Election Results: Thursday 11th October 2007.
Horsham DC, Holbrook West
LD Belinda Walters 602 (43.9; +11.1), Con 554 (40.4; -6.5), BNP 163 (11.9; +11.9), Lab 52 (3.8; +0.2), [Ind (0.0; -16.6)].
Majority 48. Turnout 32.2%. LD gain from Con. Last fought 2007.
Chippenham TC, Pewsham
LD Mark Packard 493 (58.8), Con 346 (41.2).
Majority 147. Turnout 19.5%. LD gain from Con.
I think these speak for themselves :o)
Showing posts with label local. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local. Show all posts
Monday, 15 October 2007
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Libby Purves sings a liberal song (though sadly it’s not The Land)
Regular listeners to Midweek on Radio 4 will know better than I whether Libby Purves is a liberal-minded soul (it is possible to be a journalist and still have one!), but her column in The Times, today, is certainly singing a Liberal Democrat song.
Admitting the impossibility of achieving true equity of public services across the entire UK or even one of its constituent nations, she cries out for a greater devolution of powers, a renewed localism. She even calls for a local income tax. I’m beginning to suspect we have a fan.
Well, not for president – the notion causes a shudder down my spine. And she’d need to stand on
a Liberal Democrat ticket. But the general sentiment is largely correct. I would reserve justice, defence and security solely to London; Brussels should be restricted to the single market, competition law and environmental issues that overlap national boundaries. The economy, too, cannot be devolved. But health services? Education? Minimum wage law? Taxation? – not just how much, but how! If Kent wants to adopt site value rating while Sussex keeps the Council Tax and Essex opts for a local income tax, let them do so, and let the best man win. If Yorkshire wants to adopt a lower minimum wage than Warwickshire, good luck to it; the cost of living is lower, anyway, and they will attract businesses ready to put their unemployed to work.
Britain, and certainly England, is among the most centralised states in Europe. Yet there is no particular advantage to that centralisation. Economies of scale only really operate in agriculture and manufacturing; service industries exploit niches, which is why there are local financial advisers but not local chemical works, and why GPs have not been replaced by hospitals. Most English counties are more populous than American states such as Alaska (less populous than Gloucestershire) or nation states such as Malta (on a par with Dorset) or Luxembourg (smaller than Buckinghamshire). Yet they are quite capable of running their own health and education services. While some local authorities would need to pool their resources tiny (Scilly has less than 3,000 residents), it is worth noting that only one of the nine English regions has a population smaller than Denmark.
I would also oppose the fad for unitary authorities (popular with some Liberal Democrats). As
America and France demonstrate, many powers could be devolved further still, to boroughs, parishes and even wards. Locally elected Mayors of communes and district attorneys, with real power and real budgets, would do more to re-engage the population with elections than a dozen email and postal voting pilots and a hundred get out the vote campaigns. If we are truly liberal we need to trust the people, and where they need to act collectively we need to trust them to do so locally.
I look to a future where ministers refuse to answer questions on the lack of dentists in Newcastle or school admissions in Brighton with the phrase “That is a matter for the member’s local authority and I suggest he takes it up with his colleague in the local council”. The government may be beyond our reach but we can hold local officials to account. With more power over local issues, councillors will have more responsibility, and with more responsibility for influencing our neighbourhoods, we will all have more power.
Admitting the impossibility of achieving true equity of public services across the entire UK or even one of its constituent nations, she cries out for a greater devolution of powers, a renewed localism. She even calls for a local income tax. I’m beginning to suspect we have a fan.
“[D]evolve more!” she cries. “Bin the council tax, which hits people whoVote Purves, I find myself crying. Purves for president!
can’t help that the local property market made their little house technically a
treasure, and now penalises those who build conservatories with their own taxed
income. Have local income taxes instead (adjusted to help genuinely poor
regions). Give money and power to local assemblies and local referendums;
reserve to Westminster and Brussels only the most solemn powers of justice,
defence and security. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let some of them be
prettier. Then the people who get the worst flowers can challenge local leaders,
locally, and sack them briskly when they fail.
It might even make us feel more of a United Kingdom. Look at the freedom of
US states and mayors: that doesn’t make them feel less American. More so, if
anything, because in freedom there is pride.”
