Saturday 1 October 2016

Being a left-wing nuisance is necessary and desirable

I wrote this on Saturday, 8 August 2015, during last year's Labour Leadership election, and it appeared on my personal blog rather than this one, but a year on it is worth reposting onto Awake the Dragon, as it outlines why my support for the re-elected leader, Jeremy Corbyn remains steadfast.

Becoming involved once more in the politics of the Labour Party, and the election for its new leader has given me much to think about over the past weeks. Coming from a trades union background (USDAW), serving on trades councils, and being appointed as a national officer for BTOG at, what was then, a very young age for such a job (26) I met and worked with many committed trades unionists who were considerably older than I was. Indeed, many were old enough to be my parent or even grand-parent, in some instances!

Having that experience helped me to learn such a lot about the history of the Labour Party, from those involved, and what it stood for, and what it had achieved in the years before I was born. I enjoyed long chats with people who had been on the Aldermaston Marches, with people who had been involved with the NHS at its inception, and with those who had been involved with various labour disputes over the decades. It was, for me, where I honed my political beliefs, beliefs which I had first heard at the knee of my lifelong Socialist grandfather, who died when I was 10 years old.

One of the women with whom I had contact whilst working at USDAW was the late Audrey Wise (1935-2000), former MP for Coventry South West (1974-1979) and Preston (1987-2000). Audrey Wise teamed up with Jeff Rooker to draw up the Rooker-Wise Amendment to the then Chancellor Denis Healey's 1977 finance bill. The Rooker-Wise Amendment "introduced retrospective inflation-proofing on tax allowances, which led to £450m being handed back to taxpayers." That was quite an achievement - two backbench MPs managing to over ride the plans of the Labour government's own Chancellor for the people. It made me realise that ordinary people could make changes happen if they stand up for what they believe in.

Audrey was a huge inspiration to me. She was never afraid to say what she thought, she spoke her mind, and stood firm for her principles. According to her obituary in The Guardian, "At Westminster in the 1970s she was regarded as something of a left-wing nuisance, a state of affairs that she viewed as necessary and desirable." In many ways Jeremy Corbyn reminds me of Audrey: firm in his beliefs, principled, straight talking, able to inspire people and to make them believe that they can make changes happen. It's also what I believe in.

Sunday 25 September 2016

An Open Letter to the Parliamentary Labour Party

Dear Comrades, yes I address you as such as that is what we are, comrades in the Labour Party, despite the uncomradely behaviour of some of you over the past twelve months. I realise that the election of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader in September 2015 was a huge shock to some of you - but then so many of you have only ever known New Labour, not the real Labour Party of previous generations. Those few older MPs who were seduced by NeoLiberalism, and who moved away from the Party's founding principles as outlined in the original Clause IV, seem to have become entrenched in a mainstream media driven scenario that Labour is a party of middle-class, comfortably off, aspirational business folk in suits served by career politicians whose interest do not coincide much with those of the grassroots members and the electorate.

Younger MPs can almost, in a way, be forgiven for believing this as they have hardly known the Labour Party to be any different. How could they? After the emergence of Neil Kinnock as leader in 1983 the party began its move to the centre right, losing the 1987 General Election in the process and, after abandoning Labour policy on trades union closed shops in 1989 and the following the witchhunt and subsequent expulsion of the left-wing Militant Tendency from the Labour Party in 1991, it lost yet another General Election in 1992.  This led to a change of leadership with the late lamented John Smith whose premature death, less than two years later, precipitated the rise in fortune of Tony Blair, whose landslide General Election victory of 1997 lead to the party moving even further to the right.

Throughout the Blair and subsequent Gordon Brown years the party lost touch with a large number of its traditional supporters. Notice that I say supporters not members, as many of us who were members left the party as a result of that shift to the right. We no longer felt comfortable in a party where special advisors held sway, and where the majority of party funding was coming from rich businessmen and champagne socialists, where the voices of the trades unions who had been our traditional supporters were dismissed, and where a decision to go to war was made on spurious and unsubstantiated evidence. Where the voices of members were over-ruled by those of the Leader's Office, and where decisions such as selecting prospective parliamentary candidates were taken by the NEC instead of at local level by the membership in their constituency parties. In just 13 years the Labour Party membership dropped from over 400,000 in 1997 to just 150,000 by 2010, alongside that the party lost around 5 million voters. Hardly a success story was it? Did you ask yourself why?


Did you notice? Did you, as MPs ask yourself why that might have happened? Did it occur to you to go and talk to members about why we felt disengaged from the party? Did it occur to you to go out and and talk to electors about why they had walked away en masse from voting Labour? Did you assume it was just a blip and all would soon be back to normal? Well, that didn't happen did it?

Yet twelve months ago you had the chance to make a difference, with a new party leader, and a resurgence of support for socialist policies - so-called radical stuff, like decent housing for everyone, a properly funded NHS free at the point of use, nationalisation of the railways, improved public services, sorting out the mess that is education, making sure that our elderly and disabled do not have a daily struggle to exist, that people are not reliant on food banks to survive - food banks, in 2016! If that is not a national disgrace I don't know what is! What did many of you do? 172 of you voted within the PLP to undermine the democratically elected leader and force a leadership challenge, which is effectively spitting in the face of the 59.5% of the membership who voted for Jeremy Corbyn - those are the people who also helped to get each of you elected as MPs, so perhaps you might like to show them a little respect? You also leaked stories to the media, which being owned by hugely rich individuals with vested interests in the status quo, is hostile to the idea of a socialist government, and you worked against him and his team in more ways that we the membership will ever be able to know - but let me tell you this, we may not know the detail but we know the fact that it happened and we have long memories.


