When freedom of speech is not the same as homophobia

THE LATEST furore over homophobia is one I really don’t want to get frawn into. However…

Following my last post about a Tory smear against the Labour Party, "Jimmy" left the following comment:

Whilst sadly acknowledging that there will be homophobes in both the Labour and Conservative Parties, it would be interesting to hear his view’s on Lord Waddington’s (and Baroness O’Cathain’s) opposition to clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90518-0005.htm

Will David Cameron now prove that he means what he says, and openly criticise his colleagues in the Lords for their outdated and (I would argue) offensive views?

Jimmy is no doubt referring to the debate in the Commons on 24 March on the so-called "Freedom of speech" clause which was inserted into the Justice and Immigration Bill last year in the Lords by David Waddington. It was accepted by the government at the time due to lack of parliamentary time. But they used the opportunity of the Coroners and Justice Bill to attempt to remove it from statute. 

Essentially, Waddington’s amendment provided legal cover to those who merely criticise homosexuality and advocate desisting from it, making sure that such did not constitute the offence of incitement to hatred of homosexuals. Personally, I don’t see the point of telling a gay man he shouldn’t be doing what comes naturally, but I know some evangelicals who obsess unhealthily about this sort of thing and I don’t see the point in charging them with a criminal offence.

The point is, neither does the government. In replying to the debate in March, the minister, Bridget Prentice, said:

We need to protect groups that are the target of threatening behaviour intended to stir up hatred. We must also ensure that those who have concerns about some types of sexual behaviour are free to express their arguments and concerns in a reasonable way. They do not need to fear that they will be caught by the criminal law.

The government did not regard the Waddington amendment as homophobic, but merely as unnecessary to achieving the goal which both sides wanted: a freedom to criticise without fear of prosecution.

I supported the amendment, and joined Labour rebels and most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party in the lobby. The full account is here.

Jimmy and others will no doubt call me a homophobe, despite a strong record of supporting gay rights in the Commons and despite the fact that my aim, and the aim of other supporters of the Freedom of Speech clause, was identical to the government’s.

But feel free to call me a homophobe. It’s not true, and of course I will be offended. But hey, it’s your right to offend and my right to be offended. At the end of the day, it’s only words.

Published by Tom Harris on Sat 04 Jul 19:37:28

Smear of the Day

THIS casual reference to Hitler and Labour in the same sentence is pretty pathetic. I’ll have more to say soon about this recent and nauseating trend for politicians of all parties to smear their opposition, but in the meantime, just consider what Bagshawe is saying:

Labour gave Formula 1 an exemption from the cigarette advertising ban. Eccleston said something stupid and vaguely positive about Hitler. Ergo… You see where she’s going with that?

This might be the kind of tactic Bagshawe’s political heroine thinks is fine, but it’s not. It stinks.

Published by Tom Harris on Sat 04 Jul 10:46:22

A gap in the market?

DOES anyone else share my surprise that no-one has thought to fill an apparent gap in the market in Middle East countries?

Every time they have a demonstration, their flags end up going up in flames! You would have thought that by now someone would have produced a flame-retardant flag. Time for someone to step in a make a fortune, perhaps?

"Oh bugger, not again! What about a petition, then…?"

Published by Tom Harris on Sat 04 Jul 10:22:02

Bose headphones: luxurious conveyors of joy

The sun is shining and my Virgin train is firing like a bullet to London town. I’m heading to the geek-of-geek symposium - OpenTech09. Frankly, I’m more excited than I should be. This is partly because in recent years I’ve been too busy to enjoy the full conference. It’s one of those measurable quality of life gains you can count after leaving ministerial office.

Mainly though, it’s because I can listen to an iPhone full of my own music on the empty train. The Soulsetters, Juan Amelbert, Mary Jane Hooper, Margie Hendrix and other great R&B tracks are livening up the journey. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind my four year old using the phone as the most expensive games console in Europe to play Animatch. I don’t mind the scratches, the weetabix crustaceans, the constant low battery. Sometimes though, it’s just nice to get and hour to yourself.

The experience is made all the more joyous by these luxurious Bose QuietComfort 3 Acoustic headphones. Not to be recommended for use when crossing busy roads or riding bicyles but great for train and plane journeys.