Well, not for president – the notion causes a shudder down my spine. And she’d need to stand on
a Liberal Democrat ticket. But the general sentiment is largely correct. I would reserve justice, defence and security solely to London; Brussels should be restricted to the single market, competition law and environmental issues that overlap national boundaries. The economy, too, cannot be devolved. But health services? Education? Minimum wage law? Taxation? – not just how much, but how! If Kent wants to adopt site value rating while Sussex keeps the Council Tax and Essex opts for a local income tax, let them do so, and let the best man win. If Yorkshire wants to adopt a lower minimum wage than Warwickshire, good luck to it; the cost of living is lower, anyway, and they will attract businesses ready to put their unemployed to work.Britain, and certainly England, is among the most centralised states in Europe. Yet there is no particular advantage to that centralisation. Economies of scale only really operate in agriculture and manufacturing; service industries exploit niches, which is why there are local financial advisers but not local chemical works, and why GPs have not been replaced by hospitals. Most English counties are more populous than American states such as Alaska (less populous than Gloucestershire) or nation states such as Malta (on a par with Dorset) or Luxembourg (smaller than Buckinghamshire). Yet they are quite capable of running their own health and education services. While some local authorities would need to pool their resources tiny (Scilly has less than 3,000 residents), it is worth noting that only one of the nine English regions has a population smaller than Denmark.
I would also oppose the fad for unitary authorities (popular with some Liberal Democrats). As
America and France demonstrate, many powers could be devolved further still, to boroughs, parishes and even wards. Locally elected Mayors of communes and district attorneys, with real power and real budgets, would do more to re-engage the population with elections than a dozen email and postal voting pilots and a hundred get out the vote campaigns. If we are truly liberal we need to trust the people, and where they need to act collectively we need to trust them to do so locally.I look to a future where ministers refuse to answer questions on the lack of dentists in Newcastle or school admissions in Brighton with the phrase “That is a matter for the member’s local authority and I suggest he takes it up with his colleague in the local council”. The government may be beyond our reach but we can hold local officials to account. With more power over local issues, councillors will have more responsibility, and with more responsibility for influencing our neighbourhoods, we will all have more power.
Our blackest hour?
The bitterness of political rivalry can sometimes carry us away, and opportunism is devilishly tempting. So when Brian Gordon , the Conservative councillor for Hale Ward, Barnet, decided to “black up” so as to attend a fancy dress party as Nelson Mandela, he was asking for trouble. And the local Liberal Democrats were quick to make it. Now the authorities and the supposed victim have poured a lot of ice-cold water onto the row. Scorn might have been more appropriate.
When the news first broke I was very sceptical. Blacking up may be a rather stupid thing to do,
but it pales into insignificance compared to the gibbering idiocy that would be required to publicise your own racism. That Mr. Gordon himself sent the picture to his local paper clearly suggests that he saw nothing wrong in what he had done. One might argue that he may be blind to the offence it could cause. However, offence is taken rather than given, and I doubt very much that he would be prepared to risk his political career and public vilification just to stick two fingers up at the black community. There may be a fine line between being “not politically correct” and being racist, but Mr. Gordon was very firmly on the unfashionable (as opposed to the unconscionable) side of that line.
The opportunity to score a political point was too great for some, however. Local activist Stieve de Lance pounced, telling journalists that “It is thinly veiled racism; you cannot make jokes like this.” In fact, the only thing that was thinly veiled was Ms. De Lance’s opportunism. The Commission for Racial Equality, to whom she referred the incident, suggested that “celebrities and politicians engage their brains before they walk out of the door?” but do not appear to consider this a serious incident.
Now the alleged victim of the racial abuse has made his feelings clear. Nelson Mandela’s spokesman has said that the only offence Mr. Gordon has caused was in suggesting that Mr. Mandela would wear such as dull shirt. “We don’t see any harm in this whatsoever,” she explained. “If it was a fancy-dress party and people were expected to arrive as a character or famous person, we are convinced there was no ill intent behind this.”
She then went on to add “We are not oversensitive about matters like these. We should try not to read racism into actions which may be completely innocent.” That is a lesson that many in the media and in local politics need to learn.
This whole, sorry affair has raised a another point, though, beyond the over-sensitivity of some people (often not, themselves, from ethnic minorities) to perceived racial slurs. Mr. Gordon is not a member of parliament – he is not even a candidate. He is not a career politician who has chosen a path that inevitably will lead to vicious personal attacks from journalists and opponents alike. Personally, I rue the passing of the more gentlemanly style of politics, where public debate was limited to such mundane things as policy. But at parliamentary level that is now par for the course; the price career politicians pay.