Now comrades, you have a second chance. The Labour Party membership has overwhelmingly re-elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader, this time with a bigger majority than a year ago - some 61.8% of the vote for him - and he had over 50% of the votes in each category of membership, so you cannot deny that he has a mandate from the membership. The members will also expect each of you to accept and respect that mandate and not to work against the leader we have chosen. In case you have forgotten, this is called democracy and we in the Labour Party espouse it - as it says on the back of our membership cards - The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. You are also expected not to leak information to a hostile media, nor to work to overthrow the elected leader. If you can't manage to do that then you might also find that we, the members, can't find it within our hearts to forgive your betrayals and we may also not be too happy, when it comes to election time, to give up our precious free time to help you get re-elected to carry on undermining him.


Please comrades, do not take this as a threat, it is simply a statement of fact. There is a huge amount of anger amongst party members at what we perceive as treachery, disloyalty or just disingenuity and you have a lot of work to do to put things right and regain our trust. And it is all about trust and loyalty. It's about respect for members and for the democratic mandate which has been given to the leader. It's about decency and honesty. It's also about understanding that the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party and if you are not a democratic socialist then you do not belong in it!

I sincerely hope that you all will take some time to search your consciences and consider your positions. Members do not want to see MP deselections or a split in the party, we want to see a united party that is taking on the Tory government and defending those whom the party was founded to represent. We are not Tory-lite, we are not a party of austerity, we are not a party that should be funded by, and in the pockets of, businesses. We are Labour, together we are strong. Be with us now, or go.

Friday 23 September 2016

Grammar schools: what's all the fuss about?

If, like me, you are at the almost-a-senior-citizen end of the age-range and, again like me, attended a grammar school over 40 years ago, you might wonder what the political fuss about grammar schools is all about... after all, it didn't do us any harm, or did it?

Thinking back to my time at two different grammar schools made me realise that although I had the privilege of a grammar school education I was, coming from a not-well-off family, unable to take advantage of many of its benefits. My parents had to struggle to find the money for a compulsory trip to Wembley for the All England Women's Hockey Final. I could not go on any of the optional school trips or exchange visits as they simply could not afford it, whilst even buying the ingredients for our weekly cookery lessons made a significant hole in their food budget for the week. Buying expensive items of uniform each year for a girl who grew so fast was always a challenge - skirts could be run up on the sewing machine at home, but blazers, gaberdines, gym knickers, hockey shorts etc all put an inordinate strain on a household with one regular-but-low income earner and one who was frequently out of work.

Did I benefit from the grammar school teaching? Probably, as I was a bright and able pupil according to my school reports, and spent my school years in the A-stream for each subject I took which resulted in 6 "O" Levels as they were in those pre-GCSE days. I recall the shock expressed by the headmistress when I told her I was leaving at the end of the 5th form to go and find a job. "But what about "A" levels and university?" she asked, it being expected that all A-streamers at least should be following that path. I tried to explain that my parents were on the brink of separation, that my family life was falling apart around me, and that my mother (who was a low-earning State Enrolled Nurse) could not afford for me to stay on at school any longer as my brother (seven years younger than me) was still going through school too. So I quit and started work at 16, as did many of my peers who attended the local secondary modern school along with those from the C and D streams at the grammar.

Any benefit I gained from the grammar school education was negated in the short term by effectively having to go and get a job to help keep a roof over our heads. I was able in later years to go back into education, enrolling with the Open University, and subsequently undertaking further courses at various colleges. But my £12 a week pay on leaving school almost doubled our weekly family income, so for me it was not a choice but a necessity. My brother, who attended the secondary modern, was never academically gifted but, as his teachers said at the time, he had a good practical mind and worked well with his hands, he would never struggle to find work. How right they were! He joined the RAF from school, trained in electronics and became a highly skilled radar technician, spending 25 years with the RAF before moving onto BAe Systems.

I think that the furore over bringing back grammar schools misses the point that education should be available to everyone, irrespective of their academic ability or financial situation. We should be providing schools that fulfil the needs of all children - and that can recognise and provide both for those who have academic ability and those who are of a more practical or artistic nature to whom maths or grammar can appear to be an alien language. We need to recognise that a national curriculum based on a narrow range of subjects and monitored by tests at 7 and 11, and GCSE's and A-levels, does discriminate against large numbers of children who do not have traditionally academic skills but who are more than capable of working with their hands, of being creative in the arts and crafts, in music and drama, as photographers or carpenters, plumbers or car mechanics. A one-size-fits-all policy does not work!

But every child deserves the same opportunity to learn without the worry of cost, so we need to sort out the mess that is education in the UK. Private schools, faith schools, public schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools, what a total mish-mash it is! Questions such as, "Can you afford the fees or the uniform or the extras like trips?" "Did you move to an area because a school provides a 'better' education than another one?" "Did your children endure selection at 11+?" all highlight problems within the current educational system. Bringing back grammar schools will not help solve the problem facing education in the UK.

We need to reconsider how we offer and provide education. We need to look not just at the schools themselves but the whole issue of the school year and holidays, such as the summer break which was based on the now-defunct needs of a mainly agricultural society where the kids were needed through the summer to help on the land with harvesting. We need to consider whether school attendance hours are still appropriate for modern society. So much has changed in the last 70 years yet it seems that they way we provide education has not really moved on very much. Yes, various governments have tinkered with things, made small changes, allowed schools to opt out to become academies etc., but the core education system is still the same for the majority of children as it has been since the 1944 Education Act, and it does not work to the benefit of all children.

