This week it was revealed by an independent enquiry that the police and prosecution services missed three chances to prosecute former Labour peer Lord Janner.

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

As a man in my mid 40’s that still doesn’t really know what I want to be when I grow up, I wouldn’t readily describe myself as having a career. Yes, I’ve always had a job, apart from a short few months in my early 20s when I chose to drink for a few weeks instead of job hunting. Next year will be my 30^th year being employed. In those 3 decades I have been a post man, a bar man, a car cleaner a philosopher and a manager. In none of those roles have I suspected any of my colleagues or managers of being a child sex offender. Maybe I’m lucky.

Imagine the soul-searching one must have to do when considering whether it is worth ruining your blossoming career prospects to report someone in a position of authority or trust for doing the most cowardly and vile thing possible, hurting a defenceless child for some sick self-gratification. I suppose if I was a BBC tea lady or errand boy, hoping for a shot at the lime light in twenty years- time I would spend many a sleepless night pondering “what if the bosses don’t believe me and give that position to my friend”. If I had chosen to be a police officer, one of the highest positions of trust in the world, rather than deciding to pound the streets with a massive bag of gas bills and giros on my back, I would have faced the decision to turn a blind eye or prosecute a high-profile well-known politician after receiving over 20 complaints against him.

It could be that I’m lucky to not have had to face those decisions but I can easily put myself in their shoes and say unequivocally that if I suspected anyone, no matter how high in any organisation they were, of crimes against children, I would have thrown my career away in a second. No golden hand shake or carriage clock and hefty pension would help me sleep at night or look in the mirror, or at my own children, knowing I had stood by and let that happen to someone else’s children.

This week it was revealed by an independent enquiry that the police and prosecution services missed three chances to prosecute former Labour peer Lord Janner.

The enquiry found that there was sufficient evidence to provide a real prospect of conviction in 1991, 2002,  and again in 2007 for indecent assault and serious sexual assault. In 2002 the police failed to provide evidence to prosecution services, which resulted in no case being brought against the late peer.

The enquiry also revealed there was enough evidence in 2007 to search his home and arrest him. His family of course deny all the accusations against Janner, who died in December last year. They would, wouldn’t they?

By the time the investigation was ready to be brought to trial Janner was suffering from Dementia and was unfit to stand trial. The trial of facts which was to be held prior to his death has now been shelved.

Alison Saunders, Director of public prosecutions said “The enquiry’s findings that mistakes were made confirms my view that failings in the past by prosecutors and Police meant that proceedings were not brought”.
Mistakes? Is it a mistake that people made a conscious decision not to tell of their suspicions and people explicitly employed to bring despicable criminals to court decided that it was in the best interest of everyone to allow the accused to go unpunished? Is it a mistake that police failed to investigate claims that a 14 year old child had shared a hotel room with a rich and powerful man, despite it being relatively easy to prove or indeed disprove? Was it a mistake that they failed to ask the right questions at the care home where the alleged victim lived? Liz Dux, the solicitor who represented 8 of the alleged victims was absolutely right when she said that sincere regret was of little consolation.

A spokesman for the children’s charity NSPCC said “it is vital that victims of child abuse have the confidence to speak out knowing their allegations will be investigated”. If I was a victim I would not be in the slightest bit confident that my allegations would be investigated after a series of high profile names were revealed to have been suspected of crimes only after it was too late to be brought to trial.

Janner, a former QC and member of parliament was given a lucrative role as a peer despite the earlier accusations against him.

There has been a string of allegations brought to light in recent years accusing politicians and TV personalities of some terrible crimes, many of which were apparently widely rumoured for years.

Anyone who purposely hides or withholds information about crimes of abuse, particularly against children ought to be dealt with strongly. It is weak, cowardly and selfish to worry about your own career or financial security when lives are in danger. Abuse isn’t harmless. It ruins lives. It doesn’t only ruin the lives of the victims but that of victims’ families, and it never goes away. Every time a new name is produced and a new allegation surfaces many of the victims are forced to relive the torture of their own experience. I would welcome naming and shaming at least – if not prosecution for those who protect abusers.

Lord Paul Scriven

Paul Scriven is the former leader of Sheffield City Council. Born in Huddersfield, the son of a bin man, and one time Labour party member, he is now a Liberal Democrat in the House of Lords.

In 2010, he stood as a candidate in the general election, losing by just 165 votes to Labour’s Paul Blomfield.

Today, I asked him what he thought made the difference in securing the victory for Labour. He said that he thought to a large extent it was the Manor Castle ward in the city that had helped get Bromfield over the line. He also acknowledged that Labour had a bigger machine behind them – going out on the doorsteps, in areas of the city like Manor Castle, which have traditionally been Labour households for decades.

Mr Scriven (who incidentally asked me to call him Paul rather than Lord Scriven) has recently been selected as the candidate in Ecclesall in Sheffield to stand as a local councillor again. I asked him what made him want to do it again. He told me that his heart is, and has always been in local government and local community politics. He wants to help individuals in personal issues as well as helping develop the local area’s policy on highways, housing and fiscal concerns. He doesn’t beleive this would interfere with, or hamper his role in the Lords, stating that his experiences in local politics and local issues give him an invaluable insight into what happens in real life. When Lords and politicians are making policy that does not benefit the larger community, he is able to draw on his years of experience as a local councillor and leader of the council to have input that represents the people of his area.

I first spoke to Paul Scriven some years ago while he was leader of the council and recalled him talking about the lib-Dems being the party of fairness. With the disastrous 2015 election result in mind, which left only a handful of Lib-Dem MPs remaining, I asked Paul if he thought going into government with the Tories was a bad idea or a God send.