Published by Tom on Sat 04 Jul 09:19:45

Sarah Palin a heroine? Well, yeah, by golly — you betcha!

CONTINUING my lone crusade to convince someone — anyone, in fact — that David Cameron’s detoxification strategy has been 100 per cent cosmetic and zero per cent substance, here’s the latest piece of evidence.

Louise Bagshawe, the novelist and Tory candidate for Corby, has Twittered that Sarah Palin is her "heroine". And no, I don’t think she was being ironic, judging from some of her subsequent Tweets.

Bagshawe is one of the Tories’ most high profile candidates, frequently appearing, presumably at the request of Central Office, in media articles profiling the Tories’ "next generation".

And Sarah Palin is her heroine.

Sarah Palin, who made an international, as well as a national, laughing stock of last year’s Republican presidential campaign.

Sarah Palin, who the Alaskan state legislature concluded had abused her powers as governor by persecuting her sister’s ex-husband.

Sarah Palin, who actually believes  that dinosaurs and humans co-existed because she believes in the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Sarah Palin, whose good ol’ fashioned folksy charm just wasn’t enough to hide the fact that she was one of the least qualified vice-presidential candidates in modern political history. You betcha!

John McCain, by all accounts a decent and principled man, holed his own bid for the Whitehouse below the waterline by appointing her as his running mate, while simultaneously prompting the world to reassess whether he had the political judgment after all to be elected to his country’s highest office. After all, someone who thinks it a good idea to put Sarah Palin within a heartbeat of the presidency can hardly be trusted to make other, less important decisions in government.

As an Obama supporter, I obviously would like to see Palin become her party’s standard bearer in 2012. But even the Republican Party, I strongly suspect, don’t have that much of a death wish. They might opt for her if Obama looks like being unbeatable by then, in which case she’ll be rendered as harmless as Bob Dole was against Clinton in 1996. But if Obama’s looking remotely vulnerable, I expect the party will want to nominate a credible candidate instead.

The interesting question is: how many other Tory candidates and MPs actually take Palin seriously and want her to become president (other than Nadine, obviously)? An interesting survey of Tory candidates today at ConservativeHome reveals that as many supported Obama as opposed him. We know that Dave himself supported McCain (although his endorsement came before Palin’s nomination for VP).

Bagshawe has since Twittered that she doesn’t agree with Palin on gay rights but she does on abortion. Well, throw a stick into any Southern Baptist church in America and you’ll hit someone with the same views — surely Palin’s got more going for her than that? Apart from the glasses, of course, which I admit are very fetching.

Palin is an extremist. She is also a fool. I would question the political judgment, therefore, of anyone who describes her as their "heroine". 

UPDATE at 11.00 am, 4th July: Louise herself has replied by Twitter, suggesting that the accusation that Palin thinks dinosaurs and people walked the earth at the same time is a smear. If what I wrote above is untrue, then I apologise. But again, most people don’t believe this either and it doesn’t qualify them to be president. Can anyone provide a link to a direct quote by Palin denying the whole One Million years BC scenario?

Published by Tom Harris on Fri 03 Jul 23:32:37

Mea culpa?

At last a chance to confront Parliament with the dreadful consequences of the 2006 decision to deploy 5,000 UK troops in Helmand Province. It was said by Secretary of State John Reid that he hoped the troops would be out in three years without a shot being fire. It was said and it cannot be unsaid.

Other voices compared the Helmand deployment as a 'futile as the Charge of the Light Brigade'. In March 2006, 7 British soldiers had died since 2001. Now it's 171 - far more that the number killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade. The toatl is close the total of 179 kiled in Iraq. I have written to the two main Defence Ministers who were in office in 2006 and invited them to attend and make their contributions.  Will John Reid and Adam Ingram have better things to do on at 2.00pm next Wednesday. The debate will last and an hour and a half so there should be ample time to hear the former ministers' views.

We are repeating the folly of Vietnam. The answer to US mounting casualties there was to pile in more troops. It' was not working, so they did more of the same. In ended in a panic rout.

 One Telegraph scribbler today is calling for more UK troops to be deployed in Helmand.  More troops offer more targets for the Taliban. More US bombing means more deaths of innocent Afghan civilians. The turning point in Vietnam was when the sons of the middle classes were among the fatalities. Today's sad news of the deaths of two brave soldiers has had more attention than any others fatalities.