We need to ensure that education is fully funded by the state, not by religious groups, private capital or fee-paying parents. We need to reconsider the wisdom of academies being removed from local education authority supervision. We also need to review how we can offer real opportunities for all children to explore and develop their potential and skills, and provide them with the support and training that will help them as they grow into adulthood so they have a good solid base on which to build their futures, be it in industry, science, business, the creative arts, the service and tourism sectors, or as inventors of wacky objects!

Thursday 11 August 2016

Should Jeremy Corbyn worry about not getting the GMB endorsement?

One of today's big stories is that the GMB union has endorsed Owen Smith for Labour leader in this year's leadership contest, as against no endorsement by them last year. I can partially understand the decision, as GMB represents Trident workers and Owen is pro-Trident renewal whilst Jeremy is anti-Trident renewal, so there is some protecting of their interests involved, but that ignores the fact that keeping Trident is still currently national Labour Party policy and that at its annual GMB congress earlier this year the union called for "clear and unambiguous" support for Mr Corbyn.

It does seem that the buzz about how good having the GMB's support, as one of the UK's biggest unions, is a bit disingenuous given that of the GMB's massive 641,000 members only 43,419 of them voted in the endorsement ballot (i.e. 6.77% of the GMB membership). Of those 43,419 members the 60% who voted for Owen represent 26,051 members, which as a percentage of the total is just 4.06% of the whole GMB membership, which might just take the gloss off the gingerbread slightly. Ballot figures are as given in the BBC News story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37026145

Meanwhile, there are multiple reports on social media by GMB members who are asking, "what ballot?" as they claim they have not been asked at all, as some of the examples below show:
Tim Roache, GMB's General Secretary, took to Twitter to refute the claims and to assert all GMB members were balloted:
But members in Scotland were excluded from the ballot (has the GMB written off Labour in Scotland?) as this article on the GMB website shows, whilst NewTekWorldNews claims that ​Scotland didn't want to participate in the nominations process.

Regardless of how the ballot was conducted, one thing that did come out of the various figures being bandied about today was that the GMB has only around 30,000 members paying the political levy as part of their membership, so they will be the ones who can actually vote in the leadership election itself once ballot forms are sent out from 22nd August, but will they and, crucially, for whom?

Wednesday 29 June 2016

How the Parliamentary Labour Party is showing its contempt for the Labour Party membership

Over 250,000 Labour Party members voted for Jeremy Corbyn as party leader last September (2015). He stood on a ticket of change, of returning to a society where everyone will be treated fairly and decently, and where the privileged few will not prosper at the expense and suffering of the majority of the citizens of the country.


The Parliamentary Labour Party which consists of 229 Labour MPs has decided by a majority that they do not want him to remain as leader despite the wishes of the membership. Some of those same Labour MPs have referred to the members supporting Jeremy Corbyn as "dogs", which shows their contempt for the membership. This is the membership who, come every election, works their socks off to get said MP's elected to Parliament.

By attacking the democratically elected leader in this manner they are also attacking all of the membership who support him. We will not forget those who took part in this coup against democracy. Evidence has come to light that this has been an orchestrated event carried out with the collusion of the mainstream media, whose constant attacks on Jeremy Corbyn have been aimed at undermining his leadership in the eyes of both the membership and the country.

There is a proper and accepted method of challenging an elected leader under the Party Rule Book but the way the PLP has acted this week is not it (Labour MPs retain the power to trigger an extraordinary or "special" Labour Party Conference to choose a new leader if they lose confidence in their existing leader). Their actions have no legitimacy under the Rule Book and are, quite frankly, disgraceful behaviour on the part of those PLP members who took part in the orchestrated resignations and coup against Jeremy Corbyn.

Labour Party members voted overwhelmingly for change by electing Jeremy Corbyn as the party leader. We do not expect that vote, that mandate, to be ignored or overturned by careerist politicians in Labour seats. Any attempt by those MPs opposing the democratically elected leader will be resisted by the membership.

Monday 20 June 2016

EU Referendum: If you only watch one video please make it this one!

It's only a couple more days until the EU Referendum on our membership of the EU. You're probably sick of all the rhetoric, arguments for and against by now. But I would urge anyone reading this blog, if you only watch one video please make it this one!

Wednesday 15 June 2016

All six of us, and the cat...

We sit sipping a latte whilst watching the news
Of kids with no water stood in long queues
Holding their plastic cans and waiting their turns
For ten litres of water whilst the sun, overhead, burns.

We all tut, "how dreadful" and "it's such a shame"
Yet moan that our government sends cash to them in our name.
"Why are we paying them when we need it here instead?"
Demand well-fed citizens snuggling in a warm comfy bed.

"We're only a poor country" is one of our laments
Whilst planning our Summer holidays for kids and parents.
Meanwhile, across the globe in many hundred places
Families starve and children thirst, despair etched in their faces.

Not for them a comfy bed or latte on demand,
Not for them an education and career to be planned;
A place to live and grow without the fear of bombs
And air strikes turning their homes into simple tombs.

A carefree childhood, a happy life, to many is denied,
Whilst aid agencies and peace protesters are derided.
By creating hunger, pestilence or war
Big business and state exploitation is going way too far.

Yet still we sip our lattes in our homes with central heating,
Whilst far away some dissidents endure yet another beating:
Their crime is asking  just for basic human rights,
For speaking out against abuse they face most days and nights.

Religions, states and corporations all must take some blame
For treating people badly, have they no shame?
But are we any better when we constantly complain
About the cost of foreign aid that helps to ease their pain?

Would it be so very bad if we had a fraction less
So others who have nothing can be helped out from that mess?
Do we need ten pairs of shoes when some women have one?
Do we need the latest iPhone when some folks don't have one?