He says it quickly becoming clear, and the public are already acknowledging that Nick Clegg and the LIB Dems contribution in Government was to put the breaks on the Tory ideology that is not unfolding. He says they had many successes, not least the pupil premium, which has been a huge boost to some schools budgets in poorer areas. He said that Labour and the media had demonised Clegg and the party, blaming them for many of the difficult decisions that had to be made, resulting eventually in the party being given a bloody nose in the election. He thinks the country is now realising that perhaps they should have had a slap on the wrists instead of the brutal beating they took.

The media portrayal of former leader Clegg is that he was somewhat of an absent representative in Sheffield and I put it to Mr Scriven that Clegg’s popularity in the city was still low. I asked if in 2020, should Clegg decide not to stand whether Scriven will again stand to be an MP for Sheffield. He said that he had no idea as to whether Mr Clegg would stand down and had given it no thought – as he is a Lord, why would he? He said that as a councillor, if elected, the city has many challenges which he intends to be involved in, from HS2’s station in Sheffield to the devolution debate currently taking place. He will do whatever he needs to do to best serve his city in whichever role allows him to best do that.

On the issue of devolution I asked if he thought it was a good deal for the city. He was clear that in his mind, what’s on the table is not full devolution, but decentralisation. That said, he thinks much of decentralisation is a good thing, if it gives power to the people of Sheffield, rather than decisions being made in Westminster. He does wonder though, how much input people of the region will have, considering the deal has been done before the consultation. He said the deal gained by West Yorkshire and the north East were better, stronger deals, as they were able to push back more to gain real powers to make a difference for the people in those areas. He questioned the openness and transparency of a deal done by just four people who will be affecting the whole are area.

I suggested his experience and position in the area make him an obvious candidate for the role of Mayor.  While not ruling it out, he said humbly, that he will take one election at a time and is concentrating on being a councillor again at the moment.

I tried to frame a question for Paul around the debate he was involved in in the House of Lords yesterday about investigatory powers. I told Paul that I had tried, but the argument is so complicated – I failed to understand it sufficiently. Was this, I asked, also the case also in the Lords. He said on the subject of internet porn that many of those in the House were unable to grasp how technology worked and that simply putting blocks in place were not the answer, but parental influence and education about the use of pornography was the key. When talking about the proposals to allow access to browser history and emails, Paul became most passionate and animated.

He likened the idea to our letters being opened in the delivery office and read by the postmen and then photocopied and saved for twelve months. He said if this was the proposal, then the public would be rightly outraged. The threat to our privacy and liberty is wrong. In this country,  we are proud to assume that one is innocent until proven guilty, but if these powers are given to the home secretary that this assumption will be in jeopardy.

I asked if the lack of understanding issues is generally an accurate description of modern politicians. He said many politician seem to leave school, go to university, leave there for a job as an advisor, and then go on to be an MP. He elaborated “If you ask the public what many politicians actually stand for, few would know.”

Paul Scriven had agreed to meet me for half an hour, as he is undoubtedly a very busy man. He is a politician, a public figure, and a business man (although he doesn’t like to label himself as any of those things exclusively) and yet he was good enough to spare over an hour talking to me in coffee shop on Ecclesall Road. Whether he wins the seat on the council next year or decides to stand as an MP or Mayor, we will be seeing Paul Scriven for some time to come.

I am very clear that I am elected by the people of Rotherham

Thursday, 5 November 2015

I am very clear that I am elected by the people of Rotherham

This week I had the opportunity to congratulate Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham on her appointment to Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet in roll of Shadow minister for preventing domestic violence and abuse. I asked her if she now saw herself as a Westminster politician or as a local politician. She said “I still struggle to see myself as a politician. I am very clear that I am elected by the people of Rotherham to represent them and campaign for them local and national issues. While I have Labour values, and I am proud to be a Labour MP, the people of Rotherham are my bosses and its them I feel responsible to”. She went on to add “I guess that’s a long winded way of saying that I see myself as a local politician who has to travel to Westminster to serve Rotherham the best I can”.

In July last year after the shocking revelations of sexual grooming in Rotherham, Ms Champion helped secure a change in the law that meant Police can act sooner in child grooming cases, meaning that someone arranging to meet a child with the intention of carrying out a sexual offence can now be convicted immediately, rather than having to be caught twice. I asked Sarah if getting the law changed was her biggest achievement so far. “Legislatively, undoubtedly”, she said. “It is virtually impossible for a backbencher in opposition to change the law so I’m delighted I could do so as it will protect children for generations. However, I am most proud at being able to lobby on behalf of the victims of child sexual exploitation, to get them support and more importantly, listened to both locally and nationally”.

Sarah was one of the 36 MP’s who nominated Jeremy Corbyn in the leadership race. I asked her if she thought he could lead the party into the next election. “Looking at the major climb-down the government has had to do over tax credits, yes, if we keep going in this vein, I believe Jeremy can lead us into the next election and to victory”. She told me. With this in mind I asked if she thought that regaining power should be secondary to sticking to principles, or should the party be looking for power at any cost.

“Personally, I believe that our principles and values are the thing that will get us re-elected”.  She stressed that losing them would be a disaster but added “However I do fully understand that principles and values without power are simply hollow words!”

Before entering into politics in 2012, Sarah Champion was Chief executive of charity Bluebell Wood children’s hospice. Prior to that she ran the Rotherham Arts Centre and volunteered for St Luke’s hospice. I put it to her that in contrast to many other MPs she had started her career in a proper job.  I asked if working in an environment like St Luke’s had better equipped her to understand the issues facing normal people.

She began her answer by saying she didn’t make a distinction between herself and normal people. She added that would like see politicians fully representing the diversity of our country in both their life and work experiences. That is the way that we will get the best legislation and the best democracy she insisted.
When standing successfully for election as deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson said that he wanted to see a much more digital approach from politicians. Pointing out to Sarah that her personal twitter account boasts more than 12,000 followers, I asked if she agreed with Tom Watson that politicians need to connect more digitally to engage with young people.