Mr. Gordon, however, was something very different: a local councillor. It is not easy these days to find people who are prepared to run for office, putting in a huge amount of effort with no guarantee that in the end that work will be rewarded (Mr. Gordon barely won his seat in 2002 and shared the ward with two Labour colleagues – never an easy task). Neither is it easy to find people who – if successful – will happily give up 20 hours a week, generally their evenings and weekends, to attend planning meetings, discuss licensing applications and read local authority accounts. The job does not even pay well.
Local councillors are one of three breeds. Some are aspiring politicians on the first rung of the ladder. Others are accidentally successful paper candidates. But most are committed local residents who want to do something for their area. They do not deserve to be dragged through the mud in this callous and opportunist manner. If we want to continue – to increase – the number of talented, local people who are willing to take on the work and the responsibility (and the unlimited financial liability) that this post requires, we need to avoid this sort of crass, calculated negative campaigning.
If Mr. Gordon is a bad councillor, attack him on his record. If the Liberal Democrats can do better, persuade voters with policies. This incident may have made Mr. Gordon look silly, but it reflects worse on those that have sought to make capital from it.
When the news first broke I was very sceptical. Blacking up may be a rather stupid thing to do,
but it pales into insignificance compared to the gibbering idiocy that would be required to publicise your own racism. That Mr. Gordon himself sent the picture to his local paper clearly suggests that he saw nothing wrong in what he had done. One might argue that he may be blind to the offence it could cause. However, offence is taken rather than given, and I doubt very much that he would be prepared to risk his political career and public vilification just to stick two fingers up at the black community. There may be a fine line between being “not politically correct” and being racist, but Mr. Gordon was very firmly on the unfashionable (as opposed to the unconscionable) side of that line.The opportunity to score a political point was too great for some, however. Local activist Stieve de Lance pounced, telling journalists that “It is thinly veiled racism; you cannot make jokes like this.” In fact, the only thing that was thinly veiled was Ms. De Lance’s opportunism. The Commission for Racial Equality, to whom she referred the incident, suggested that “celebrities and politicians engage their brains before they walk out of the door?” but do not appear to consider this a serious incident.
Now the alleged victim of the racial abuse has made his feelings clear. Nelson Mandela’s spokesman has said that the only offence Mr. Gordon has caused was in suggesting that Mr. Mandela would wear such as dull shirt. “We don’t see any harm in this whatsoever,” she explained. “If it was a fancy-dress party and people were expected to arrive as a character or famous person, we are convinced there was no ill intent behind this.”She then went on to add “We are not oversensitive about matters like these. We should try not to read racism into actions which may be completely innocent.” That is a lesson that many in the media and in local politics need to learn.
This whole, sorry affair has raised a another point, though, beyond the over-sensitivity of some people (often not, themselves, from ethnic minorities) to perceived racial slurs. Mr. Gordon is not a member of parliament – he is not even a candidate. He is not a career politician who has chosen a path that inevitably will lead to vicious personal attacks from journalists and opponents alike. Personally, I rue the passing of the more gentlemanly style of politics, where public debate was limited to such mundane things as policy. But at parliamentary level that is now par for the course; the price career politicians pay.
Mr. Gordon, however, was something very different: a local councillor. It is not easy these days to find people who are prepared to run for office, putting in a huge amount of effort with no guarantee that in the end that work will be rewarded (Mr. Gordon barely won his seat in 2002 and shared the ward with two Labour colleagues – never an easy task). Neither is it easy to find people who – if successful – will happily give up 20 hours a week, generally their evenings and weekends, to attend planning meetings, discuss licensing applications and read local authority accounts. The job does not even pay well.
Local councillors are one of three breeds. Some are aspiring politicians on the first rung of the ladder. Others are accidentally successful paper candidates. But most are committed local residents who want to do something for their area. They do not deserve to be dragged through the mud in this callous and opportunist manner. If we want to continue – to increase – the number of talented, local people who are willing to take on the work and the responsibility (and the unlimited financial liability) that this post requires, we need to avoid this sort of crass, calculated negative campaigning.
If Mr. Gordon is a bad councillor, attack him on his record. If the Liberal Democrats can do better, persuade voters with policies. This incident may have made Mr. Gordon look silly, but it reflects worse on those that have sought to make capital from it.
