Recent Posts
Its now just over a week until polling day. In ten days time, we will see whether I have succeeded in my efforts to convince enough voters in Wyesham to choose me as their County Councillor. The campaign has thrown up a lot of interesting issues and concerns, as well as presenting a lot of opportunities.
There is no doubt that people are angry. They are angry with a Conservative government in London who are attacking the living standards of the poor and middle-earners in our communities; they are angry with Liberal Democrat yes men who are allowing them to get away with it. They feel betrayed by a Government who said they had the countrys best interests at heart, but whose performance has shown that they are only prepared to help the richest in our society.
People are also angry with the Conservatives at County level, too. Voters are aware that Monmouthshire has the second lowest level of Council Tax collection in the whole of Wales. They are sick of paying their bills, only to find that services are being cut because others dont pay theirs. And what is the Tory response to this? Cut the number of staff working in the collection department. People are angry at an administration that has taken Monmouthshire to second bottom position in the league for providing services; bottom of the league for paying bills to small businesses; sliding down the league for school attainment.
In the face of this, my message has been unremittingly positive. People seem to be appreciating the simpler ideas that can make a difference. I have recently become an Age Cymru Ambassador for Older People, committed to standing up for the charitys three main principles; firstly, to protect frontline services, exactly what Labour have pledged to; secondly, ensuring that older people are safe in winter chiming with my efforts to keep the police station in Monmouth from closing; thirdly, trying to make more public conveniences available for older people. To this end, Ive written to every cafe, restaurant and pub in Monmouth Town centre asking them to join me in opening up their facilities for older people to use. I am yet to receive a response from any of them. Those who eventually do respond will have their co-operation trumpeted loudly. Ideas about calming traffic, opening up more opportunities for young people, allowing businesses and job seekers to advertise on the County Councils web site, car-sharing schemes for commuters, all ideas that cost little or no money but that can make a big difference to peoples lives.
* * * * * *
As with any campaign, there have been humorous moments to remember. I am indebted to Mrs P who answered my introduction with the words: ooh, arent you handsome! There was the less witty man who tried to squeeze my hand so tightly that I would be injured and gain a sympathy vote (?). Then there were the mother and son couple who remarked Hes got it, aint he Mum? He certainly has! Whatever it is! I was also on the receiving end of a lovely compliment today, when a man told me that I was: ..the most impressive individual weve had round here at this election. The man had been canvassed by Monmouths M.P. a few days earlier!
The most amusing moment came with a great Tory fail. Both myself and my opponent are saying that we would support local jobs. I had my leaflets printed in Monmouth. Hers were printed in Cardiff. I think that says all we need to know!
liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter - @LiamStubbs
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Published and Promoted by Gwyneth Marsden on behalf of Liam Stubbs, both at 37 Elstob Way, Monmouth, NP25 5ET
If I glance over my shoulder I can see a small hill out of the window. That hill is quite significant, as the stream that runs alongside it is the border between England and Wales. It is true to say that the two places are very different, in identity, culture and outlook, though from here, there doesnt appear to be too much difference.
Many people cross this particular border every day, particularly to work. A lot of public sector workers are happy to live in an area where they dont work indeed if you are a nurse, teacher or involved in several other professions, it can often be a bonus to not live alongside the people you interact with every day. NHS professionals can save themselves all sorts of embarrassing situations by ensuring they dont bump into their patients at their local shop. All this, though, may well be about to change.
Over the last few days, a suggestion has been floated that public sector workers should be paid according to local economic factors rather than to national pay scales. This is yet another attempt by an increasingly snide and nasty Government to denigrate public services. The idea that two people doing exactly the same job, with the same stresses and same professional requirements should be paid differently just because they live in different areas is a sinister attempt to change a complete community culture. I happen to think that society values the work that our public sector workers put in, a view which I think I share with the majority of people. Clearly the Government in general, and George Osborne in particular, has a lower opinion of us.
The justifications for this move have been quite staggering in their hypocrisy. One excuse was that it would allow wages to be lowered in poorer areas, thus giving the private sector the ability to compete for the best people. Now I might not have been listening properly, but Im pretty sure that Cameron and co have spent the last two years telling us that we have to pay bankers the top rate or we would lose the best people to other countries. Apparently its different when it comes to the best youth workers, police officers and care workers. If we want to attract those people to work in different areas, we apparently have to pay them less. Apparently some in the private sector complain that they cannot attract the best people. I would have thought raising the salaries they pay might help that particular quandary. If they cannot afford that, they need to cut their cloth accordingly. If they cannot afford to pay for the jobs they need doing, then a long hard look at their business model may be in order.