“I am a huge fan of Twitter (not least because without it she and I wouldn’t have connected, she said kindly), I think it is vital that politicians use as many forms of communication as possible so that we can reach the broadest number of people. I get very frustrated when I hear that young people aren’t interested in politics, as that is not my experience at all. Young people don’t engage in politics through the old channels so it is our duty to reach out to them and make ourselves accessible. Social media really helps me hugely with that”.

Sarah Champion followed me on twitter after I posted a tweet saying; “oh! How I wish Sarah champion would follow me”. She did, showing she has a sense of humour as well being good to her word.

Mental health does not only affect the rich, famous and successful. It has no prejudice.

Monday, 2 November 2015

Last August comedy actor Robin Williams shockingly took his own life by hanging himself after years of suffering mental health and depression issues. His battles with addiction were well documented but few knew that he was still troubled by demons that led him to take his own life at the age of 63.

3 days before Christmas last year, former footballer Clarke Carlisle threw himself in front of a moving lorry in a suicide bid. It later emerged that Carlisle had been charged with drink driving a couple of days earlier. In 2013 he presented a TV documentary where he spoke about his own and other footballers battles with depression.

Last week performer Professor Green appeared in television programme where he spoke about his Fathers suicide after a long battle with mental health issues.

Mental health does not only affect the rich, famous and successful. It has no prejudice. Old, young, rich, poor, males and females are all susceptible to the crippling effects of it.

Today over 200 high-profile celebrities started a campaign for parity between mental health issues and physical health issues. Former mental health minister Norman Lamb, Conservative MP and former whip Andrew Mitchell and ex Blair advisor Alastair Campbell launched the campaign.

The Government increased its spending  on mental health to over £11b recently, but Mr Lamb said that people with mental health problems don’t get the same right to access  treatment on a timely basis that everyone else gets.
The campaign which has been backed by politicians, musicians, sportsmen and women  as well as famous names from stage and screen highlights the lack of access to treatment, particularly for children. It says that 3 out of 4 children with mental health problems are receiving no treatment at all. These figures are shocking and cannot be ignored.
In recent years there has been an increase in public figures openly admitting to such problems but there is still huge stigma attached to the illness with many ashamed, afraid or simply unable to admit it. This can’t go on.

Comedienne, Ruby Wax who has struggled for years with depression said that depression was like the Devil has Tourette’s inside your head. She told ITV news that mental health leads to physical health issues. She said there would be less of a burden on the NHS if there was earlier intervention as many mental health issues cause other chronic health issues such as heart disease, dementia and some cancers. .

Many employers have poor or no knowledge of the illness and many feel awkward or out of their depth when dealing with such issues in the workplace despite disciplinary action due to mental health related time off being on the increase and I believe trade unions can play a part in this trend being reversed.
There needs to be open and honest debate publicly, in the workplace, in the houses of parliament, on TV and in living rooms, and even in class rooms up and down the country. By making it acceptable we can make it easier to gain access to help.

It is ludicrous that people are reluctant to talk about what is simply an illness. Men and women would have no hesitation in talking about their arthritis or gout but will not admit to their closest friends that they are depressed. This can change. This must change.

Denis MacShane

Friday, 7 August 2015

Denis MacShane is a former member of parliament for Rotherham. He served as an MP for almost twenty years. Before becoming a politician he was a journalist and union activist. He has publicly called for more working class members of parliament.

During his time in politics he held several posts including Parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Foreign office, and Minister for Europe.

In 2012 he resigned after MPs upheld a BNP complaint against him despite the fact he had gone through a 20-month police investigation and been cleared. Later rightwingers asked the Director of Public Prosecution to charge him with fraud and he refused to contest the charges so without a trial he was sent to prison on Christmas Eve 2013. He spent his 7 weeks in prison in Belmarsh and Brixton unlike other MPs found guilty of crimes who served their sentences in open prisons.

This week I had the opportunity to ask him some questions about working class MP’s and his time in prison. My intention was to write an article but I decided to publish it exactly as it was.

The results are below;

In July 2012 you were quoted as saying only people on minimum wage should make up 10% of parliamentary candidates ( I wrote a blog solely about that at the time). Do you still feel that more  working class MP’s would improve the engagement of “normal” voters?

All voters are normal but Labour was created to put into parliament MP’s who were from non-elite, non-upper/middle class backgrounds. It would be healthy for Labour to return to that tradition.

It strikes me that very few elected politicians are truly working class, from local councillors to members of parliament. Do you think that the whole system would need to be changed to allow those shortlists or would be as simple as instructing the party to pick only working class candidates?

I recall the opposition to all W shortlists for Women only. I am sure there would be similar opposition to all W shortlists for Workers only but I think it is worth making an effort.

If such shortlists were introduced, do you believe there would be sufficient suitable candidates, considering the demands financially, mentally and intellectually on candidates?

 The mental and intellectual demands on MPs are not that great. Most Labour MPs of whatever backgrounds get a big rise in income as the total MP’s compensation package especially when you add in employing wives and children,  (illegal in most democracies) and other allowances is very generous.

Do you think the unions powers to put candidates forward should be limited or do you believe that a trade union background is a good foundation for politics?

 Tricky. Unions were the source of most working class MP’s and as they have downsized in terms of representing workers in the market economy and become mainly organisers of workers whose income etc. comes from other workers who are taxpayers the trade union route to becoming an MP if you are a worker has all but ended. In Sweden, the prime minister is a metal worker so it can be done.

As someone who was a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet  do you agree that the Labour party needs to aim for the centre ground and would you agree that Jeremy Corbyn would be a disaster for the party should he win the leadership race?

I think holding the leadership contest this early is a disaster. We do not know who will be PM  in 2020. We do not know the issues that the public will want to focus on. It would have been much better to wait a year, at least until after the EU referendum and even Cameron’s departure and then see who has really made an impression in parliament and face to face with the public.

