George's generalities

Independent mayoral candidate George Ferguson has today laid out his seven-point vision of a safer, caring and healthy Bristol...Getting Bristol moving and working are first on the candidate’s list, followed by “a healthy and caring City”; “a democratic Bristol”; “making Bristol great”; “vibrant Bristol” and “a safer Bristol”...his “magnificent seven”...(see here).

George Ferguson has been very clear he does not want a Bristol that is: immobile; unemployed; unhealthy; uncaring; undemocratic; not great; lifeless; and unsafe. He's not committed himself to anything in his seven points that anyone would oppose!

That he needs to put flesh on these very, very bare bones is an understatement. He has strongly and consistently opposed petty party politics and seems open to involving people of all parties and none - and these are amongst his key strengths - but he's not really committed to anything very specific apart from building an arena, opposing bus rapid transit, revoking Sunday parking charges (to which I am opposed) and applying for world heritage status for the Clifton Suspension Bridge. Its not a specific plan for Bristol is it.

Mayoral momentum

George Ferguson was "bowled over" by the response to his mayoral campaign when he held a jamboree in the city (story here). Interesting that George has generated these numbers (500 in the report) and this reported, at least, enthusiam. He's gained some momentum in his campaign and some advantage through declaring his candidacy early on and being the first to send out a leaflet. Despite his Liberal background and pretty obvious broadly liberal approach to politics he is benefitting and will benefit from not being a candidate representing a political party. He also has a decent national standing and can point to a list of achievements that will impress some voters. My question to George however is - where's the beef?...please openly state your principles and convictions in a good deal more detail than you already have. He appears to be pursuing a strategy of trying to win the Mayoral election mostly on the basis of finding out what people want and then saying that this is his policy rather than getting elected because he is openly stating policy convictions. For me he is clearly the main opposition to Labour's candidate Marvin Rees though.

Another Lib Dem flip flop?

At a St Brendans College meeting with politics students yesterday Bristol East MP Kerry McCarthy said she favoured votes for 16 yr olds as the Labour candidate. I said I favoured this too, as the Green candidate. No Tory view was available to students because they couldn't get the candidate or a representative of her there. Lib Dem candidate Mike Popham said he wanted votes for 16 yr olds too - but I picked him up on this, as my recollection was that he had indicated in the DEMREF 2010 survey that he wanted the voting age to stay at 18. He categorically denied that he had done this but when I checked later I found that he had in fact returned the survey saying the voting age should stay at 18 (see screenshot, click to enlarge). So, is this an error of some sort on his or someones part or does he change what he says according to the audience in front of him (as Lib Dems often do)??

See:
http://www.polinfluence.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ppa70mikepopham202.pdf

The Liberal Democrats: just what do they stand for??

Watching Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg on The Politics Show this weekend I was disappointed that he was not challenged on the [lack of] consistency and conviction behind Lib Dem policies and action. There’s no shortage of examples:

*Economic policy
Nick Clegg says he wants a fair society BUT has recently stressed his admiration for monetarist, ‘no such thing as society’ Margaret Thatcher! This presumeably will help his work for savage cuts in public services.

The LibDems [so-called] “green tax switch” promises to “cut income tax and switch to green taxes on pollution instead” BUT no serious Green would contemplate this. We need income taxation to pay for schools, hospitals, public services… So-called green tax revenue in place of income taxation means keeping the pollution going, to keep the revenue coming in, so that we don’t then have less money for schools, hospitals, public services…

*Democratic reform policy
Nationally say they want voters to have the power to sack MPs through a recall system BUT in Bristol Lib Dems opposed a Green motion to introduce recall locally.

*Transport policy
Norman Baker has said a LibDem government would stop spending on road building BUT his colleagues in Lancashire support the Lancaster Northern bypass.

Lib Dems wanted a moratorium on road building BUT then wholeartedly supported the Newbury bypass, the Batheaston bypass, the M74 extension in Scotland…

They favour congestion charging nationally BUT are against it in Edinburgh, Manchester and York.

Lib Dem MP Norman Baker has [rightly] complained that British rail passengers pay the highest fares in Europe BUT then he said the LibDems would improve matters by freezing UK rail fares - at the highest level in Europe!

Lib Dems opposed the expansion of Heathrow BUT have been happy to expand Birmingham, Carlisle, Exeter, Liverpool and Norwich airports – and enthused about Manchester airport’s second runway (except Lib Dems in Stockport, under the flightpath!).