It has also been pointed out that Labour supported a regional cap on Housing Benefit. This, some Conservatives have argued, shows that support for regional caps would be easy to obtain. This, however, highlights the Tories feelings about public servants - they seem to think that working in the public sector is akin to claiming benefits. Perhaps they will reflect on that the next time they are rushed to A&E.
Regionalising pay will not produce winners, only losers. There will be a brain drain from poorer areas. After all, why should someone at the top of their profession bother working in areas like Hartlepool or Bury when they can earn far more in Hertfordshire or Buckinghamshire. And what of those I referred to earlier that live in one place and work in another? What of public servants who live in Cheshire and work in Stoke? At a stroke, they will see their disposable income sliced away. They will no longer be able to afford to live an area different to the one they work in. The only option would be to move to the cheaper area, ghettoising the public sector almost overnight.
We are constantly told that we need a level playing field in business, something Im all in favour of. Tipping the scales in this manner creates anything but. It is an unwarranted attack on many people who give their all for other people. George Osborne should hang his head in shame.
liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Twitter - @LiamStubbs
Facebook: Liam Stubbs Labour
Politics is rarely described as the stuff of myth and legend. In the Labour Party, however, sentimental stories abound. Our heritage is built on tales of Keir Hardie and Clement Attlee, Barbara Castle and Nye Bevan, folks of such grit, character and determination that even the most hardened, old style Trades unionist can become moist of eye.
There are other myths which rear their heads, though, far more dangerous ones, malicious jibes which can have a very dangerous effect on even the most mild policy ideas that flow forward.
One of the most pernicious labels that the Conservatives have ever managed to stick on Labour is that we are the party of Big Government. Such claims have had two effects one positive and one very, very negative.
The negative connotation is fermented in the minds of voters. Big Government is synonymous with interference, of an Orwellian superstate inttruding into every aspect of peoples lives. This line of attack was regularly trotted out during the early Blair years as the Tories found themselves unable to put forward an alternative agenda. It was hardly accurate, but some of the mud flung during that time stuck.
The positive view of Big Government is the Corporatist State that delivered the NHS, universal education and social security, a method of Government which survived from the early war years right up until the collapse of consensus in 1979. That was the genuine era of Big Government and a lot of Labour Party members are still emotionally and politically attached to the notions formed in that era. One of the problems with that notion, however, is that Labour was actually only in power for 17 years of that near 40 year period. Labour may have played a large part in constructing the Corporatist State, but the Tories actually spent more time running it.
In the early days of the Labour Party, a lot of time was spent discussing just how socialism and redistribution were to be achieved. Many, including Hardie himself, the Fabian Society and some Trades Unions favoured a localist approach. The argument went that conditions in the mills of Lancashire or the blast furnaces of Teesside were so particular to those areas that decisions about them were best made by people on the ground. Local Unions, local people and local politicians would find the best ways of running services and industries, making them work for their particular area, rather than having a one size fits all policy for different industries. Once the party had decided on a programme of nationalisation, central strictures made more sense, but that is no longer a world we inhabit. Outside the NHS and education, there are very few areas which present problems needing national cures. It is growing increasingly likely that the localist agenda favoured by Hardie would be more likely to fit todays issues than Attlees agenda. Glasgow Social Services face vastly different issues than those operating in Monmouth. The best we can do is to look at best practice and to adapt ideas to meet local needs.
One small but significant example concerns allotments. I doubt you would be able to find too many people arguing that such ideas are not a force for good. How to administer them, however, is rapidly becoming a big problem. Here in Monmouth we have an issue with plots that are not being utilised, despite being allocated to specific people. There is also a waiting list of people chomping at the bit, waiting to grow their own. One of the problems is that the allotments are administered by the County Council in Cwmbran, around 26 miles away. Why? There is already a committee in situ, so why on earth do decisions concerning a local resource need to be taken by people who may never have set foot on the ground concerned? Better, surely, to give control of the facilities to the committee. If someones patch goes unattended for a fixed period of time, let the chair knock on their door to ask why. In the case of sickness or incapacity, the patch becomes the committees responsibility until the person is well enough to tend it once more. If the tenant is simply not bothered any longer, then the committee should have the power to declare the land vacant, allowing the next person on the list to take possession. If the list were blind then no-one would be able to favour their friends. All of this could be backed up by a little dedicated administrative time from the County Council.