Should the party stick to its core beliefs and stick up for the poorest people in society on issues such as the benefits bill, even if it means another decade in opposition or should it just adopt the other side in order to win at any cost?

The duty of Her Majesty’s opposition is to oppose. But in the first year or so of a new government it is going to get its business through. I remember the Tories after 1997 or 2001 and they could not lay a finger on Labour. But this will change. Don’t forget Cameron has the smallest majority of any Tory Prime Minister in decades. Of course all money paid by the state for whatever reason requires monitoring and reform. The tax credit system is basically a subsidy for low-pay employers and imported from the US where income and wealth gaps are massive. But right now Labour is not going to get many balls back across the net.

If not Corbyn who would you be nominating and who would you like as deputy?

 I suspect any endorsement from me would be counter-productive. Labour’s best two leaders in my lifetime in terms of winning power were Wilson and Blair who both arrived as a result of the unexpected death of a  leader. In Australia, Bill Hayden, gave up the leadership of the Labour Party to Bob Hawke in 1983 because Hayden had the stature to realize Hawke was a winner and Labour then had a long period in power. That is a rare sacrifice. Everyone knew that Gordon Brown despite his brilliance would not be a good PM. But he insisted on his right to have the job and we know what happened.

Should the party be choosing a leader who can lead the opposition but not necessarily be Prime ministerial?

 The person who is chosen to lead a party of government in opposition has to be seen as a future PM. Otherwise go and write for Comment is Free.

Two days before Christmas in 2013 you were sent to prison for fraud. Considering the judge commented that you made no personal gain from the offence, do you think you were harshly treated and maybe made a bit of scape goat in the aftermath of the expenses scandal?

 No. I made a mistake and you must pay for your mistakes and an example must be made.

Are you bitter that you were punished and your political career finished or you relieved to be out of it and now able to say and do as you please?

 I was planning to stand down in 2015 as it is sad to see all these MP’s going on and on into their 70s or even 80s and preventing a renewal of politics. Although, it is out of the headlines now everyone knows who the MPs who were maxing up their expenses profiteering, including many in the cabinet, and until that generation retires there will be little chance of restoring the good name of Parliament. Obviously after I was cleared by the police and CPS (after a very thorough 20 month investigation unlike the superficial exchange of letters with a Commons bureaucrat which MPs used to defenestrate me) I had hoped the matter was over especially as some MPs who stood in judgment over me had made 6 figure profits by manipulating the expenses scheme. It was the BNP which made the complaint and they must have thought all their Christmases came at once. As The Times wrote if I had used different forms to get reimbursement for legitimate expenses there would have been no problem.  After I was forced out of the Commons and publicly destroyed I had thought the matter over. But the BNP and other right-wingers wrote to the CPS and insisted I be charged. The cynicism of the CPS and its highly political DPP as well as the blatant headline hunting of a judge (all covered in my book Prison Diaries) came as no surprise because I know the double standards of the establishment as I was once a transitory member of it. Once the DPP said he would charge me on the lowest possible level I just gave up as no jury would every listen to an MP’s side of the story and the DPP knew that to charge was to convict and send me to prison.

Did prison change your outlook on life and if so how have you changed since being released?

 No more than being imprisoned in communist Poland in 1982 when caught and convicted after running money to the underground Solidarity union. I learnt first-hand how bad and useless British prisons which I did not know as an MP but other than the odd bit of writing I cannot put that knowledge and my belief in the need for prison reform to much purpose. While my trolls keep on having a pop and there are the usual lazy journalists especially in Yorkshire (who incidentally have never investigated or exposed the massive plundering of expenses by certain local MP’s) who cannot avoid using their rattlebag clichés if mentioning me it is just a chapter in my life with its ups and downs that is firmly closed even if I do miss Rotherham and friends there loads.

What are you doing now?

 I am busier than ever. I have written two books and am working on a third on modern anti-Semitism. I have 3 million words of daily diaries kept since entering the Commons which may be of use to historians. I have been in Greece reporting on the disastrous handling of the problems there by European conservatives. I have written 30,000 words to update post-election my book Brexit: How Britain Will Leave Europe to be published shortly by IB Tauris (Hint, hint. Buy now at very low price!). I will campaign to keep us In Europe and defeat Tory-Ukip-Mail-Murdoch isolationism. But I fear the referendum may be lost and there will be considerable turmoil and hard political choices ahead at a time when we have a weak and poorly led political class and even the Financial Times is now owned off-shore

During your time as Rotherham MP the appalling sexual abuse of hundreds of children took place. I read that you stated previously that you were never approached by any of the victims. were you aware that accusations had been made and that the council and police were not doing enough to protect the victims?

 MPs are rarely if ever approached about crimes and neither I nor any of my staff were ever approached by a victim, or a family or friend of a  victim, or by an intermediary with a complaint about any of these cases. I met with police officers regularly who did know but did nothing and they said nothing to me. No elected person or town hall official ever said anything to me, nor I think were MPs in other towns or areas where similar abuse to that which happened in South Yorkshire approached by victims.  Child sex abuse and exploitation is a hidden sickness of Britain. I was campaigning on trafficking and child teenage sex slavery and had half a book written on it when I was forced out of the Commons and one chapter would have dealt with the failure of the CPS and police to enforce the law on prostitution of young people.

I recently heard Alan Billing speak. He was incredibly frank about the challenges facing South Yorkshire Police, with Hillsborough, Rotherham and Orgreave. Do you support an investigation into the Orgreave violence by police officers similar to the Hillsborough one or a full public enquiry?

