Fairer future

Labour's mayoral candidate Marvin Rees has promised to introduce a living wage in Bristol if he gets elected to the figurehead post in November. He has pledged to bring in a rate of not less than £7.20 an hour for all council employees and hopes it will be extended across all firms and organisations throughout the city...'fairness will be an over-riding focus of my time as mayor'...(more here).
Good to see a specific, clear policy statement.  The emphasis on fairness is right and the living wage idea is a very good one, though I would argue for fixing it higher than the £7.20 that Marvin Rees proposes. At 60% of net national average earnings, a living wage would be just over £8 per hour.

I hope by taking this policy position Marvin Rees is saying that he wants to tackle unjustifiably high salary payments at the middle and top end, cut the difference between salaries at the top and bottom, and spread salary and other aspects of fairness for council employees out into the private sector.

Jubilee've it ?

                                 http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php

Budget below the belt

Wouldn't it have been fairer, more just and better economics to keep the 50% tax rate and bring in additional measures to make sure that people could not avoid paying it so easily, if that's what is happening on a large scale? I thought we had debts to pay off and that the Govt needed the money for this.

There will be many well-off high rate tax payers who have circumstances such that they wont be liable to pay the additional wealth taxes in the budget, who will thus get a large net tax cut. Its a budget that George Osbourne's mates will like and benefit from I'm sure.

More on the budget here and here.

Marriage menace???

More unreasonable rubbish is today being spoken against gay marriage with this: The Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is stepping up its campaign against the government's plan to legalise same-sex marriage. In a letter being read in thousands of parish churches, the two most senior archbishops say the change would reduce the significance of marriage, and that Catholics have a duty to make sure it doesn't happen. Archbishop Peter Smith told the BBC a married couple and their children "forms the basic building block of a healthy society". (more here and here)
Why on Earth would allowing gay men and women to get married be any threat to heterosexual marriage? How would it or could it hinder the Catholic view of marriage as being between a man and a woman who want to procreate? Our society is more than big enough to accomodate different perspectives on marriage though apparently some religions and religious figures are not. It seems to me that their overreaction is much more of a threat to the institutions they say they value than gay marriage is. Take a look at some of the arguments on this issue:

Dinosaurs not extinct

Dinosaurs are still alive and well in the UK today. There are various extinct, frequently large, meat eating or veggie reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that lived mainly on the land between approximately 65 and 200 million years ago. Then there are relics of the past, holding to hopelessly outdated, obsolete ideas and practices - such as some MPs and Cardinals.  A Conservative MP has described proposals to allow gay marriage as "completely nuts". In the House of Commons, Peter Bone urged the Church of England to block the plans, as it believed marriage had to be "between a man and a woman"...(details here).

The government's plans for gay marriage have been criticised by the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in Britain. Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right"... (details here). 

Fairness and females

The current political system is very clearly skewed in favour of men, in terms of style, substance and structures. It is therefore undemocratic, with people chosen for their gender rather than their ability. Its logical to counteract this skewed situation through measures like all-women shortlists (as Labour in Bristol West are planning to use*). To call a measure designed to achieve balance and fairness between men and women sexist, as some do, is to ignore the current bias in favour of men and turn reality upside down. Lets remember that its not so long ago that women had no vote at all! There should not be any need for all-women shortlists but until prejudice is significantly reduced something needs to be done - only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons and 20% of members of the House of Lords are women. Its unreasonable to say, as some do, that MPs who originally became candidates via all-women shortlists are somehow second class - because they have appeared on the ballot paper at a general election and have been put into power by voters in their constituency - presumeably any voter who felt they were not up to the job or were selected as a candidate by an objectionable process woud not have voted for them.

Politics in the UK is often overly and unecessarily macho and confrontational. Parliament has long been acknowledged as a 'boys club' or 'gentleman's club'. This is no way to address and solve problems and in part its down to the skewing of the system to favour men that is clearly shown by the stat that 4 in 5 in Parliament are men, including men with outdated, sexist attitudes. It is suggested that women candidates and MPs as weaker and second rate but many say that the performance of women MPs has been good and that Parliament with more women is better in several respects - a case of prejudice getting  in the way of reason.