One of them is a top ranking soldier who is a friend of royalty. But his death is no more  painful to his loved ones that the other 171 deaths. All their families have suffered a wound that will never heal.

Parliament took us into Helmand on a false prospectus. Parliament  is responsible for these deaths.  Will we have a mea culpa or two?

Published by Paul Flynn on Fri 03 Jul 19:10:12

Arson attack in Lessingham Avenue

Many of you will already be aware of the horrific arson attack in Lessingham Avenue eleven days ago, which has claimed the life of 15 year old Maleha Masud, and left her brothers Zain and Junaid and sister Nabiha in a critical condition.

The news this morning that a 14 year old has been charged with murder is gratefully received - of course there has yet to be a trial or a verdict. There may well be others involved.  It is shocking that anyone could commit such a horrific crime.

Everybody I've spoken since the fire has expressed their shock that such a senseless and devastating attack could happen here in Tooting.  We have a vibrant and strong community, which I have always been proud of, and attacks like this affect everyone who lives here.

Published on Fri 03 Jul 17:25:02

IPSA

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is a remarkable creation: it not only seeks rather heavy-handedly to draw a line under MPs' expenses as the biggest political scandal in modern times, it also threatens to undermine a fundamental component of the Bill of Rights of 1689.

Published by Michael Meacher on Fri 03 Jul 15:19:21

MP Challenges South Korea on Child Safety Online

Published on Fri 03 Jul 00:00:00

North Korea

Published on Fri 03 Jul 00:00:00

Lethal propaganda

Israel ran a brilliant PR campaign on their Gaza invasion. Not only were their minions pumping out plausible lines on the world media, there was micro propaganda produced on an individual basis.

I had a letter from a named constituent. She informed me that I was wrong to complain about phosphorus bombs in the first few days of the campaign in January. She wrote:

“Israel does not use phosphorus antipersonnel munitions. However, certain smoke munitions used in the recent operation in Gaza do contain small amounts of phosphorus. The method of Israel 's use of these munitions is fully in keeping with international law. They are directed against military targets, and used for their designed purpose of signaling and screening.”

Amnesty confirmed their report of horrific civilian casualties including 300 children.
They say "disturbing questions" remain about why high-precision weapons like tank shells and air-delivered bombs and missiles "killed so many children and other civilians".

The group also deplored Israel's use of less-precise artillery shells and highly incendiary white phosphorous in densely populated areas and accused Israeli forces of using Palestinians as "human shields" and frequently blocking civilians from receiving medical care and humanitarian aid.

On the world propaganda war, Israel out guns all other nations. Shame that so many children die in their firing lines.

George dragoned

There will be delight in some political circles that a complaint against George Osborne’s expenses is being investigated. They sound ‘iffy’ – claiming on two properties for a sum greater than the total of the mortgages. Who knows, there may be a plausible explanation.

It’s a 'Labour' complaint all media tell us. I do not remember anyone pointing out that many of the trivial accusations from the Telegraph were 'Tory' complaints. But it is not only Labour that will be pleased with an accusation at millionaire smiling boy Osborne.

Backbench Tories have been seething for weeks that David Cameron was protecting his rich shadow cabinet chums and hanging his lowly backbenchers out to dry. We hear the bitter complaints daily in the Commons.

There will be relief that the focus has moved away from the comical petty claims to the scandal of the big spenders. They have got away with the use of all, or almost all, of their housing allowance on interest only. The houses involved were all vast and expensive millionaire dwellings.

Why is this the expenses story the one the  papers do not reveal?

Sinking feeling

While we are on the subject, one deranged bigot rang my local paper to complain that I had claimed for work to underpin the foundations of my Newport home.

I listened fascinated. I have repeatedly pointed out that I have never flipped or made any housing claim except for a second home in London. Nor have the foundations for any of my homes ever been underpinned – thank goodness.

A company in which all the flat dwellers have a share run  many London flats. As any well run company they have a reserve fund for contingencies. In my case it is properly called a ‘Sinking fund.’  From this the Argus’ anonymous caller concluded that my house had been sinking. I told the Argus the name of their moronic informant and suggested that next time they put the phone down on him.

Why waste their and my time?

Blog power

Did this blog shame Rogerstone Council?