Do we need a gas barbecue or a big double oven
When some must cook on open fires beneath a searing sun?
Do we need that Netflix sub or Sky Sports on the box?
Or could we help our fellow humans eradicate smallpox?

Are power hungry electricals really such a need?
If we each cut back our consumption then would it help to feed
Those hungry refugees in camps where they have fled
In fear of enslavement, or rape or their deathbed;

To get away from air-strikes, bombs and shells
That turned their previous lives into living hells.
Our government caused their misery and pain
Yet we say, "Not giving cash or refuge to them again."

Despite wrecking their homelands for political reasons
We refuse them safe harbour as if they committed the treasons.
We created most of the problems the world faces
And we benefited from them throughout the ages.

Yet when those who are suffering ask for some aid
We look quite affronted or sorely afraid.
That by helping out those with the biggest needs
It will weaken our hearts and make us into weeds.

That simply by showing humanity and compassion
Our nation will be overrun in storm-trooper fashion
By millions of immigrants "all on the make"
Who will claim all our benefits and eat all our cake.

They'll rape all our women and some of the men
And sell into slavery all of our children.
They'll bring all their weird customs, their rites, and their wrongs
And bury us in cous cous and surround us with bongs.

"They don't have our standards" we say to each other
Whilst sipping our lattes and watching Big Brother.
"They come over here and take all of jobs,
"And claim all our benefits - what rotten knobs."

"Use all our roads, our schools and our NHS,
"And leave nought for us born here, oh what a mess."
If we stopped up our borders so no more can invade
And choose with which places we want to do trade,

Then the overseas aid that our government "wastes"
Will help us to prosper and improve our tastes,
And those of us left here will be able to claim
That we're native English and proud of the name.

All six of us, and the cat...

This poem came about after weeks of reading endless scaremongering and bigotry written in the #EU  #Referendum campaign but was finally brought forth after today's article in The Independent about the lack of water supply in Palestine during Ramadan... 

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Attributed to Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797


Friday 10 June 2016

A vote to LEAVE the EU in the Referendum will not solve the EU VATMOSS issue!

You might recall that I was particularly vocal about the #EU #VATMOSS issue last year... if not then a look back through the blog will fill you in on what I was saying...  but as we approach the EU #Referendum. it's worth flagging up how the REMAIN / LEAVE votes relate to the issue of VAT on cross-border digital sales within the EU.

You might think that if we vote LEAVE then all our woes will end and VATMOSS will no longer be an issue for micro-businesses...   and you would be wrong!

In fact, a vote to LEAVE would make the situation even worse for small traders... 

Clare Josa (co-founder of the EU VAT Action Campaign and one of the team which took up the issue of how VAT on digital cross-border sales was hurting small businesses) explains why...

http://www.dancinginyoursoulshoes.com/will-happen-eu-digital-vat-leave-eu-10-popular-myths-debunked/




Four possible legal outcomes of Brexit

The EU Referendum is too important an issue for how to vote to be decided by silly TV debate name-calling, by incorrect info on leaflets or the side of a campaign bus, by biased media reportage, by chats with your mates down the pub. 

What is really needed is some actual factual information on what the outcome will mean for you, for me, for our kids and grand-kids, our communities, our workplaces and our public services.

This is one of the most succinct summaries that I have seen so far...

"EU Referendum: Know the facts: Square One Law guide lays out four possible legal outcomes of Brexit"




Tuesday 7 June 2016

‪#‎EU‬ MythBusters: "The EU forces its will on member countries"

Not true.

Nothing is decided at EU level unless all member countries have explicitly agreed by treaty to do so, and even then each piece of legislation is agreed by national governments. For sensitive matters like tax and foreign affairs, the requirement for this agreement is complete unanimity, and in other areas there is a very high "qualified majority" threshold. (A "qualified majority" is defined as: 55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population)

This means that no one state (or minority of states) can impose a measure on other member states, and that smaller states cannot override states with larger populations.



‪#‎EU‬ MythBusters: "EU membership costs us a fortune"

Traditionally, the UK net contributions to the EU budget are less than 1% of UK’s public spending. While all bigger and richer member states are net contributors, as a contribution per capita the UK is behind countries like Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands or Austria, Finland and Belgium.

The Confederation of British Industry estimates that EU membership is worth £3,000 a year to every British family — a return of nearly £10 for each £1 we pay in. And the budget for the whole EU is just 1% of GDP, compared to about 49% spent by national governments. That’s just 2% of our public spending each year.  http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/eu-membership-costs-us-a-fortune/




This is a useful reminder of how much (or more aptly how little) our membership of the EU costs each taxpayer per day... just 11.8 pence per taxpayer per day (or £43.07 per year) which when compared with the CBI's own assessment that EU membership is worth (that is, brings a return value back) to each family of £3,000 per year makes the Leave argument on the grounds that it costs too much a total nonsense. 





What does the ‪#‎EU‬ do for us? Protects against sexual discrimination in the supply of goods & services...

The Gender Directive, officially Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, is a directive which prohibits both direct and indirect sexual discrimination in the provision of goods and services in the European Union.

The directive applies to:
  • all people and organisations (both public and private sector) that make goods and services available to the public;
  • goods and services offered outside the area of private and family life.

National equality bodies
Each EU country must have at least one body responsible for promoting equal treatment between women and men in the fields covered by the directive. These national equality bodies are empowered to analyse the problems encountered, monitor the situation in their country, make recommendations and provide concrete assistance to victims.

Preventing insurers from using gender as a risk factor
According to Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/113/EC, member states must ensure that "the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services shall not result in differences in individuals' premiums and benefits".