While this is a small example, it is the kind of issue that matters greatly to those concerned. There are plenty of services that are already run by local people whilst remaining in public ownership. The problem is that they are dominated by bureaucracy. Surely cutting that layer of administration and letting people get on with what they already do is a better alternative? It is not a Trojan Horse for privatisation, nor is it an excuse to cut. It is a practical step towards giving power to people. None of those iconic figures who make up the Labour Partys back story would object to that. Neither, of course, should we.
liamstubbslabour@hotmail.co.uk
Facebook - Liam Stubbs Labour
Twitter - @ Liam Stubbs
Being Leader of the Labour Party, especially in opposition, is not an easy job. Support is often sympathetically, rather than enthusiastically, given and enemies are never difficult to find. Take this January comment from a senior M.P.:
The man doesnt understand the Labour Party. He is isolated, depressed. He wont last beyond the end of the year
[ Click here to read more ]
A new year is a good time to set out new directions. We make resolutions that involve changing our behaviour and generally seek out ways in which this new period of time is different and distinctive from the last one. Given the dreadful economic outlook which hangs like a huge grey cloud over all of us, there has never been a better time to rethink the way we do even the most fundamental things.
Traditionally, anyone hoping to start a new commercial venture has an anxious time, putting together a business case to present to an investor, normally a bank, order to obtain funding. If that hurdle is cleared, the next step is usually for the request to be referred up the chain of command until the final agreement is given by a regional or even national office. So by the time the crunch decision comes, the people who have the final say are far removed from the environment in which the initial application was made. This means that most business decisions are made on a theoretical model, rather than on the practicalities faced 'on the ground
[ Click here to read more ]
Statistics are always throwing up anomalies, especially when precise definitions have been attempted. Such an anomaly was pointed out by a report into child poverty on this mornings Today programme. Really Long Link
Let me explain
[ Click here to read more ]
Its around three years since David Cameron first used the phrase Big Society. Indeed, Conservative M.P. Jesse Norman had earlier written a book on the subject. It was mentioned in the last Tory election manifesto, has been heralded in various speeches and has been talked about almost as often as the economy or spending cuts. Amazing, then, that we still have no idea what the Tories mean when they mention it.
Most people, when questioned, feel that it is a vague notion about volunteers running public services and for that reason, its a phrase and an idea that puts people off. In short, the public feel as though using your free time to help others has been politicised. David Cameron spent a large part of his first six months in office being photographed with any group of volunteers he could get anywhere near. This hobby seems to have tailed off in recent times could that be because private polling tells him what he doesnt want to hear? Perhaps he is getting the message that people are put off by this grandstanding, this taking advantage of people, this cynical attempt to manufacture party political kudos from peoples good will? Theres an irony here. As unemployment rises and people have more time on their hands, the number of volunteer hours clocked seems to be falling. Rather than stepping into the breach to run closing services, people are angry at this attempt by the Government to get something for nothing. Society is treating me as though I am worthless, the feeling goes, so why should I put anything back? As one who has run an organisation which depended upon volunteers for its success, I can also vouch for the notion that people volunteer when they feel good about themselves. If youre made to feel undervalued in the labour market, youre hardly going to feel as though you have huge amounts of skills to offer the Third Sector
[ Click here to read more ]
During an episode of Blackadder the Third, it became clear that the bumbling staff of the Prince Regents household had burnt the manuscript of the dictionary written by Samuel Johnson. In the midst of the shock and horror that greeted the news, Baldrick announced that he had a cunning plan. Hoorah, said Prince George. Well thats that, then. Of course, the plan had more holes than Swiss cheese, but Georges response to it was similar in many ways to public reaction to Government announcements. Theres a problem, but the Government has a plan, so thats okay. We can forget about it.
The current Governments own version of Baldrick, Nick Clegg, attempted to solve youth unemployment on the Today Programme this morning by announcing a series of measures which amounted to nothing more than scraping the soot off and sticking the pages back in. In response to a 20-year old from Middlesbrough who had been unemployed for five months, he announced that she will now be able to go to the job centre every week, instead of every fortnight, and sit down with her adviser. To look for a job. That isnt there. Well done, Nick. He also told her that if she was unemployed for another four months, she would qualify for a new work placement programme. Great. Kick your heels for another 120 days and well then let you work for someone for free. Im not sure whether Clegg expected to be thanked for these announcements, but I doubt whether the good folk of Middlesbrough are currently raising the rafters from Coulby Newham to St Hildas. Clegg also announced subsidies for jobs which sounded spectacularly like the Future Jobs Fund which was scrapped by this Government and has been rubbished by them ever since
[ Click here to read more ]
The aftermath of the summers disturbances is still reverberating. The sentencing authorities have released demographic figures which show the ages of the people involved, again shining a light on societys attitude towards anyone younger. Here are a couple of quotes about young people:
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves
[ Click here to read more ]
Whenever Governments change, there is always a slow but discernible change in political culture. Some things that had been taken for granted subsequently become questioned and new 'truths' are developed. Many people reading today's headlines concerning an increase in the number of people living in poverty:
Really Long Link
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
Recent Comments
I've not commented on anything yet :(
|
Add Comments
Read More
Comments (2)