There are other unfair aspects to our system. It needs wholesale radical reform
*See: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-Labour-Party-select-MPs-women-list/story-15155549-detail/story.html

http://www.parliament.uk/education/online-resources/parliament-explained/women-in-politics/

Overpaid Ormondroyd

Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates.Why have so many comments on this story simply attacked those asking the questions? Its the issue that counts and tactical rather than fair argument is a distraction from the very important matter of who is paid what and why - and whether its fair and deserved. The current Chief Executive Jan Ormondroyd (pictured) is paid £107,000 per year more now than in 1998 - 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago. This £7600 a year rise every year for ten years, way above inflation and bearing no relation to the performance of Bristol City Council, cannot be right. Less than 10% a year says one person - but this sort of level of sustained increase has only been given to those already well paid and wealthy. Where's the justice in that?

Equality - not

I assume that those vehement critics of Occupy Bristol (see here) are happy with huge and unfair inequality that exists - perhaps they are even advocates of it. The 2010 report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK showed that the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society - and comparison between the richest here and the poorest in the world is of course even worse.

Large scale income inequality cuts quality of life and eats away at the fabric of society. Look at the evidence here http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why . We should adopt income inequality as one of the key indicators of progress in our society and urgently enact measures to cut inequality (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies ).

On closing the gap between rich and poor

Author Danny Dorling claims the British people need to learn the lessons of the 1930s and do something about the growing gap between the super rich and everyone else.

BBC News - Author Danny Dorling on closing gap between rich and poor

From a culture of war to a culture of peace

Bruce Kent, Vice-chair of CND, will speak at a public meeting on Tues 4th Oct at the Central Quaker Meeting House, Champion Square, BS2 9DB on the subject: 'From a Culture of War to a Culture of Peace'. He asks why our society is dominated by military values and thinking and whether this leads to greater security and happiness. Refreshments from 6.30; informal conversation with Bruce from 7.00; Bruce's presentation at 7.30 p.m. followed by questions and discussion.Admission free but retiring collection. Organised by Bristol Quakers.

Hackgate

It appears in our current system that the purpose of holding positions of power and responsibility in banking, the media, police and politics is to 'know little/nothing' and to resign. Useless, corrupt...

Phone hacking: MPs to quiz Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks [and Former Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and many others!!]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14195259

38 Degrees | Murdoch BSkyB takeover petition

Please sign the 38 Degrees Murdoch BSkyB takeover petition

Cut the power and influence of the Murdoch empire

Dear Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hunt,
Murdoch's empire is far too big and pervasive already, so I'm opposed to allowing it to own all of BSkyB. It's necessary to take a firmer line on media plurality as large corporations cross-promote, harm their rivals, cut the choice and narrow the range of information, its interpretation and any critique. In this way analysis and opinions available for consideration by the public are cut - taking us further away from a more informed and fairer society.

As we've seen all too clearly in the case of the phone hacking scandal the Murdoch empire lacks scruples, ethics and decent standards. There should be tougher penalties for breaches of standards and more teeth for the Press Complaints Commission. The Murdoch empire is unlikely to stick to decent standards without tougher penalties and an empowered regulator - it might not do so even with these things and so reviewing the law may necessary.

Please refuse to give Murdoch full ownership of BSkyB. At least have the proposed deal reviewed by the competition commission. I ask you to arrange for a full judicial inquiry into the hacking scandal and not to make any final decisions on Murdoch and BSkyB until it is full and complete.

Yours sincerely
Glenn Vowles
85 Somerset Rd, Knowle, Bristol, BS4 2HX

http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_messages_2/?rc=fb&pv=42 - go here to send a message to the government on Murdoch fully owning BSkyB. Be qucik though - the deadline is approaching.

Fair pensions

..."I believe that fair pensions are worth fighting for, so I will be joining the picket lines in solidarity with my constituents who have been abandoned by the other main Westminster parties.

"This isn't something I do lightly. I regret the disruption caused by industrial action and think it must only be used in special circumstances - and would urge trade unions to work hard to ensure support from the wider public...

Caroline Lucas "Fair pensions are worth fighting for"

Tough times for many - but the rich have got a lot richer

Large scale income inequality cuts quality of life and eats away at the fabric of society. Look at the evidence here http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why . We should adopt income inequality as one of the key indicators of progress in our society and urgently enact measures to cut inequality (see http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies ). It cannot be fair for instance that Bristol's first billionaire, businessman Peter Hargreaves (pictured) who now has a staggering personal fortune of £1,020 million, has seen his fortune soar by £450m in just 12 months when so many are losing their jobs, having their pay cut, having public services cut.