Monday 6 June 2016

‪#‎EU‬ MythBusters: "Most of our laws come from Brussels"

Not true.

The independent House of Commons library found that the real proportion is just 13.2% of our laws. And these figures include everything that even mentions the EU, even if it's just a passing reference or a definition, according to the researchers!

Broken down this means 1.4% of our Acts of Parliament and 12.9% of implementing measures (Implementing Measures are mandatory requirements in the form of regulations which come into force without further implementation into national laws.)

Hardly overwhelming, is it? http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/laws-from-brussels/



What does the ‪#‎EU‬ do for us? Protects birds...

The Birds Directive (formally known as Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds) is a European Union directive adopted in 2009. It replaces Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds which was modified several times and had become very unclear. 



It aims to protect all European wild birds and the habitats of listed species, in particular through the designation of Special Protection Areas (often known by the acronym SPA). Europe is home to more than 500 wild bird species, but at least 32% of the EU's bird species are currently not in a good conservation status. The Birds Directive aims to protect all of the 500 wild bird species naturally occurring in the European Union.

The Birds Directive is one of the EU's two directives in relation to wildlife and nature conservation, the other being the Habitats Directive (see last blog post).  The Habitats Directive led to the setting up of a network of Special Areas of Conservation, which together with the existing Special Protection Areas form a network of protected sites across the European Union called Natura 2000.







What does the ‪#‎EU‬ do for us? Protects wildlife and habitats...

European Protected Species (EPS) are species of plants and animals (other than birds) protected by law throughout the European Union. They are listed in Annexes II and IV of the European Habitats Directive.

The lists include several hundred species of plants and animals. They do not include any fungi, lichens or birds.

European Union states are required under the Habitats Directive to protect the listed species, and for some species (those listed in Annexe II), they are required to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to protect populations of them.

These regulations help to protect areas of land from development which will harm or destroy those species... without this protection developers will be free to ride roughshod over any land irrespective of what it contains.





Sunday 5 June 2016

What has the EU ever done for my … town?

Good question!

Projects across the UK, from getting people into work to building new tram stops and museums, have gone ahead with EU cash.

Areas of deprivation have benefited from funds from the EU. Areas which have been flooded have been helped by payments from the EU flood fund. Arts funding and business development grants, funds to help workers made redundant or those who live in areas of high unemployment, money to help build or rebuild infrastructures at the heart of our communities, and much more besides... all has come from the EU.

If the UK votes to leave the EU on June 23rd then we will lose access to these funds. Some folks claim that the UK government will fill the need from the savings made from the EU contribution, but many of us are unconvinced. The government has no track record of supporting many of these issues, nor of allowing such spending.

In the end it will be us and our communities which lose out by leaving the EU.

Vote REMAIN on June 23rd to make sure we don't end up as the poor relation on the edge of Europe.



‪#‎EU‬ Myth Busters: “Our most important markets are China and the US, not the EU”

The EU is the world’s biggest single marketplace, and it is the UK's largest trading partner, with sales amounting to almost half (48%) of our world exports and more than half (53%) of our world imports. 

In 2014, the United Kingdom exported $472B making it the 9th largest exporter in the world, and imported $663B making it the 5th largest importer in the world. In fact we export more to Holland (7.2% of UK exports) alone than to the entirety of the Commonwealth's 53 nations!

The Observatory of Economic Complexity [OEC] figures state:

"The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are the United States ($51B), Germany ($46.5B), the Netherlands ($34.2B), Switzerland ($33.6B) and France ($27B)."

"The top import origins are Germany ($100B), China ($62.7B), the Netherlands ($50.7B), the United States ($44.4B) and France ($41.5B)."

So whilst the USA figures as our single nation top export market (11% of exports), it is still not a match for the value of exports from the UK to the whole EU marketplace; whilst exports to China form the same amount as exports to France (5.7%).

If Brexit occurs, the UK would need to re-negotiate more than 100 trade agreements, all of which take time and meanwhile what happens to our businesses trading outside of the UK?

Source of facts:
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

Friday 27 May 2016

Why not do a swap & resolve both problems?!

This week has seen two similar stories - similar in that both involve uprooting people from one nation and sending them back to their birth nation. One is a British born 30 year old widow with 5 kids born in Australia, where she has lived since she was 2 years old. The other is an Australian couple with a 7 year old son born in Scotland.

The widow is threatened with being sent back to the UK after serving a prison sentence and, as she has no family here, risks being homeless and penniless here and having to leave her kids behind - kids who have already lost their father to a road accident last year. The couple are threatened with being sent back to Australia as the scheme under which they came to the UK and settled in Scotland has been retrospectively cancelled, so they no longer have the right to remain.

Both cases are hugely unfair to the children involved. Five kids in Australia will lose their remaining parent, and one child who has lived in Scotland all his 7 years will lose all his friends and have the upheaval of changing schools, culture, location etc.

Some compassion, common sense and humanity is needed in both cases. Failing that, why not just agree that the widow may stay in Australia with her kids, and the family with their son may stay in Scotland. It'd be a lot simpler in the long run and would probably save both countries a fortune in legal and administrative costs!


Thursday 12 May 2016

So why did I join the Labour Party?

I was recently asked a question: why did you join the Labour Party?  Thinking about why I did took me back to the early years of my life and it was all my grandpa's doing...

I loved listening to my grandpa when I was a little girl - he died when I was 9 - and he was a lifelong socialist, having joined the army at 15 (having lied about his age), been shipped out to France in WW1, saw what "the nobs" did to the troops, and came home totally disillusioned with the army and those in charge of the country.