Monday, 29 January 2007
Liberal Democrat MEPs are being seduced by centralised power
It was an unusually good edition of Liberal Democrat News (the in house tabloid that Mark Valladares once referred to as “our very own Pravda”) – if by good one means that it gets the pulse racing.The story on the European Parliament’s report on rail transport earned my particular ire. According to Liberal Democrat News:
While the objectives being sought here are undoubtedly laudable, it is another unfortunate case of the European Parliament arrogating powers that should be exercised at a national level. There is absolutely no reason why policy regarding the railway system of the United Kingdom – which is, except for one discrete rail line, completely separate and independent of the rest of Europe – should be set at a supranational level.‘Liberal Democrats have backed (CHECK) [sic.] a crucial European Parliament report that will vastly improve rights for rail passengers…
‘The Lib Dem Economic Affairs Spokesperson Sharon Bowles MEP said: “The
Parliament has stood firm and is calling for this directive to apply to all rail
journeys regardless of whether they are international or not…”Liz Lynne MEP, Liberal Democrat Employment and Social Affairs Spokesperson… has tabled and amendment to this report on behalf of the entire ALDE Group… to ensure accessibility for… people with reduced mobility…’
There may be a case, because of greater connectivity among our continental European partners, for an agreement binding transnational rail travel. But when the European Parliament specifically suggests that such a ruling should apply to purely intra-national railway journeys (such as “Cornwall to London, Edinburgh to Southampton”, as Ms. Bowles enthused) it is a clear violation of the much-vaunted but rarely-seen principle of subsidiarity – that decisions should be taken at the effective level nearest the citizen.
It is deeply disturbing to see Liberal parliamentarians championing this un-necessary centralisation of power, decision-making and regulation. It is also disturbing to see Democrat parliamentarians using the European Parliament to pass into law what is effectively domestic regulation, rather than seeking to do so through national parliaments – where, presumably, they would expect to meet more resistance.
No matter how worthy the aims or how desirable the outcomes, they do not justify the use of inherently illiberal and undemocratic means. It suggests that our MEPs, like all too many of those who find themselves in positions of authority, have ‘gone native’, becoming co-opted by the institutions they have joined and seduced by the power to ‘do good’, irrespective of the principles of liberty and democracy that first brought them there.
The Liberal Democrats should be promoting subsidiarity in Europe just as we seek localism in Britain – irrespective of the urge to reform society from the centre. As I argued last week, Britain’s place is in Europe. But it is in a liberal Europe.
But worst of all, you've let yourself down
ALDC have released the latest set of by-election results. See if you can spot what is missing from the first two on the list:
I'll give you a clue, if you're stuck:
By-Election Results: Thursday 25th January 2007.
Cumbria CC, Brampton and Gilsland
Con 717 (61.4; +13.6), Lab 363 (31.1; +2.9), BNP 88 (7.5; +7.5), [LD (0.0; -24.0).
Majority 354. Turnout 23.3%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.Isle of Anglesey UA, Llanfihangel Ysgeifiog
Ind 449 (57.7; +21.0), PC 273 (35.1; -28.2), Lab 56 (7.2; +7.2).
Majority 176. Turnout 50%. Ind gain from PC. Last fought 2004.
I'll give you a clue, if you're stuck:
Coming on the back of the Barrow in Furness District Council by-election, the first of the new year and another no-show by the Lib Dems, this is a pretty poor show. The one in Cumbria is particularly galling as we appear to have had 24% of the vote last time.
Come on, people! Sort it out! Is a paper candidate and a couple of Foci too much to ask?
Saturday, 9 December 2006
Ideology trumps journalism in BBC debate on “ethical shopping”
You know you’ve touched a raw nerve when everybody attacks you. So Kendra Okonski discovered when she was interviewed on the BBC this morning. The Environment Programme Director at the International Policy Network had been invited to appear to discuss a report in The Economist about the contradictions within the ethical shopping industry.
According to The Economist, organic production is less intensive than production that relies on chemical fertiliser, and so requires more land. Thus a greater reliance on organic production would require turning more of our natural environment into cultivated farmland. Ms. Okonski noted on the BBC that UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimate that to turn the world’s farming over to organic production would require additionally farming an area of natural habitat size of South America.
“Fair Trade” is equally misguided. While it may demonstrate a caring heart that a consumer buys a product at above the market price and transfers the premium to the poor farmer, this is nothing more than a form of charity channelled through the purchase of tea, coffee or some other commodity. Prices are low because of overproduction – there is a glut of coffee on world markets, for example. “Fair Trade” encourages farmers to continue to supply an over-produced commodity where they would be better off shifting to producing different commodities. This further depresses the price, hurting those farmers not receiving the so-called “fair” price.
As for the new fad for locally produced food, as over half the “food miles” added to UK food production are generated by the purchaser, and most people live nearer the supermarket than the farmer’s market, buying locally can actually result in adding more food miles to a product. Furthermore, farming locally is inefficient: it uses less energy to raise lamb in New Zealand and fly it to the UK than to raise it in Britain, because farming in New Zealand is less energy intensive. The fad for local food is actually old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as ethical shopping.