See this Post report on how A MIXTURE of Bristol's businessmen and celebrities made it onto this year's prestigious Sunday Times Rich List.

Also see this Post report on Peter Hargreaves
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/m-proud-Bristol-s-billionaire/article-3532105-detail/article.html

(If he has made an additional £450 million in 12 months and has a personal fortune of over £1 billion why does he say "When people ask me what have I done for this country, I tell them that I pay £10 million in taxes every year." ? Just a figure of speech? Or is this really the amount of tax he pays annually? £10 million is only 1% of his total reported financial wealth and only just over 2% of the £450 million he is reported to have seen his fortune soar by in the space of a single year!).

YouTube - Stephen Fry on why you should vote YES on the 5th May

The current voting system is not fit for purpose. AV gives voters more power. AV gives people real choice. The opportunity for change is now here - dont waste it. AV is an upgrade to our voting system. AV means your vote will always count. Ranking those candidates you are willing to vote for in order of preference is straightforward. MPs would have to get more people on their side and to do so would have to work harder and appeal broadly. MPs would then have to keep broad opinion and the national interest in mind - or they could lose broad voter support. AV is fairer.

YouTube - Stephen Fry on why you should vote YES on the 5th May

Councillors Code of Conduct

All councillors sign up to Bristol City Councils Code of Conduct for Members which includes the ten principles of public life below*. I have to say that the way conventional party politics works – with Whips enforcing a party line - it’s very hard to see how all councillors are consistently ‘making decisions on merit’ and reaching ‘their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions’. This is something I will certainly examine and challenge if elected because its very important that councillors are objective and make good personal judgements (note that elected Green Party councillors won’t use a Whip system like other parties do). No point in signing up to a code you only follow part of!

*The Ten General Principles of Public Life

Selflessness – member should serve only the public interest and should
never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Honesty and integrity – members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questions, should not behave improperly, and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – members should make decisions on merit, including when
making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – members should be accountable to the public for their
actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and
should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.

Openness – member should be as open as possible about their actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for thoseactions.

Personal judgement – member may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions.

Respect for others - members should promote equality by not discriminating against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. They should respect the impartiality and integrity of the authority’s statutory officers and its other employees.

Duty to uphold the law – members should uphold the law and, on all
occasions, act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them.

Stewardship - member should do whatever they are able to do to ensure that their authorities use their resources prudently, and in accordance with the law.

Leadership – members should promote and support these principles by
leadership and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Spot the odd one out

"We come in the traditions that have marched in peaceful but powerful protest for justice, fairness and political change.

"The suffragettes who fought for votes for women and won. The civil rights movement in America that fought against racism and won. The anti-apartheid movement that fought the horror of that system and won."

And the radical message was...

“There is a need for difficult choices, and some cuts. But, this government is going too far and too fast...”

...not radical at all! In fact the same as the Coalition Government but a little less and a little slower

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/colleagues-defend-miliband-rally-speech-2254550.html

Ten Reasons to Support AV | Yes to fairer votes

From the Yes to fairer votes website: In May voters will get the chance to choose a fairer voting system – the Alternative Vote. It’s a small change that will make a big difference.

The new voting system will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say.

This is because, with AV, MPs would now have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote, and so will have to work harder and represent more of their constituents.

The AV system will change this. It will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency, and the likelihood of decisive election results – and strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get and keep their jobs by giving voters more of a say.

Here are 10 good reasons for supporting AV.Click on your favourite ones to send them out on Twitter:

1. AV will force MPs to work harder to earn - and keep - our support

MPs need to secure a real majority of voters to be sure of winning, not just the 1 in 3 who can currently hand them power. They'll need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.
The expenses scandal showed how deeply out of touch some of our politicians became from the people who elect them. It arose from a culture where some MPs have ‘seats for life, and leads to poor service, complacency and taking voters for granted.

2. AV will give us a bigger say on who our local MP is

Forget tactical voting - just pick the candidate you really want to win. But if your favourite doesn't win you can still have a say.

3. AV will tackle the ‘jobs for life’ culture in Parliament

Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life. We saw that in the expenses crisis. The AV system will change this.

4. AV is an upgrade on our current voting system

AV builds on the current system, eliminating many of its weaknesses, retaining its strengths and strengthening the link between MPs and their communities. Voters still have just one vote.