Having been gassed in the trenches he was bedridden by the time I was born, and I used to sit and listen to him talk about the old socialists, about how he wasn't able to speak out against exploitation of workers for fear of losing his job as a tram driver - which with a wife and 4 kids would have meant homelessness and penury, about the desperate situation of families in the 1930's depression when there was no work and no money coming in, about having to pay to see the doctor if you were ill, about the setting up of the welfare state, about Nye Bevan and the creation of the NHS after WW2, about houses being built to replace slums, and about the fact that he had an old age pension to live on until he died at the age of 67.

His words are still with me and he profoundly influenced my thinking and my political views.

When I left school and started work in a local shop (at 16) I joined the shop-workers' trades union and then the Labour Party in Kendal. I served on Kendal trades council, and helped canvas with the Labour Party for local councillors before moving to London to work for USDAW, and later for another smaller transport trades union. I was very much involved in trades union campaigns in London in the 1980s, attended and spoke at USDAW conferences as a delegate, and canvassed for Labour in Ilford, Camden and Hackney in various elections.

I listened to, and had the pleasure of meeting, Tony Benn at one of the fringe meetings during the miners' strike in 1984; I set up and ran a food collection point for Kent miners from our union office during that strike; helped raise money to send to the women of the Greenham Common Peace Camp; took part in endless marches and demo's in Liverpool and London against the privatisations that were happening under Margaret Thatcher's Tory government; and stood in vigils outside the South African embassy against apartheid (I wasn't there at the time Jeremy Corbyn was arrested but I remember it happening and seeing the newspaper coverage of it) and outside the American embassy against Cruse missiles.

In 1986 I moved back north with my new baby son and dropped out of political activity to become involved in small village life. I found that it is very easy to forget that the rest of the world moves on when you live in a rural area where little changes year on year.  I hated seeing what was happening in the Labour Party under Blair's leadership so I walked away and thought I would never come back if it was going along that road. For me the change to Clause 4, and the invasion of Iraq were not compatible with Socialism, and as time went on I could see little difference between New Labour (as it became known) and the previous Tory government.

In 2010 when the Tories and Lib Dems formed the coalition government I had no idea that things were going to get worse. My local MP is a LibDem and he has always been a decent-enough chap who seems to work hard for his constituency, but then things started to decline. Friends elsewhere and locally started sharing petitions about cut backs and closures; the pension age for women of my age group suddenly shot up from 60 to 65, then 66; hospitals were threatened with cuts; social services were slashed; libraries were closing; schools were becoming academies; student university fees rocketed from £3,000 pa to £9,000 pa; and the welfare benefits system seemed to be all but dismantled, with horrendous bullying of claimants leading to mental illness and suicides in many cases. What was going on? It was enough to shake me out of my rural bubble and make me take more notice. I signed petitions, wrote letters to the aforementioned MP, and started talking about politics again.

Then in 2015 another disaster happened: the Tories were re-elected with a majority so they no longer need the LibDem support to make a government, which was just as well for the latter, as the LibDems had lost all but 8 of their seats, presumably as punishment for doing the 2010 deal with the Tories. I was in shock: how could this be? How could people vote for a party which cut vital services? A party which hounded sick and disabled people so that they committed suicide rather than face that terrible system. A party which claimed that austerity was the only way to sort out the country's financial situation, whilst still wanting to spend billions of pounds on a weapons system that will never be able to be used! The Labour Party clearly had not made its opposition to the Tories clear enough: being Tory light isn't what opposition is all about, and the electoral result showed it. I was close to despair!

Then a man called Jeremy Corbyn hit the headlines; I listened to his speeches and he re-lit my fire. I remembered him from the 1980's newspaper coverage back in London, so I signed up as a supporter and paid my £3 so I could vote for him then, as I didn't get any papers from that (although my husband and son - who signed up after me - did get them), I joined as a full member on the last day I could prior to the leadership election. I am so glad that I did! I got my ballot papers, voted for JC, and did my bit on social media to help raise awareness of him. On the day the announcement was due I was sat shaking like a leaf in a gale, desperate for Jeremy Corbyn to win and dreading what would happen if he didn't.  I saw the ballot result and promptly burst into tears, such was my relief, and cried for half an hour!

Since then I've attended local CLP meetings, volunteered to help with the website/social media team for the CLP, leafleted in support of our local council candidate, and I am helping set up a Momentum branch for the area. Am I back? Yes! Why? Because I believe that with a Labour government, under the leadership team of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, people will get a far fairer deal out of life.

I do not support austerity, which causes a downward spiral in the economy to the detriment of public services and people's lives. I do not support cuts in services, or privatising NHS services, or bullying people off benefits, or testing small children to make the schools look good in their league tables, or selling off social housing. I don't want to see people living in fear of the DWP, or worrying about how pay their rent/mortgage or feed their kids, of choosing whether to eat or have heating. I do support everyone being entitled to a decent standard of living and for society to treat everyone equally.

The mark of a decent society, my grandpa used to say, is demonstrated by how the old, the weak, the sick and the vulnerable are treated within it. Under that yardstick the Tories have failed miserably, but Labour under Jeremy Corbyn can and will succeed, and I'm going to help him as much as I can!

Friday 29 April 2016

Police cuts in Cumbria since 2010

This is an interesting statistic, produced by the Labour Party's police cuts calculator and shows the loss of police officers sustained in Cumbria due to budget cuts since 2010. (Click to see larger version.)






Using the racism card to undermine voter confidence ahead of May 5th elections.