The Economist has always produced articles under its title without naming contributors. Thus we have no idea whether Ms. Okonski contributed to the report. The BBC invited her to comment on the report, however, so one would have expected her to be treated neutrally. Sadly, it was not to be. Both Ms. Okonski and the Economist had clearly hit upon a sensitive subject at Broadcasting House. After her first comment, BBC presenter Susanna Reid flatly contradicted her: “No!” she said, dismissing Ms. Okonski’s opinion, before arguing the counter case. As the BBC had also invited another speaker to put the supposedly ethical case, this was unnecessary; Ms. Reid’s role was to facilitate the debate rather than take sides.
At the close of the item, Ms. Reid was seen to pull what one can only assume was her “What was all that about?” face, before moving on to advertise the following programme, Saturday Kitchen. There, chef James Martin – who was drafted into the programme after the infinitely superior Anthony Worrall Thompson defected to ITV – and his two guests proceeded also to rubbish the evidence and research of international institutions, think tanks and the media. Presuming that neither Mr. Martin nor his fellow chefs have a PhD in Environmental Science or several years experience in a research institute, one can only assume that they were pontificating about something of which they knew nothing.
If consumers are to make choices that are really environmentally conscious and serve the interests of the world’s poor, they need to be better informed. This requires serious debate. Sadly, serious debate is difficult on the BBC when the ill-informed but nonetheless entrenched opinions of its staff are challenged. Universal condemnation often confronts those who make unorthodox and challenging suggestions. The more roundly these new ideas are condemned, the more carefully they should be examined.
According to The Economist, organic production is less intensive than production that relies on chemical fertiliser, and so requires more land. Thus a greater reliance on organic production would require turning more of our natural environment into cultivated farmland. Ms. Okonski noted on the BBC that UN Food and Agriculture Organisation estimate that to turn the world’s farming over to organic production would require additionally farming an area of natural habitat size of South America.
“Fair Trade” is equally misguided. While it may demonstrate a caring heart that a consumer buys a product at above the market price and transfers the premium to the poor farmer, this is nothing more than a form of charity channelled through the purchase of tea, coffee or some other commodity. Prices are low because of overproduction – there is a glut of coffee on world markets, for example. “Fair Trade” encourages farmers to continue to supply an over-produced commodity where they would be better off shifting to producing different commodities. This further depresses the price, hurting those farmers not receiving the so-called “fair” price.
As for the new fad for locally produced food, as over half the “food miles” added to UK food production are generated by the purchaser, and most people live nearer the supermarket than the farmer’s market, buying locally can actually result in adding more food miles to a product. Furthermore, farming locally is inefficient: it uses less energy to raise lamb in New Zealand and fly it to the UK than to raise it in Britain, because farming in New Zealand is less energy intensive. The fad for local food is actually old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as ethical shopping.
The Economist has always produced articles under its title without naming contributors. Thus we have no idea whether Ms. Okonski contributed to the report. The BBC invited her to comment on the report, however, so one would have expected her to be treated neutrally. Sadly, it was not to be. Both Ms. Okonski and the Economist had clearly hit upon a sensitive subject at Broadcasting House. After her first comment, BBC presenter Susanna Reid flatly contradicted her: “No!” she said, dismissing Ms. Okonski’s opinion, before arguing the counter case. As the BBC had also invited another speaker to put the supposedly ethical case, this was unnecessary; Ms. Reid’s role was to facilitate the debate rather than take sides.
At the close of the item, Ms. Reid was seen to pull what one can only assume was her “What was all that about?” face, before moving on to advertise the following programme, Saturday Kitchen. There, chef James Martin – who was drafted into the programme after the infinitely superior Anthony Worrall Thompson defected to ITV – and his two guests proceeded also to rubbish the evidence and research of international institutions, think tanks and the media. Presuming that neither Mr. Martin nor his fellow chefs have a PhD in Environmental Science or several years experience in a research institute, one can only assume that they were pontificating about something of which they knew nothing.
If consumers are to make choices that are really environmentally conscious and serve the interests of the world’s poor, they need to be better informed. This requires serious debate. Sadly, serious debate is difficult on the BBC when the ill-informed but nonetheless entrenched opinions of its staff are challenged. Universal condemnation often confronts those who make unorthodox and challenging suggestions. The more roundly these new ideas are condemned, the more carefully they should be examined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