I think that is a fair request and I would like to see a full public inquiry into why the SYP did nothing on Rotherham CSE. It is no use a chief constable who was not in post at the time wringing his hands  in front of rent-a-quote MPs on a Commons committee. Every Rotherham District Commander, senior and junior police officers in Rotherham since the mid-1990s must gave evidence of oath at a public inquiry but the establishment will look after its own and I doubt if anything will happen.

Child Poverty measures scrapped by Tories.

Child Poverty measures scrapped by Tories.

Just short of two years ago I wrote an article, published in the Sheffield Star about child poverty. In the article I quoted a strategy report from 2011, published by Sheffield City Council, which stated that poverty is not just about wealth but also about health, community, aspiration and education. At the time of writing the piece a family was classed as living in poverty if the household income was less than 60% of the average wage, £359 per week (by the end of 2013 this had risen to £517). In Sheffield, 27,000 children were judged to be living in child poverty, 24% of the city. The report also said that certain groups were more likely to live in poverty – ethnic minority families, single parent families and families with more than three children particularly.

One of the wealthier suburbs of Sheffield, Dore has 0% teen pregnancies compared to less well-off Arbourthorne where teen pregnancy was at almost 15%. Less than 8 mile separates the two areas but they are worlds apart in real terms and therefore it is vital that those levels of poverty are measured.

Today, work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, announced plans to scrap the current measures claiming they were deeply flawed. The four UK children’s commissioners have urged Mr Duncan Smith to stop his benefits cuts programme and said that the levels of child poverty are unacceptably high.

Duncan Smith insists that ending child poverty is still a priority but he intends to do this by changing the long-term chances of those in poor families. He intends to introduce new legislation that focuses on educational attainment and long term worklessness. He said they will also look at causes of poverty such as drug and alcohol dependency and family breakdown. All very good but we already know from the current measures that those things are all contributors to poverty.

The smug Tories are relentlessly telling us that under their leadership the national debt is lower and that unemployment is lower. They claim that more people are in permanent employment and that more apprenticeships have been created along with more doctors and nurses, and yet are determined to drive on with their ideological cuts to the poorest. They claim we now have the fastest growing economy in the developed world but still believe that the poorest and least able should be punished.

 Before the election the conservatives said it was necessary to implement more and more cuts but refused to tell us where these cuts would come from. It was clear that they knew exactly where the cuts would come from but refused again and again to confirm the cuts to working tax credits attacking families who do work.

The promises they made during the last government were nearly all broken and almost all the targets that PM David Cameron set himself were missed. The government along with the right-wing media have repeatedly led the public to believe that the economy state they inherited was entirely down to the Labour party, despite supporting the spending figures during their stint in opposition. They have tries consistently to imply that the actions of Gordon Brown and his Labour party were solely responsible for a global financial meltdown. They say we were on the brink when they took over and had it not been for the tough decisions chancellor George Osbourne took we would now be in the same situation.

If they weren’t brave enough or honest enough to tell us their real plans before the election, why should we believe them now? Why would we think that a collective of the very wealthiest in society should care a jot about equality or politics of compassion when they deny food, well-being and in many cases life, for the most vulnerable people in society.

Despite the massive increase in people using food banks, Cameron claimed during PMQ’s today that child poverty fell during the last 5 years.

The announcement today smacks of moving the goal posts. A change of measure invariably means a change of results but can we trust Mr Duncan Smith, who along with 18 other MP’s today had his official credit card suspended by ipsa for failing to show his expenses were valid, not cook the books and simply deny the existence of child poverty like they do the need for food banks?

“The people have spoken – the bastards”

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Former US political consultant Dick Tuck once famously said, after defeat in a 1966 senate election “The people have spoken – the bastards.”

Last Thursday the people of the United Kingdom spoke. They said overwhelmingly that we want  at least five years of cuts to benefits. They chose a referendum on Europe and they chose austerity. They chose the slick, well-oiled publicity machine, driven by Cameron and his Bullingdon club chums, and maintained by Rupert Murdoch and his right-wing propaganda and lies. They chose to keep the bedroom tax and to force the disabled and dying back to work. They chose to give up their human rights for a man who eats hotdogs with a knife and fork, rather than trust a man who looks unsightly when eating a bacon sandwich.

They chose to crush Nick Clegg’s Lib-Dems, unable to forgive him for the lie he told students on the election campaign in 2010. They ousted chief secretary  to the treasury  Danny Alexander and senior statesman of the party and Business Secretary Vince Cable, while voting to keep Clegg himself in his Sheffield seat, where he refused to debate his opponents and refused even more emphatically to support the people who elected him 5 years ago, signing off on cut after cut to Sheffield city council funding.

Douglas Alexander, who masterminded the Labour party manifesto was booted out of his seat in Scotland, being replaced by the youngest person elected to the house, 20-year-old Mhairie Black. Ms Black is yet to complete the Politics degree she is studying for.

Mr Alexander shouldn’t take the insult personally though, all but one of Labours MP’s North of the border were voted out, giving the SNP a massive 56 newly elected MPs.

It was arguably the SNP surge that caused most damage to Ed Miliband’s campaign with Prime Minister David Cameron and numerous political commentators on TV relentlessly insisting Labour would have to do a deal to break up the union, if they wanted to be in power (ironic considering top of the Tory agenda is likely to be disabling unions.) Miliband insisted there would be no deal, but even without Scotland turning its back on Labour, it would have been a big ask for Labour to form a government.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, who many tipped to replace Miliband, lost his Morley seat to former beauty queen, conservative Andrea Jenkyns.  According to some reports this week the Labour party knew from the polls that Balls would lose but chose not to tell him.

If we are to believe those reports, it seems that the party knew it was in for hiding at the polling stations, yet told us again and again that they were confident of winning. Hours after Milibands inevitable resignation, high-profile Labourite’s were criticising the former leader. If they doubted him so greatly wouldn’t the time to say so not have been two years ago? Hell yes!