The suspensions from the Labour Party of Bradford West MP Naz Shah and former London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, has brought this issue to the forefront of the mainstream media (MSM) just a week away from the Elections on May 5th, and the cynical amongst us might wonder if this is a deliberate ploy from the MSM and the anti-Corbyn brigade to make Labour less attractive in the polls and give the anti-Corbyn folks a weapon to launch a leadership bid to oust Jeremy Corbyn as leader as a result.

Looking at the evidence of what has been said, it seems that some anti-Corbyn folks have jumped on the bandwagon and are happy to damage their own Party's electoral chances in order to oppose the democratically elected Party leader, something which others in the Party claim should result in the suspension of those seeking to undermine the leadership.

The biggest danger for the Labour Party is that jumping onto this bandwagon and conducting a witch-hunt against suspected or claimed anti-Semites is simply playing into the hands of those who are seeking the removal of Jeremy Corbyn as Party leader.

Further reading:
How to Criticize Israel Without Being Anti-SemiticZionism, anti-Semitism and colonialism

Anti-whatever means what exactly?

This kerfuffle about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is really annoying me. I wish that journalists and politicians alike would get their definitions right before they start shouting their heads off...

Definition of Semitic: (adjective) Of or relating to the Semites or their languages.

Definition of Semite: (noun) A member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in south western Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

Definition of Racism: (noun) Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Also: A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

Definition of Zionism: (noun) A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

So anti-Semitism is not being anti-Jew or even anti-Israeli. Equally, anti-Semitism does not equal anti-Zionism. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.  Not all Jews are Israelis. Not all Israelis are Zionists.

The criticism of the treatment of Palestinian people (who are also Semites under the above definitions) by the State of Israel does not equal anti-Semitism. It equals humanitarian concern for fellow human beings who are suffering daily attacks and deprivation at the hands of others.

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Keep the link between the Co-operative Group & the Co-operative Party

Last year Co-operative Group members sent a resounding message of support for continuing the historic relationship with the Co-operative Party, by passing Motion 10 at their AGM in May 2015. This was not just a vote in favour of the Co-operative Group continuing its subscription to the Party but also in favour of the Co-operative Group continuing to be actively engaged in making the case for a more co-operative Britain.

The case is just as compelling in 2016 as it was last year. 

The historic partnership between the Co-operative Party and the Co-operative Group is vital if the Group wants to be at the heart of demonstrating that co-operatives are a better way of doing business.

The co-operative movement has always been a powerful advocate for a society where wealth and power are more equally shared.

Given rising inequality, the failure of our economy to deliver fair rewards for the many not just the few, and the potential for the co-operative movement to play an even bigger role in our society and in our communities, it is vital that the movement continues to have a voice in the rooms where decisions are made – in Westminster, in Holyrood, in Cardiff Bay and in town halls up and down Britain.

So if you are a member of the Co-operative Group, vote in favour of the motion on political subscriptions again at the AGM on 21st May or in advance online.

Friday 18 March 2016

George Osborne's Budget of unfairness and failure

Did you follow the budget this week? What do you think of the Chancellor taking benefits from the poorest and least able in society whilst simultaneously raising the 40% tax threshold (up by by £1,100 – to £45,000 from April 2017) for higher income earners, and cutting Corporation Tax by 3% (from 20% to 17%) so big businesses pay even less? As Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook page says, "George Osborne has chosen to cut £3,500 on average a year from people with disabilities while offering tax breaks for those at the very top."  Do you think that is a fair way to handle the country's finances?

How about the decision to take all schools out of local authority control and make them become academies? A scheme which has already seen the title deeds for schools transferred from local authority hands to private companies. It will also remove the rights of parents to be governors of the schools that their children attend, and will place the decision on when a teacher is ready for QTS (qualified teacher status) status in the hands of the school's head, rather than as now.  That might seem like a good idea until you get to the part where we are told in The Guardian that, "One consequence is that it will be easier for schools to hire experts, including scientists and historians who have not been through official teacher training, and prepare them for accreditation." So it opens the door to unqualified teachers in schools!

Also in The Guardian, 'Lucy Powell, the shadow schools minister, said there was “no evidence to suggest that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement”. She pointed out that the chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, had written to the secretary of state for education highlighting serious weaknesses in academy chains. “How the government can plough ahead with the wholesale academisation of all schools in light of his evidence beggars belief. We want to see robust accountability and oversight of all schools regardless of type,” she said.'

Meanwhile, Councillor Roy Perry, chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board, said, "only 15% of the largest academy chains perform above the national average in terms of pupil progress, compared with 44% of council-run schools." If forcing schools to become academies is designed to improve standards then it is doomed to failure, as the evidence already shows that they are not the answer!

So if these experienced people have such concerns, should we be accepting this change without worry or should we be demanding "a public inquiry and a referendum over turning all schools into academies"?  After all, it is our children and grandchildren who are going to be affected as the kids of the Government ministers all seem to go to private schools anyhow!

Ben Chu, Economics Editor at the Independent, wrote, "Taking all of Mr Osborne’s post-election tax and benefit measures together, the IFS on 17 March estimated that the incomes of the poorest 10 per cent of the population are set to fall by 7 per cent by the end of the parliament and the second poorest decile by 9 per cent. That equates to an annual loss of £1,300 and £1,600 respectively."

The IFS has produced a chart showing how serious the impact of the budget on poorer families:


It is quite clear that the rich will benefit, the poor will suffer. But it's not just the poor, it is everyone bar the very wealthiest who will lose out. This is no budget to help ordinary people is it? Even those middle income Tory voters who have loyally, if misguidedly, followed their leaders until now. Is it not time to call a halt to this sham of a Government's damage to our society? Time for all of us to stand together and say enough is enough. We are not prepared to see the richest in the land get richer, big businesses pay even less in taxes, whilst the rest of us have to tighten our belts and struggle on with an ever-decreasing income?  Time to stand up and say we will not allow those in need of help through disability or illness to be deprived of a reasonable standard of living. They are not benefit scroungers, they simply need our help due to circumstances quite often beyond their control.