5. AV will keep extremists out of politics

AV is the anti-extremist system because candidates have to secure a real majority to be sure of winning. First Past the post enables candidates to win with a very small percentage of the vote, which means extremist parties such as the British National Party have more chance of being elected despite most people in an area opposing them. This is one of the reasons why the BNP is opposing AV.

6. AV lets you vote for who you really want

Forget tactical voting- just pick the candidate you really want to win. With AV you can back just one candidate (like now), or if you'd like to, state a second choice, or even a third choice. Voters can vote for what they really want so there is no need to vote tactically.

7. AV gives control to more voters

Less than 2% of voters decided the last election. To be sure of winning a seat with AV, candidates will have to get over 50% of the votes in that area. They will have to work harder and not just take us for granted.

8. AV will force candidates to positively engage with the wider community

First Past the Post has created a culture of complacency whereby most MPs know they can just rely on their core vote. AV rewards politicians who can reach out to a widest range of voters. Politicians will need to engage more constructively with more people if they want to be sure of winning.

9. AV is already used by 14m people in the UK

Alternative Vote (AV) is a widely used and trusted system in Britain outside public elections, because it is used by businesses, charities, trade unions and membership organisations

10. This referendum is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to have our say on the current system

MPs have been deciding their own rules for far too long. This is the first time that voters are being given a say on the system we should use to elect MPs. This is our chance to have a public debate and to demand more from our democracy.

Find out more
What is AV? Introducing the Alternative Vote
AV myths Let’s separate the facts from the fiction
A broken system What’s wrong with First Past the Post?
Why a referendum? Seizing our chance for change

Ten Reasons to Support AV Yes to fairer votes

Legal advice charities call for help – save our services! Rally, Queens Square, Bristol, Mon 7th February 12noon

A network of charities that offer free, independent, and confidential legal advice to households on low incomes in Bristol and the surrounding areas are calling for help from the people of Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Proposed cuts in government funding will mean a huge reduction in the services that these agencies can offer to the most vulnerable individuals in society.

Proposals to remove Legal Aid funding for all welfare benefits, employment, and immigration cases for most debt cases and for many housing cases, will result in destitution, poverty and hardship for thousands of households across the region. It is estimated that in Bristol alone over 4,000 households will not be able to access advice to deal with their complex, life-changing problems if these cuts are made.

“Providing high-quality legal advice to vulnerable people on low-incomes is a good investment for society,” says Jane Emanuel, who works with advice agencies in the region. “The governments own research shows that the people most affected by these changes will be people with disabilities, people over pension age and other groups less able to help themselves. Government research also shows that for every £1 spent on advice the state saves anything up to £10 in reduced costs elsewhere in the system – for instance, lower NHS spending, lower housing spending and reduced social care spending. Not only are these proposals a disaster for individuals and families who will suffer because they cannot resolve their problems, they are a clear false economy that will not, in the long run, save the Government money.”

Local advice agencies and their supporters have arranged a rally in Queens Square, Bristol on Monday 7th February from 12noon to raise public awareness of this looming disaster, and to encourage the public to contact their MPs before the governments consultation finishes on 14/02/11.

We would ask everyone who values access to justice for vulnerable people to support us – see www.advicewest.org.uk for more details.

###

Notes for editors:

1 - The Advice Network is a three-year project managed by Avon & Bristol Law Centre on behalf of Advice Centres for Avon (ACFA). ACFA is a network of advice agencies who have been working together for over 25 years; most members are registered charities and all offer free, confidential, impartial, high-quality legal advice on issues such as housing, debt, welfare benefits, community care, employment, education and health. For more details visit our website – www.advicewest.org.uk.
2 – Local advice agencies in Bristol alone will lose over £500,000 in funding if the cuts to legal aid proceed as proposed
3 – Legal aid-funded advisers and solicitors are not ‘fat-cats’ – the average salary for a highly-trained and experienced adviser in the South-west is c£25,000
4 – Alternative funding sources simply do not exist – Bristol City Council have ring-fenced the funding they currently provide for advice services, but cannot fill the gaps left by government cuts; other cuts to funding for advice from national government have just been announced – this will result in a further loss of c£750,000 in funding for debt advice for people in Bristol and the surrounding areas.
5 – For further information, or for media interviews, please contact Ben Sansum, Jane Emanuel or Liz Freeman at the Advice Network project on 0117 929 2153, or 0794 838 2676