Former Labour PM Tony Blair weighed into the debate, claiming the party had veered too far to the left, insisting they should try to re-occupy the centre ground. While it was the centre ground that brought Blair and Labour it’s most successful period in recent political history, it is the centre ground that makes voters think that all parties and all politicians are the same- untrustworthy.

Whether it is the circles I move in, or that the Tory vote mainly came from down south, I’m not sure, but I have only spoken to two people who have admitted to voting Tory. Both told me that they feel they personally have done OK under the last Tory Government (dismissing the Lib-dem influence completely it seems). They haven’t needed a food bank and don’t claim benefits, so why should they care if Tories clamp down on the spongers.

One of them told me proudly that the Conservatives are the party of working people, while Labour choses to defend the Jeremy Kyle guests.  They are in part correct of course. Labour did spend an awful amount of energy attacking the rich, distancing itself from business and trying to raise taxes for those that have done well for themselves, playing perfectly into the hands of Murdoch and his right-wing news-papers.

Anyone who thought that politics would be off the front pages once the election was over will be sorely disappointed. Miliband and Clegg quit as party leaders before dinner time on Friday, meaning we are to sit through two leadership circus’.

Many initially called for Barnsley MP Dan Jarvis to lead the party, claiming he was the most “normal” candidate to re connect with the labour faithful. He is one of the few politicians to have had a job outside politics. He was a Major in British army.

Jarvis quickly ruled himself out of the race, saying his priority was his family and local politics, proving possibly that he is the most normal candidate after all.

Of the other front runners to lead the party, shadow education secretary,  Tristram Hunt and former solicitor Chuka Umunna seem to be favourites.
Historian Hunt told the Guardian this week that the party needs to win back the trust of the working class. He said “In too many parts of the North of England and the Midlands the electoral challenge was from UKIP.” While UKIP undoubtedly stole some ground in local elections, the seats they were tipped to take in cities like Rotherham, never materialised. Despite Rotherham facing huge challenges in the wake of the child abuse scandal, the people of Rotherham chose to keep faith in Labour MPs such as Sarah Champion. Ms Champion gained a degree at Sheffield University, before working for charities St Luke’s and Bluebell wood. She increased her majority by over 3000.

In neighbouring Sheffield, Paul Blomfield MP for Sheffield Central increased his majority by 17,000. Mr Blomfield was voted 2015’s most inspiring leader in higher education.
Across the city, Labour candidate Louise Haigh won the Heely seat vacated by Megg Munn and in the prestigious Hallam ward Oliver Coppard threatened to overthrow Nick Clegg until the final days of the campaign.
Labour did not lose because it is too left wing, it lost because it lacked authenticity. Slick polished, rich, career-politicians telling the plebs that they are for us does not come across well. Instead of schmoozing the poor and attacking the rich, Labour needs most of all to be honest.

If it is to gain power in 5 years-time it needs to elect a leader that we can believe and believe in. Working people need to believe that their rights will be protected and also that they are not grafting so that others can either get rich off them or sponge off them.

There needs to be support of aspiration and determination of fairness.
The Green surge was in large due to the refusal of its party to indulge in the back biting and personal attacks that the other parties insisted on. We want a leader who has integrity and warmth but who also has the strength to stand up to Europe and Russia. If we don’t believe a word they say, how can we expect Putin and Merkel to not to take their threats with a proverbial pinch of salt?

Talking of integrity, I fully expect Tim Farron to be the next leader of the Liberals. He comes across on TV as being genuine and makes himself available and approachable on social networking sites such as twitter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Chuka Ammuna wins the Labour vote but they could do a lot worse than looking further afield from the Westminster bubble. Far too much of our politics revolves around our Capital, but little of it resonates with the rest of the country. Blaire, Brown, Miliband and Balls have had their day. Tomorrow is the age of hope. In the 5 or 6 days since the election, 27000 new members have joined the Labour party ( a further 10,000 have joined the Lib-Dems). This is not a signal that the public has tired of the two parties but a sign that the electorate had tired of the Westminster machine.

The hope is now that the Liberals and the Labour party are strong in opposition. I hope they both choose leaders who can change politics and change the attitudes of people like my two friends who voted Tory because they’re alright and sod the rest.

This is the age of fast food politics.

Monday, 13 April 2015

What a difference 5 years makes. In 2010 there were less than 3.5 million twitter users in the UK. By 2014 there was a reported 15 million tweeters. More people than ever before access news on mobile phones and laptops, and there are more apps available than ever imagined. A quick google search asking “who should I vote for in 2015” provided no fewer than 495,000,000 in less than a second.
Election quizzes are available from news providers such as The Mirror and The Telegraph and all promise to tell us which way to vote based on our answers to some heavily loaded questions.

A 50% rate of tax should be introduced for top earner’s, states one quiz while another asks us to strongly agree or strongly disagree with statements such as All teachers working in the state sector should have a teaching qualification.

This is the age of fast food politics. No longer do we have to watch awful party political broadcasts on behalf of the Grey Party, or read intricate manifestos in the broad sheets. Now we simply have to answer a 5 minute questionnaire and know exactly who to vote far, without even needing to know who leads the party or what will be the consequences of voting for them.

Those of us who prefer to make a more informed decision can watch the leaders debates with the likes of former news night frontman Jeremy Paxman and Kay Burley, who was heckled outside Parliament during the 2010 election by protestors chanting for her to be sacked, guiding proceedings.

If we are looking for less biased opinion we can look on the internet, on sites such as the BBC who have a key policy guide. It tells us that the Tories will triple the number of start-up loans to businesses to 75,000 while Labour will introduce 80,000 new apprenticeships. UKip promises to enhance the UK’s position at the World trade organisation and reduce Britain’s debts.

Less well publicised parties such as George Galloway’s  Respect Party vows to bring all major utilities into public ownership. The Green Party suggests introducing a £10 per hour minimum wage.