*Waste management policy
LibDems in Sheffield argued for a new incinerator BUT in Hull fought against an incinerator. They stopped incineration in Bristol BUT have supported incinerator projects in Exeter, Plymouth and Barnstaple, and also in Essex.

*Energy policy
Say they want a zero carbon economy by 2050 BUT have opposed windfarm proposals in Cornwall, Cumbria, Devon and Worcestershire and in Lewisham the they voted against a Green Party budget package to insulate 25,000 homes for free. (They have until this year opposed Bristol Green Cllr Charlie Bolton’s budget amendments allocating more money for insulation.)

They say the environment is at the ‘heart of everything’ they do BUT the party is built on flip flopping opportunism not ecological principles. This explains their lack of joined up (systems) thinking, the root of all truly Green politics.

The 'Gordon Brown Party' Conference and the difference between saying and doing

The crucial thing about Gordon Brown’s conference speech was the massive difference between what he seemed to say and what has been achieved in the last 10 yrs, during which he’s been a crucial, central figure of the Labour Government. For example Gordon Brown spoke warmly of action on climate change but UK emissions of carbon dioxide are higher now than ten yrs ago, income inequality is high and rising, childhood wellbeing is in a poor state according to UN figures. He spoke warmly about supporting our armed forces but they often lack protective equipment and vehicles, and are housed in often sub-standard accommodation. He stressed a commitment to the NHS but tens of thousands still die prematurely due to un-tackled hospital-acquired infections like C-difficile.

In the end what counts is not what politicians say but the action they have taken and the outcomes they have achieved. Lets assess Gordon Brown based on his record, which includes attaining a very tight grip on his party.

The Labour Party conference should be renamed the Gordon Brown Conference because it has been so very leader dominated (and at times election obsessed). I ask - where has the Labour Party gone? Presumably it is happy to be dominated and controlled by its leader, going along with what the leader wants, like the retention of Trident, or no referendum on the EU constitutional treaty, whether it really wants it or not, because it feels this is its best hope of retaining power. Is it not better to have a more broad-based leadership though?

Gordon Brown’s conference speech to some extent imitated fellow ‘conviction politician’ Margaret Thatcher, (or even Winston Churchill). It worked at pressing the right buttons with people. He scattered key words like Britain and British tens of times throughout his speech because he wanted to create a certain sort of appeal. Opinion poll figures after the speech seem to indicate that it has upped support for the Brown government. Are we really going to be fooled like this?

Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem - what's the difference?? Where is principle, conviction and real engagement in today's political world?

Being a glutton for punishment I watched a fair bit of last week's Liberal Democrat Party Conference and today have been watching the Labour Party Conference, whilst working. One speech that struck me today was that by Quentin Davies MP. This man of apparently great principle (he defected from the Conservatives to Labour in June this yr after 30 yrs of membership and 19 yrs as an MP, including being a Conservative front bench spokesman....) said in his speech that David Cameron's Conservatives didn't believe in aything. As he was speaking the TV camera panned to left-winger Dennis Skinner MP, who I'm sure feels comfortably at home with his fellow 'socialist' Quentin.

This is today's Labour Party. Quention Davies MP, son of a GP, educated at Cambridge and Harvard, followed by Diplomatic Service and investment banking. Dennis Skinner MP, miner, NUM leader in Derbyshire, educated at grammar school and Ruskin College . I cant decide which one is chalk and which cheese though!!

I have to ask where principle and conviction resides in todays big political parties. They dont seem to care too much it seems, provided they can get into a position to win elections - this is 'principle' number one. Minds are very concentrated on attracting the support of floating voters in certain key seats, mostly in the south and east of the UK and far too little on enacting principles through policy to solve problems. This would require real debate, real engagement with people to persuade them of what is needed ie what I'd call real politics. Instead what we get is basically just marketing.

The public dont feel there is much difference between the three big parties. The figures support their perceptions. For at least the last few general elections the tax/spending plans of the three parties varied by less than 1% of national wealth for example. The result of this and the general tone of politics is a very limited, often rather dull debate.

From 'Red Dawn' to New Labour Loyalist - what a transformation!

I'm afraid I dont think Dawn Primarolo, MP for Bristol South, has been true to her 'principles' over her 20 years in Parliament which she is now celebrating, according to a large article in the local press recently. I think there is a clear relationship between her transformation from radical left-winger 'Red Dawn' to New Labour loyalist, and her rise up the political ladder to her position as Paymaster General in the Blair Government.