I believe it did. When I first posted, two correspondents defended the Council decision to evict Mrs Avery from her allotment. One said I should be ashamed for raising it. He knew the circumstances suspiciously well.

When the storm of angry messages arrived on this blog the defenders of the council ran to earth. Passing my story and pictures on to the local and national press produced hundreds of complaints. The Argus and Facebook publicity attracted instant support.

Without that enormous response, this dim council would have dug in. I believe the two correspondents above expressed the council’s view. Their petty defence was steam-rollered by a wave of common sense.

 It’s blogging that won.

MPs for hire

The Scottish newspaper the Herald published this brief article from me today,

The commonest excuse deployed by part-time MPs with a second job is that it gives them a more rounded experience of life that can be brought to bear on their work for constituents in the Commons. If MPs decide that they need experience to enrich their parliamentary work by all means do it but the money they earn should be deducted from their parliamentary salaries.

There is an Industry in Parliament Trust which encourages MPs to go and get experience in industry and the military but they are not paid for it.

The trouble is that predatory companies seek MPs for hire to act as their advocates in parliament. A couple of years ago, when there was a rush to clean up Sellafield, we found two MPs being paid tens of  thousands of pounds by the nuclear industry to put across their point of view.

They cannot be giving 100 per cent of their time serving their constituents if they are spending a considerable amount of time working for Mega-greed plc.

The worst part of it is the potential corruption of ministers who, if they are sacked or step down, are often seen to be hawking around their experience to companies who have an interest in the expertise they have built up. We’re seeing these top jobs - civil servants, generals, even the office of Prime Minister - becoming a stepping stone to far more lucrative jobs. There should be an absolute ban on working in these areas where they once had influence.

Experience outside parliament enriches parliament but people should not be paid for it, they cannot serve two masters . Even with the best rules human nature, being what it is, means that if you are getting two or three times your salary elsewhere that is where your prime attention will be.

Published by Paul Flynn on Thu 02 Jul 21:03:50

Tracey drops a Clanger

TO A RECEPTION this evening at the Royal College of Art in Piccadilly, courtesy of hosts, NedRailways.

Modern art really isn’t my bag (despite my unsuccessful attempt to have this blog nominated for the Turner Prize) but it was a terrific venue and much of what was on display was intriguing, and some of it quite beautiful.

But what struck me as soon as I saw it was a piece by Tracey Emin which purports to be a piglet. But it’s not, as those of us who remember Oliver Postgate’s immortal work will testify: it’s a Clanger. So maybe a portion of the £90,000 the painting was bought for (no, seriously — ninety grand! Iknow! Me too!) should go to the estate of the sainted Postgate?

A Clanger yesterday (left) and Emin’s "piglet". Yeah, right…

Published by Tom Harris on Thu 02 Jul 20:39:12

New £30m fund for Green Buses

Published on Thu 02 Jul 19:59:29

Privatisation fails again

The collapse of the National Express franchise for the East Coast rail service may well foreshadow the redrawing of the entire privatised rail franchise system. The loss of this £1.4bn contract, the most expensive in the country, will have a major impact on the 5-year funding settlement for the railways which will have to be met by the taxpayer in higher fares. But it presages a wider crisis in that the £35bn settlement for the 2009-2014 maintenance and upgrade system is based on the assumption that rail fares will increase by an average of 7% over this period, when in fact because of the recession passenger numbers are falling so that fares are increasing on the East Coast line by only about 1%. There is the further immediate issue of the conditions under which National Express can walk away from its £1.4bn contractual liabilities with the loss of only £72m in loans and performance bonds since the Department for Transport cannot legally demand that the company pay the full cost of the contract. This is yet another flagrant example where a company privatises the gains in conditions of economic growth, but then leaves the taxpayer to socialise the losses when the economy deteriorates. Is this a way to run a railway, let alone a range of other major public services?

Privatisation, the flagship of the Thatcher-Blair administrations, is now visibly wilting.

Published by Michael Meacher on Thu 02 Jul 18:04:18

'Building Britain's Future' - does it mean anything?