Never before have we had such access to all the parties but does this give us a more informed voter or a fooled voter.

At the last election Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg swept to victory in Sheffield after making rock solid promises to the massive student population that he would absolutely not increase tuition fees, only to renege on the promise once in power. Such promises are easy to make when you believe you have virtually no chance of having to keep them.  To make a rather crude comparison it is the equivalent of one telling ones wife “I wouldn’t cheat darling even if Beyoncé knocked on the door”, not necessarily lying but knowing full well that the opportunity will probably never present itself. Unfortunately for the liberals Beyoncé did knock and they were shown to be lacking.

The biggest change this year could be that the electorate has tired of so-called Punch and Judy politics. We have become weary of hearing the Nasty sniping’s of the Tories, relentlessly blaming the labour party for the world-wide financial crisis. Just last week a senior Tory minister accused Labour leader Ed Miliband of being a backstabber, claiming he stabbed his brother in the back and will do the same to the country. Even if true, this is not the sort of language we want to hear. Some would say that having the courage to stand against a brother who many considered to be the favourite to get the job, are exactly the qualities a leader should have.

We deserve a proper debate based around core values, not squabbles and scare mongering but policy not personal attacks. While the Green Party may be living in a utopian unfunded world of ideals at least they are not stooping to the levels of the often yobbish behaviour of the other main parties.  I say it’s time we had dignity in discussion and open dialogue about the things that matter to us the most. The language politician’s use is often disingenuous – designed to not answer the question at all or leave the less well educated punter not understanding what they have heard. Plain talking in layman’s terms would change the political landscape for the better and give the electorate a fighting chance of getting who they asked for.

The danger is that we listen to vox pops on the news or read the headline in a right-wing news-paper and give our allegiance to the one most presentable policy a party has. I spoke to an elderly retired postal worker recently who told me he intended voting UKIP, because they were the only party serious about immigration. I challenged him by saying that UKIP wants to weaken worker’s rights and would help the Conservatives crush the trade unions. His response was simply that he no longer works so it doesn’t affect him while a family of Somalian’s moving in next door does. This I fear is typical of many voters’ attitudes, unable to see the wood for the trees. There is now so much rubbish written and spoken by our politicians and news readers that it is virtually impossible to know who to believe. For this reason it is likely that there will be no clear winner on May 7^th.

It looks increasingly like yet another coalition giving us another 5 years at least of tit for tat and holding to ransom. Will it be labour and the SNP trying desperately not to keep the UK together or will it be another half decade of Tory/ lib Dem rule?  There is even suggestion recently that there could be a Labour/ Tory coalition. If Dave and Ed are in the rose garden on 8^th of May then there could be a real lesson to be learnt.

Top gear or One Direction

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

With the General election less than 50 days away, bizarrely social media is tonight being dominated by the sacking of a man who assaulted someone at work and someone quitting a boy band.  Former deputy prime minister John Prescott, one of Labours most senior figures tonight tweeted “bit torn between joining Top gear or One Direction”.

The recent Scottish referendum saw almost full engagement with over 80% of those eligible to vote doing so. With what could be the most important election in decades looming there seems little evidence of such engagement from the British public.

Today saw the final Prime Ministers questions before the election, one which was destined to be at least one of the leaders last, was on the whole uneventful. The official campaign hits top gear next week with what looks to be a whimper. The main focus of debate in recent weeks has been whether there should be a televised debate. Of course it is clear from the last election that the debates have little if any effect on the result of an election but at least it gives the electorate a chance to hear the candidate’s version of what they would have us believe they might do if elected. Nick Clegg was considered by most to have won the debates last time round but ended up with fewer seats than the party set out with. Clegg has been critical of Prime Minister David Cameron’s refusal to take part in TV debates.

Deputy PM Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency could be the scene of one of the biggest upsets on election night. A recent poll has Labour candidate Oliver Coppard a massive 10 points ahead, although other polls do have the gap at 2 or 3 points. The New Statesman is even running a story on the battle.

Mr Coppard last night told a delegation of Trade Unionists that Clegg has decline repeated offers of hustings and debate, agreeing only to a behind closed doors debate with an audience of school children to answer questions exclusively pre-selected by The Star newspaper, the only media to be allowed in.

The Sheffield Hallam seat that was once occupied by late Tory favourite Sir Irvine Patnick, is the sixth wealthiest in the country, so it would seem unlikely that a Labour candidate could triumph there; but Mr Coppard – born, bred and current resident in the area thinks the voters still appreciate traditional Labour values and won’t be quick to forgive Clegg, who has done little to represent the people of Sheffield in the last 5 years. Clegg lied to the massive student population in the city and has signed off on grossly unfair cuts levelled at Sheffield city council. The infrastructure expenditure in London is £250 per capita while in Sheffield it is less than £3.

Despite this potential huge upset, the main news outlets prefer to focus on whether it appropriate for the leader of the opposition to have a second kitchen. Little wonder then that the electorate seems as disengaged in politics as ever.

No one trusts the Tories to keep their promises on the NHS, but similarly people are dubious as to Labours record on the economy. The conservatives have proved repeatedly that they are on the side of the few at the cost of the many but it is still neck and neck in the polls.

The budget last week saw George Osbourn promise to relax the austerity measures in the last year of the next government but most people are in little doubt that a Tory Government will continue to punish the poorest in society while protecting the richest. His pension release plans and suggestion that annuities could also be freed up is a blatant attempt to capture the OAP vote. When asked by Andrew Marr recently what the Government plan to do if reckless pensioners decide to blow their money and then come with their hand out for benefits, the Chancellor refused to answer, instead smugly stating that it was a patronising question.

The Tories have relentlessly attacked the Labour party for receiving cash from the trade unions and it is clear that if they win a majority they will try once again to crush the unions, taking with them worker’s rights and making it easier to sack people, pushing more “hard working families” deeper into poverty and onto the dole, wiping out communities and lives in their wake.