I was there at the count as the Green Party's 1987 Parliamentary Candidate when she first became an MP. Then I was certainly a political opponent but given her radical credentials, I felt there was at least some common ground between our political positions. As a former UNISON steward and the NASUWT rep I have always been a supporter of many aspects of the labour movement and many of its broad objectives and so expected to see her take on issues like: income inequality; nuclear weapons and power; the importance of how we treat children and childhood; and non-violence; on an ongoing, consistent and fundamental basis.

I was there at the count again in 2001 as the Greens Candidate and said as part of my speech at the end 'I hope she fights for a truly radical agenda more in the next five years'. She most certainly has done the complete opposite of this, given the actions of the government she is happy to be a member of!

Just look at the lack of achievement on what I initially thought was our 'common ground' back in 1987. Income inequality is high and is growing. The prospect of a non-nuclear future for the UK has been shattered by the governments decision to spend $76 billion over the coming years on Trident nuclear submarines equipped to the teeth with new nuclear weapons. The government is determined to forge ahead with a new nuclear power program. On children and childhood wellbeing a recent Unicef report shows that the UK is bottom of a league table of 21 industrialised countries compiled using no less than 40 different wellbeing indicators! And far from having a non-violent community we are now experiencing rising gun crime, especially involving young people.

Its a pretty damning record and puts the article written about her into some context. When politicians of apparent strong conviction dont hold to those convictions when political opportunities come along surely it helps to bring politics and politicians into disrepute?

Success: New Oak saved !!

It's great news for all those who have campaigned to prevent the closure of New Oak Primary School that plans to make the forthcoming Oasis Academy at Hengrove a 3 -18 school are to be dropped by Bristol City Council ('3 -18 school bid set to be dropped', Bristol Evening Post, February 2). The saving of New Oak is largely down to the sustained hard campaigning of local people, of all political persuasions and none, like Lorraine Lewis and others, who the Green Party have been very happy to help and support by applying additional political pressure.

I'm glad that council officers will recommend rejection of the 3 -18 plans now that 76% of repondents to the consultation are opposed and look forward to a confirmed, concrete political decision to keep New Oak open. I'm not happy with the position of all those who supported this plan originally though.

Councillor Jos Clarke, perhaps characteristically of many Liberal Democrats, seems now to be facing in contradictory directions. All along she has argued for the so-called educational benefits of the 3 -18 plan and has fronted the council position on New Oak closure. Now that she knows 76% are opposed she is saying she shares her constituents concerns about many aspects of the plan! Is she offering leadership as well as representation to her community or is she just following the trend of local opinion, now that it has been made abundantly clear, because she knows there is an election this spring? What a lack of conviction!

Councillor Clarke also sees fit at this point to pass the buck by saying that she and the council were pressured by central government to make a swift decision. Yes pressure was applied but it is her job and the council's job to lead and represent local opinion and stand up to such pressures in the interests of local democracy. Further lack of conviction.

An 11-18 academy involving the evangelical Christian Oasis Trust is still due to replace Hengrove School and so the Green Party remains concerned about the secondary schooling provided for Knowle, Hengrove and the surrounding areas served. It remains my position that schools should be set up and governed in the interests of children and parents, of all religions and none, and not private individuals, businessess or religions. Academies are not a genuine solution to todays education issues. Greens will continue to campaign for good general schooling which is well and fairly funded for all and which maximises parental and student participation and local community-based power.

Hengrove Academy: Why is there such a lack of conviction in the big parties?

I'm really glad that the Bristol Evening Post has invited readers to write in with their views on plans for a new academy at Hengrove. People in the area are working really hard to make their views known. They are not getting the attention and support they deserve from their elected representatives despite their efforts to have ongoing proper debate over a decent timescale. We need decision making that is genuinely participative and on this type of issue the final decision should rest with the local community because its their kids schooling and their local environment.

The Green Party has taken a stance against the academy honestly based on its long-held convictions and issued a press statement as well as writing letters and publishing material on its local website. Where are the positively stated views of the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties? Why are they so silent on this issue? Why have the Hengrove people who have contacted us been able to tell us just how hard it is to get definite views from elected reps? Hengrove Lib-Dem Councillor Jos Clarke, also in the Bristol Cabinet with responsibility for education, has not exactly made herself fully available to her constituents according to our information.

It is situations like this, where politicians in the Labour, Lib-Dem and Conservative Parties often seem to lack backbone and conviction, that helps to bring politics, local politics in particular, into disrepute. It seems they dont want to stand up and be counted for fear of upsetting voters, yet by not giving their views this is exactly what they have done anyway.