These and much more have, however, been somewhat overshadowed by the idiocy of the Sugar Tax on soft drinks. Just soft drinks mind. You can have as much sugar as you like in biscuits, cakes, chocolate, puddings, etc... just not in soft drinks.  Like that is going to make any difference at all except in hitting people in the pocket and perhaps manufacturers switching to some of the disgusting artificial sweeteners with all the associated health issues they bring!

The measure of the civilisation of a society is measured by how that society treats its poorest, weakest and most vulnerable members. Based on that scale, this Government is one of the most uncivilised, wicked, bullying and despicable that this country has endured in a long time!

Now you have read this, why not watch Jeremy Corbyn's reaction to the Budget here?
https://donation.labour.org.uk/page/content/budget2016/

Saturday 27 February 2016

National Media Museum > Science Museum North & the loss of the RPS collection to London

I've been following a story in the Guardian about the appalling decision to move the Royal Photography Society’s world-renowned collection of more than 400,000 objects dating from 1827 to 2016 from its home (since 2003) at the National Media Museum in Bradford, to the already overstuffed Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The thinking behind this move defeats me, and I am not alone it seems, as local MPs Judith Cummins [Bradford South] and Imran Hussain [Bradford East] are both shocked and enraged by the move too. Meanwhile, Simon Cooke, the leader of the Conservatives on Bradford council, described the move as an “act of cultural rape on my city” and called for the deal to be reviewed.

As part of the move, the support for the international film festival has also been withdrawn, thus putting the city's UNESCO City of Film status at risk. Ms Cummins said, “The economic and cultural ramifications of abandoning the film festival could be enormous for Bradford. How can we seriously have an international film festival and honour our status as the world’s first Unesco City of Film without the National Media Museum at its centre? It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The V and A already holds a collection of 500,000 photographs, so the transfer of the RPS collection will almost double their holding. In the Guardian article dated 1st Feb. 2016, Martin Barnes, the senior curator of photographs at the V and A, said putting the two collections together made “a huge amount of sense”, a statement it is hard to argue with, but one can (and should) dispute the need for it all to be housed in London! Given the already crowded nature of London's big museums, and that they already attract huge tourist visits and footfalls, wouldn't it have been a better option to move the V and A collection north to Bradford and expand the National Media Museum into a larger world class museum? Bradford already has the reputation to back this up, it just needs the political will and the realisation that there is intelligent life beyond the M25 ring to follow it up.

The NMM's director, Jo Quinton-Tulloch, wrote a lengthy explanation about why she and the Trustees made the decision, that as a part of the Science Museum group there needed to be a bigger focus on all science, etc. This totally misses the point that the National Media Museum is not a general science museum! In fact it opened as the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in 1983, which is why leaving the RPS collection there should be a no-brainer. Surely it would make far more sense to move other collections, many of which are probably gathering dust in the vaults of huge London museums, up to Bradford to enhance the National Media Museum, rather than migrate everything southward and change the NMM into a general science visitor centre?

It's also worth mentioning here that Halifax, not far away, is home to EUREKA! a marvellous independent science museum aimed at children, and that Manchester just over the Pennines has the Museum of Science and Industry, so it is not as if there is a lack of general science museum provision nearby. There is, however, nowhere else locally with the same brief and kudos as that of the National Media Museum.

Apparently there is a "crisis meeting" planned for next Wednesday (2 March) where the Trustees will discuss the ongoing campaign to prevent the downgrading of the NMM into an SM northern outpost and the loss of the RPS collection. If you would like to tell the Trustees what you think of the move, you still have a couple of days to do so, and of course you can sign the petition on 38 Degrees too.

I've done both of these, and a copy of my message to the Trustees is below. I wanted to show that this is something which matters not to the people of Bradford but to many more of us in the North, and that the London-centric focus for arts and culture is just plain wrong! If you agree, why not join me?

My letter to the Trustees of the National Media Museum:
Dear Science Museum press team and Media Museum Board of Trustees,
FAO Board of Trustees 
As an enthusiastic amateur photographer and film aficionado living in Cumbria I am writing to ask that you please halt plans to move the Royal Photography Society’s collection from Bradford to London, and reverse the decision to abandon the Bradford international film festival.
For me in Cumbria I can visit the collection in Bradford easily as it is less than 90 minutes drive (as opposed to 5+ hours to London), or it can be reached by train from here in half the time it would take to travel to London by train. Accessibility to such collections is just as important to us in the North as anywhere else, and indeed it could be argued, more so, as we have proportionately less of them!
It is also vital to keep the National Media Museum name to highlight this important area of science history.  Surely changing the NMM into Science Museum North will change its fundamental nature and demote it into a regional offshoot of the London Science Museum. The North already has an excellent Science Museum in Manchester but the NMM is unique in the North.
If the Trustees are serious about the value of such collections to the whole population not just Londoners, then allowing them to remain in Bradford is essential.  Moving the RPS collection to the V and A in London helps concentrate the UK’s cultural resources away from the North and sends the wrong message: that only the south of the country is worthy of important collections. 
Bradford has hosted the RPS collection, and the international film festival, for many years;  urgent steps should be taken to protect and enhance these in Bradford, not ship the collection off wholesale to London. Please reconsider. 
Nationalmediamuseum 02dec2006.jpg
The National Media Museum in Bradford
The original uploader was Dupont Circle at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Cloudbound., CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9780968