, and it was a cash sale, so we now suspect that it had already been earmarked for sale and my sister brought in to maximise income while it was being sorted out. Quite apart from the disruption (again), and having been a model tenant (twice), my sister was very hurt that she'd been 'played' by someone she had thought was a responsible landlord.

Her furniture went back into storage; for the second time in as many years, I spent part of my holiday helping her move house; and back to my octogenarian parents again, not quite what they had had in mind for their retirement.

She has now managed to find a very small, 2 bedroomed house, and is just about surviving, although she lives in permanent fear of what the changes to HB and Tax Credits will do to her limited income. As if things weren't bad enough, she has now been diagnosed with a debilitating (permanent) medical condition and has had to reduce her hours of work and start to negotiate the labyrinth of DLA/ESA application processes. but again, her landlords (a lovely couple) may need the house back at any time and she has no security of tenure. With failing health, she is even less secure.

The irony is that Devon is considered an affluent county. Many of the 'golden generation' of post war property-owning, final-salary-pensioned older people retire there in some comfort and yet, for the majority of younger residents (those who man the schools, the care homes, the local shops) life is pretty hard. The council housing waiting lists run to a dozen years in some areas, there is little or no other social housing, and house prices are prohibitively high in an area where most wages are low.

As ever with the Tories (as with New Labour), the presumption that private is always the answer will cause disruption and misery for millions of people. We're not talking Rachman-esque slum landlords here, but a private landlord, as opposed to a social housing provider, will always put income above the needs of the tenant. You can't expect them not to - it's a business. Legislation might give limited protection from wrongdoing, but does not encourage longevity and settled communities. My grandparents never considered buying property, but by renting from the right private landlord (a man with a small number of properties which provided him with a moderate, regular income) and by being good tenants, were afforded 50+ years in their 'home.'

"Private landlords" are not just business people with a portfolio of properties; they are also homeowners who put their own homes on the rental market when they can't sell or are temporarily elsewhere. This builds an instability into the market and offers very little protection to tenants. The new class of 'amateur' private landlord - fuelled by the buy-to-let craze - has no real stake in the housing supply, and is usually in it for short term gain rather than long term investment.

So really, Mr Shapps, there is no point putting all your housing eggs into the same private basket. Without considerable investment in new affordable housing, we'll never solve the homelessness 'problem'. A "minimum of 12 months" is great, but there is little protection beyond that. Would Mr Shapps, or any of his coalition colleagues, relish a house move every 12-18 months, with the attendant disruption? That is the reality for many people in private rental accommodation.

'Homelessness' isn't simply the lack of a roof over one's head, but the lack of a secure home. At present, we have a lot of families who are housed, but still "home"-less.

The Undeserving Poor

A horrible concept, redolent of a bygone age, and one which I thought had gone the way of covered piano legs and child chimney sweeps. For a start, who determines which of us is "undeserving"? It's a very subjective thing, and I'm not sure I would want the responsibility of turning someone away as "undeserving" only to find they had come to harm. Even for a hardened atheist such as myself, the phrase "there but for the grace of God go I" still informs much of my opinion-forming. Bad luck, bad choices, stupidity, ignorance, fate all play a part in how life turns out for us


But it seems the concept is back. Now I can accept this from the Tories - their world view has always been that anyone can succeed and if you don't it's down to a flaw in your personality. An easy, if stupid, conclusion to come to if you either have 'made it' or happen to be a self-made aristocrat who's never wanted for anything material, and with a network of advantage behind you from cradle to grave. 


More worrying is that it's creeping into Labour thinking as well. Yes, there are hard-working, low-paid people who are financially worse off than those on benefits; and yes, there are (a small number) of families who seem to relish their long-term joblessness and  reliance on state benefits. But the latter group, by far the smallest proportion of those living on benefits, could be classed as The Ungracious Poor - those who, having been given support from the state (and therefore their fellow citizens), proceed to rub our noses in it. It's infuriating for those of us who pay our way, but are they really 'undeserving'? Selfish, thoughtless, maybe, but are they any worse that the champagne-guzzling traders or bankers who wave wads of cash at protesting nurses, who are also not 'paying their way' because they have accountants who can minimise their tax bills? 


In proving that Labour understands the "squeezed middle",  let's also stand up for those who life has kicked in the teeth. Ed Milliband may be talking about: 


"some of those on benefits who were abusing the system because they could work - but didn't"


But what the majority will hear is "all those on benefits". Unless you've had to survive on benefits, you have no idea how tough it is. It's not that benefits are too high, but that wages for most of the working population are too low. And what about those who are unable to work through disability? Better people than me have written at length on the daily battles of living with disability in today's culture. And of those who, despite debilitating conditions, continue to try and work and contribute and fulfil "their duty to each other"? The insidious drip-drip-drip of public discourse (encouraged by the tabloid press) is that all benefit recipients are scroungers, despite the fact that we are all one piece of bad luck/judgement away from ill health or unemployment.


And even those families with multi-generational worklessness that we're all supposed to vilify because they 'take' from hard-working ordinary people's taxes? Is no-one querying why, after successive Tory and Labour governments have made it increasingly difficult to get unemployment benefits (regular interviews, training schemes, sanctions for refusing 'suitable' employment), such families remain unemployable? Seemingly, we have been content to allow them to remain outside the mainstream world of work - that seems to me a massive dereliction of duty on our part. Are they 'undeserving' or are we 'uncaring'? 


So before we formulate any policies on welfare reform, let's first change the culture - no-one is "undeserving", and if public opinion believes that some are, then we should be challenging public opinion, not feeding it. I'm all in favour of being part of "the party of the grafters", but I'd also like the grafters to acknowledge that the vast majority of benefits claimants would love to be able to graft, and that we are all potential 'benefits scroungers.'

Charlie Brooker's trending...

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.

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.

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!