The purpose of Gordon Brown's grandiloquent statement on Building Britain's Future is (1) to give the impression that the Government is still fizzing with new ideas (even though the current Parliamentary session is the thinnest for years in terms of legislative reform), (2) to show the Government in a positive light compared with the Tories, and (3) to put the best face on the collapse of the Government's economic model by diverting attention away from its potentially disastrous implications. By those (contradictory) standards, the Government has probably put the best fist on it that they can. But it is still seriously holed below the water-line. There are the obvious weaknesses which have already been highlighted by the Opposition, in particular how will it all be afforded? This is not however a menu without the prices, as Douglas-Home's taunt against Harold Wilson put it in 1964, since the costings of the biggest item - the trebling of the budget for building Council and affordable housing to £2.1bn - are covered by the transfer from the capital spending budgets of DCLG and the Home Office. But there are still funding gaps in other areas, notaly over the proposed health entitlements. Then there is the serious question of enforceability, which is being postponed for several months, which all goes to show that this is a rushed job to fill the political vacuum.

The best part of the programme is the proposal to triple the £600m promised in the last Budget for new Council and housing association homes. The £2.1bn now to be pumped into affordable housing is intended to build an extrqa 20,000 homes on top of the 90,000 already in the pipeline. This is good news since the acute shortage of flats or houses for low-income families to rent is arguably the biggest single cause of social misery in Britain today. But building 55,000 such homes a year for the next 2 years has to be seen against the magnitude of the shortage: there are currently 1.8m households on Council waiting lists, so that at the new slightly improved rate of build it will take 34 years to clear the current list, irrespective of future demand. At least however the New Labour/Tory block on building Council houses for those who will never be able to buy a house has slightly lifted - over the last several years the number of new build by Councils has been down to near zero (just 100 or 200 in many years).

The worst part of the programme is the proposal to dock benefits from any young person out of work for more than a year who refuses to take a job. There are already nearly 1 million people aged 18-24 out of work, no less than 1 in 6 of the age group, the highest rate for 15 years, and still increasing. To meet this need, the Government did announce in the last Budget £1.2bn fund to create employment for up to 100,000 young persons. But that is still only one-tenth of the number requiring jobs. The Government's answer to that is that where no job is available, they will be expected to take training or a community taskforce assignment as a condition of benefit. Sadly, this aspect of Building Britain's Future looks rather punitive, in keeping with Purnell's scheme of so-called welfare reforms, and it would be much better to focus instead on providing significant incentives to employers for taking on young people.

The real problem for Gordon Brown's programme, if it is intended to galvanise Labour activists and voters back into the fold, is that it leaves untouched the foundations of the current economic model which have so deeply alienated such supporters - the ascendancy of the banks and the City of London, an unfettered market system, the excesses of corporate power, the marginalisation of the unions, the growth of obscene levels of inequality - and merely offers a load of sweeties which don't in any way affect the fundamentals. Yet it is only by challenging those fundamentals that Labour supporters will be jerked out of their cynicism and despair. The problem is that this Government is now so weak that it's unable to confront and transform that power structure, even if it was so minded (which it certainly is not).

Published by Michael Meacher on Wed 01 Jul 23:44:09

Mrs Avery beats the bullies

Mrs Edith Avery's allotment is hers - for the foreseeable future.

The jobsworths on Rogerstone Council were forced to climb down in the face of a gale of public anger. The report I have had from tonight's meeting suggests that their about turn was anything but graceful. One councillor tried a sideswipe at me saying that I should be involved in more important matters.

There are few issues more important than defending a vulnerable lady of mature years against the small-minded bullying of puffed-up dictators. The leading members of this council should consider whether they are fit persons to hold public office. Clearly their judgement is hopeless.

Thanks to all those who have voiced their support.Your views counted. I am sure that Mrs Avery will be extremely grateful. Messages have support have come from far and wide. A facebook support site attracted 100 names very quickly. The Council should apologise for the unnecessary distress and worry they have caused. Perhaps a gift of flowers for Mrs Avery's allotment would be an appropriate gift. 

I am sure the rates could afford that.

Revolt

It was unplanned and settled in a conversation on the backbenchers after the vote had been called.

I sought the view of backbencher Andrew Dismore.  He was against a clause that would end the centuries old right of of privilege of MPs. Gordon Prentice and three other MPs joined the conversation. The general feeling was to abstain or vote in favour and hope that the Lords would sort it out. I said that I wouldvote  against.