So whoever the British public vote for in May, for the sake of 95% of the population let us pray that it is not the Tories or the country will be going in one direction– down the pan!

“If the roof blows off – you have no choice but to repair it, the choice you have is how you control the terms of the loan.”

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

“If the roof blows off – you have no choice but to repair it, the choice you have is how you control the terms of the loan.”

Just short of 5 years ago, Labour party candidate Paul Blomfield narrowly beat Liberal democrat Paul Scriven, to be elected MP for Sheffield Central. In a few weeks time, we go to the polls again with Blomfield looking to win by a greater margin. With Scriven now passing his days in the House of Lords, Blomfield is sitting comfortably in position to be re-elected. I caught up with him this week to ask if after 5 years of a Tory government, is Britain a better place to live than when Labour was in office. He told me emphatically that we have become poorer and more unequal. He claimed that Labour was already leading a recovery when they lost the election and that the recovery was only hampered by the Government cutting too far and too fast, with huge social consequences and the economy pushed into recession for the early years of the Government.
I reminded Paul that the Green party are claiming to be the only anti-austerity party. He replied by saying “If you have a house and the roof blows off – you have no option but to repair it, the choice you have is how you control the terms of the loan.” He went on to say that Labour would reduce the deficit without undermining the economy or leaving people afraid to switch on the heating. The deficit reduction under Labour, he said, would not be at the expense of the people.

I asked Paul if he had seen any evidence of the Green surge on the doorstep in Sheffield, and if he had, did he attribute it to students and young people leaving the Lib Dem’s, or were the Greens taking a share of the labour vote? He said their membership had doubled from a very low base and had then plateaued. It was an expression of dissatisfaction at conventional politics he thought, as well as the flip side of the UKIP vote. The surge has put the Green party under scrutiny and people are now wondering if their policies are credible. He thought it was unfortunate that up and down the country, the Greens are only targeting Labour seats, as this would help the Tories into Government.

With the election only weeks away, I asked Mr Blomfield why he thought Labour weren’t clear leaders in the polls.

He emphasised that although Labour lost the last election, no one won it. For the last five years the Tories have relentlessly blamed Labour for the crash and the media have largely followed suit, but until the rather convenient financial crisis, the Tories had agreed with Labour’s spending. He said he failed to see how Labour were to blame for sub-prime letting in America and the collapse of Lehman brothers, yet even today, almost five years after they took office, the Conservatives maintain that it was Labour’s fault. We talked about how the Tory led government had consistently made claims about the thousands of new Doctors and midwives they had introduced, despite all those medics being trained in initiatives that Labour put in place. Paul said despite the narrow polls there has rarely been a wider gap in the two party’s policies.

Next I asked if Paul thought that the TV debates would or should go ahead. He was clear that while the debates should go ahead, they actually made little difference to the outcome. He recalls that most people claimed Clegg had won the debates in 2010, yet on polling day Clegg mania did not translate to seats. He said,  “The election shouldn’t be a popularity show on TV but decided on policies.”
Talking of policies, I pointed out an article published that day, which claimed immigration was up by ½ million since 2011, and asked are people really angry about immigration or is it an argument invented and perpetuated in the Ukip obsesses media?  Paul was clear, people raise the issue a lot. He said it is a complicated issue that the media and right-wing party’s tried to reduce to simple arguments but when most people bring up the immigration argument, the thing that they are actually angry about isn’t caused by immigration. He gave the example of Polish people. The Poles came over when there was work and when it dried up, most of them went home, but people still complain about the Poles taking our jobs.

He also said that when in 2012 he was treated for a brain tumour, none of the Doctors or consultants that treated him were Brits and that the NHS would not be able to function without immigration.
Sheffield Central Constituency has 36,000 students, many of whom are from outside the UK and Paul says these students are as important as any other constituent. He said that the city’s international students bring £120m to the local economy and are responsible for around 6,500 jobs in the city as a result of them being here. While many of the students let down by Clegg’s broken promises will have graduated and moved on many will remember them, and Ed Miliband’s promise last week to cut student fees to £6k was an immediate measure, keeping the door open to further change, and evidence that Labour will not make commitments they can’t keep.

With many tipping Clegg could lose his seat in Sheffield, I asked if Labour candidate Oliver Coppard was capable of winning the seat. Paul said that Oliver was running a great campaign to take what has been a traditionally Tory seat for decades, and still is effectively Tory today with Nick Clegg as the MP.

On Paul’s own aspirations, I made reference to recent claims that he was manouvering for a cabinet position and was unable to make his own choices as a result. I asked “Do you consider yourself to be a local politician, or would you like a seat at Ed Miliband’s table? With half a wry smile, Paul said that when he first stood in 2010, he was concerned about the lack of trust in politics and wanted to explore ways to rebuild relationships with people. Since being elected, he is proud of coordinating cross party agreements that created enough pressure that they led to changes in the way payday lenders are regulated. He has also fought hard locally to ensure the bridge at Sheffield train station was kept open to the public and worked tirelessly on council estates like Wybourn and Manor, visiting schools and workplaces in those areas where he gets chance to speak to many of the 40,000 doors he has knocked on to connect with the public. He did recognise that someone has to take on Shadow Ministerial jobs, but it wasn’t something he was seeking.

I was just asking Pauls thoughts on the suggestion of capping benefits on more than three children when his assistant reminded Paul that his next meeting had arrived. In spite of his next appointment waiting, Paul told me the policy was an outrage and will undoubtedly lead to an increase in child poverty.

Without appearing contemptuous, smug or overly confident Paul Blomfield seemed happy with the work he has done and I think he firmly believes he will be re-elected. I suspect he is right. Whether his party will enjoy the same success remains to be seen.