In the NO Lobby I was surprised to see Margaret Beckett, John Reid and John Austin. Gordon Prentice, Andrew Dismore and the others in out backbench chat also voted against. For once we knew that our backbench chat made a difference. The clause was defeated by 250 votes to 247. Without our discussion the clause would have been adopted.

Jack Straw sensibly said that he would accept the will of the House. This bill is necessary but in many ways is an over-reaction to the expenses crisis. We must not be panicked into dumping rights that are the inheritance of centuries.

Labour joy

Compulsory ID cards scrapped, a railway line nationalised and the partial privatisation of the Royal Mail is off.

All the main worries of future conflicts among the labour ranks are gone. Cancelling Trident would move us from happy to ecstatic. That decision can be delayed but cash must be saved from some useless project. Nothing is more futile than the vain glorious Trident. 

Anyone any idea in what circumstances we might use it?

Published by Paul Flynn on Wed 01 Jul 20:34:51

Council Housing Group of MPs welcomes new announcement

Published by Austin Mitchell on Wed 01 Jul 14:14:41

MP visits Soweto again

Published on Wed 01 Jul 00:00:00

ANC councillor takes MPs around new township

Published on Wed 01 Jul 00:00:00

MP to make major IT speech in Seoul

Published on Wed 01 Jul 00:00:00

So what exactly does Labour stand for?

It is bizarre after 12 years in government that the voters don’t know, as David Miliband says, what Labour stands for. But that is the price of the Blair interregnum which was a power project devoid of ideology – other than largely maintaining the policies and ideas inherited from the Conservatives. Yet if there’s one thing the electorate craves as the election looms, it’s a genuine choice rather than a continuation of the essentially one-party State we’ve endured for the last 20-30 years. The outline of that choice is clear. First and foremost it should be the protection of jobs, incomes and homes of all those employed in the real economy. But that isn’t the policy being pursued at the moment. Eye-popping levels of taxpayer-funded grants, loans and guarantees have been put at the disposal of the banks so that they can continue lending to businesses and homeowners – £645bn at present, but projected by the Chancellor to double to a staggering £1.3 trillion by 2013 – yet the banks have been allowed to renege on their side of the deal. They have taken all the money to consolidate their own balance sheets whilst cutting back lending to the real economy almost to nothing. The latest Bank of England figures show that lending to businesses and mortgage-owners, which was rising at 19.8% a year in 2007, has now shrunk to a miniscule rise of 0.8% a year.

The first requirement therefore of an alternative strategy must be to stop the aggressive self-interest of the banks from crucifying the rest of the economy by withholding credit. Protecting ordinary people means using the power vested in majority ownership of several major banks to force them to give priority to getting the real economy out of recession rather than feathering their own nests. Then the tide of unemployment, repossession and insecurity will begin to be turned.

Then the nation has to be safeguarded from any recurrence of financial crisis and economic breakdown. No policy has been put in place to do this. No curbs have been placed on the use of highly toxic credit derivatives, the global proliferation of which brought Wall Street, the City of London and banks worldwide to their knees. The bonus culture which drove the greed and recklessness that sparked the crisis is alive and kicking, as the latest revelation of Barclays awarding £22m to Bob Diamond, the chair of BGI, and £55m to its chief executive for its sale to BlackRock only too clearly reveals. The credit rating agencies are not being regulated to remove the current glaring conflict of interest. Commercial banking is not being separated from casino banking. Capital adequacy ratios and reserve requirements are not being put in place to secure stability. Offshoring and massive exploitation of tax havens is not being stopped. The alternative policy to protect the nation from being held to ransom again by the banks would include all these items.

Then the free market fundamentalism which gave rise to the crisis has to be dealt with. We need a rebalancing of power which continues to release the creative energy of the private sector, but within a framework of prudential public controls which restrains the dangerous excesses. This certainly doesn’t mean a bureaucratic over-centralised State, but one which is a more proactive buttress against the unfettered market power which caused the crash and now the massive public spending crisis. However, there is little sign that any of these lessons have been earned. Privatisation is still being pursued as the panacea for Royal Mail, PFI credit crunch, and the fixation with massively costly and poorly performing IT super-databases as the superficial solution for much deeper social problems continues unabated. What is needed, but not on offer from today’s political parties, is a new innovative role for public services where the market has massively failed in housing, pensions, energy security, and social and environmental goals for the private sector.

Nor apparently are the fundamental changes being considered to set the economy on a more stable and sustainable course. We hear a great deal about industrial activism, but no evidence of it. It means shrinking the bloated financial sector and giving much higher priority to building Britain’s strength in industry, manufacturing and services. It means reactivating industrial and regional policy which has been downplayed for three decades. It means phasing out the harmful pre-eminence of the City and making management-union partnerships the driving force in remedying the deep long-term weaknesses in Britain’s economic performance. That choice is not on offer at present, but should be.

Again, as signs of the recovery emerge, the horrendous post-crisis spending black hole is being bickered round in the political debate in the narrowest terms, namely which party will cut public services most. There is no sense of addressing one of the greatest social evils in Britain today – that our society is now even more unequal than under Thatcher and has extremes of inequality, with all the destructive impulses that is known to generate, which are unparalleled in the Western world outside the US. The policy alternative this throws up is not being put. Instead of across-the-board public service cuts (whether 7% or 10%), cut the big hugely costly projects which clearly cannot now be afforded (and were not fit for purpose anyway) – Trident replacement, ID cards, and massive Government IT schemes which regularly break down and often leak disastrously – and for the rest cast the burden where it can most equitably be shouldered.

That is with those who have in the last three decades made monetary gains unprecedented in British history. Moreover, since a high proportion of them were involved in the operations that led to the crash, there would be poetic justice in that too. The figures are impressive. Treasury estimates indicate that a 50% rate on the top 1% incomes over £100,000 a year (the richest 300,000 people) plus a 60% rate on incomes over £250,000 a year would raise revenue of £11bn a year (or more probably £9-10bn given likely evasive action). Since the wealth of the wealthiest has quadrupled over the last decade under New Labour’s rubric of being “very relaxed about people becoming filthy rich”, the redistribution involved might seem rather modest. But combined with a genuine crackdown on tax havens, promised at the G20 but not delivered, which cost the UK an estimated £25bn a year, it would probably suffice.

Labour is searching for a formula to stave off a stonking defeat at the election. It is a plausible assumption that any such formula would have to include all or most of these proposals if a demoralised and despairing electorate is to be galvanised. As Lloyd George said to the Triple Alliance confronting him in 1919: “Gentlemen, are you ready?”

Published by Michael Meacher on Tue 30 Jun 23:44:42

Reed wishes local pupils luck for School Sport Week

Published on Tue 30 Jun 23:00:00

Petty, heartless jobsworth stupidity

That this House is appalled by the crass insensitivity of Conservative controlled Rogerstone Community Council’s threat to  ‘clear’ the allotment of war heroine Mrs. Edith Avery because she is cultivating too many flowers, notes that Mrs. Avery is in her 90th year and has, for 30 years, tended the allotment which is situated a few feet from the back door of her cottage; congratulates Mrs. Avery on the exemplary appearance on her allotment and understands her difficulty in growing vegetables at her advanced age, condemns the council’s failure to answer letters from Mrs. Avery’s relative and her local MP that urged the exercise of a little humanity and common sense; c alls on the Conservative Party to condemn the petty heartless jobsworth stupidity of the Conservative Council and their leader who answered Mrs. Avery complaint of their ‘dictatorial’ attitude with the comment  ‘Rules are Rules’ .

On the Guardian site my pictures were given my and PA copyright. On the Daily Mail site only the PA copyright logo was used. This is annoying because it might inhibit others from using the picture. My intention was to make it freely available for all. I have no wish to make money out of the photographs but their widespread use will increase the chances of a sensible outcome tomorrow.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the bravery, intelligence and skill of our servicemen and women in Helmand. They have made a huge difference in that province, which was previously ungoverned space. As I said earlier, there is still a long way to go, but the help that people are getting, the security forces that have been established, and the role that Governor Mangal has played in political leadership for that province would not exist without the efforts of our troops and their supporters. The further intensive activity as a result of American efforts in neighbouring provinces means that the next few months will be important in Helmand, as well as in the rest of Afghanistan. Voter registration has happened for 85 per cent. of the population of Helmand, which would have been impossible before 2006.

Published by Paul Flynn on Tue 30 Jun 22:23:00