Neil Woollcott gives a very accurate summary of a letter he received from Simon Wright MP this week in his blog, but I really want to know how the party has come to put Simon Wright in this position.
I should declare that I consider Simon a friend. I went to his wedding, he came to mine. I've know him for 9 years and whilst I disagree with the coalition, I have always felt in the past that Simon shows good judgement. I feel though that at the moment, he is losing public sympathy over the student fees issue.
The policy on tuition fees has not changed or been overhauled in the last week, so the fact that Simon is yet to make a decision has allowed the opposition (and Labour in Norwich are already doing door to door campaigning it and using) to paint Simon as a ditherer. People like politicians who can pick up issues and make decisions. We don't want politicians to rush in to wrong decisions, but with this policy being clear to read and subject to virtually no amendment, students might be forgiven for feeling that lobbying hard to make Simon stick to his pledge is actually a worthwhile activity.
The quandary for Simon now is, if he sticks to his pledge, he looks like he has caved in to the student campaigns. but if he votes with Nick Clegg he looks like he has caved in to party pressure and can almost certainly kiss goodbye to any chances of holding his seat in 2015.
For me, the question is how party managers, both whips and those in Cowley Street have allowed this to happen. With 10,000 students in Norwich South, this issue will be a defining issue in Norwich South at the next election. The party and senior MPs should have found a way very early on to allow Simon to stick to his pledge. It is shocking mess that the party has become some under the thumb of the Conservative Party that they have failed to recognise the problems Simon faces.
Simon was my ward colleague in Fakenham North in 2003 to 2007. He is honest, decent and thoroughly like able. He will always try to do the right thing, and the fact that the party in the run up to the general election allowed, indeed encouraged people like Simon to sign a pledge that Nick Clegg himself says was unrealistic, is, I believe why Simon is still undecided. Does he stick to a pledge that was, in hindsight silly, or support a policy that is better than the previous Labour policy, but still a real slap in the fact for students.
If I were Simon, I'd say stick to your pledge. In the meantime, whilst he decides, his reputation amongst voters will sadly suffer, in my view unfairly. How has it comes to this ?
11/27/2010
Unbelievable selfishness
This morning three of us in our road went out and with shovels and brushes and cleared snow from the whole of our road. We cleared the driveways of some of the more elderly in our road and did the good neighbourly thing. I am obliged to my neighbours apposite and adjacent to me for the sterling efforts they put in.
Despite all our hard work, the road that leads to ours, which is on something of a hill, had seen no efforts from locals to clear the road. So again, we did it and cleared a driveable route through the road, clearing most snow on at least one side of the road, and then put down some salt and grit grit.
We assumed because there is a grit bin at the bottom of the hill, leading on to the main road, that people down that end of the road would, at the very least, put some grit down and ensure the ice at the bottom would be melted.
An hour or so later, I walked to the shops. walking along this bit of road, and saw someone filling up a bucket of grit from the grit bin. Good, I thought to my self, he's going to clear the bit of road that is outside his house that was, by this time, sheet ice. However, upon my return from the shops I witnessed that he had in fact laid down all this grit, from the public grit bin, on his own driveway (and it was thick with grit and salt in piles) but not put one single bit on the path outside his home or the road.
Big society ? Some people don't even do the basics of helping their neighbours or showing common sense when it comes to helping out on a snowy day.
Despite all our hard work, the road that leads to ours, which is on something of a hill, had seen no efforts from locals to clear the road. So again, we did it and cleared a driveable route through the road, clearing most snow on at least one side of the road, and then put down some salt and grit grit.
We assumed because there is a grit bin at the bottom of the hill, leading on to the main road, that people down that end of the road would, at the very least, put some grit down and ensure the ice at the bottom would be melted.
An hour or so later, I walked to the shops. walking along this bit of road, and saw someone filling up a bucket of grit from the grit bin. Good, I thought to my self, he's going to clear the bit of road that is outside his house that was, by this time, sheet ice. However, upon my return from the shops I witnessed that he had in fact laid down all this grit, from the public grit bin, on his own driveway (and it was thick with grit and salt in piles) but not put one single bit on the path outside his home or the road.
Big society ? Some people don't even do the basics of helping their neighbours or showing common sense when it comes to helping out on a snowy day.
11/26/2010
Losing the education vote
A whole plethora of education policies has been foisted upon us this week, and you might expect that at least one of the policies, even one small chunk would garner some support within education circles. Sadly not.
In each and every sphere of education, tried and tested ideas, policy backed by evidential proof, has been axed or scrapped to be replaced by a succession of politically inspired dogmatic policies based on only the evidence of Michael Gove's eyes.
When challenged on the radio about the comments that Ofsted made about the successes and achievements of university based teaching courses, something Mr Gove wants to axed, his response was "I haven't seen that evidence". Instead, he was basing his policies on what he has seen himself.
Again, the Lib Dems like to make out that they have "toned down" the Tories in government, yet I see nothing in Mr Gove's polices that are there because of Lib Dem influence. Instead, I got another email from the Lib Dems banging on about the "pupil premium" again. The Lib Dems are falling in to Labour's trap of re-announcing the same policy over and again, whilst ignoring the fact that the pupil premium was also a Tory policy.
In truth, if the Tories had wanted to reform education they could have reformed Ofsted, turning it back in to a proper inspection system instead of an operation in ticking boxes.
The lack of anything Lib Dem, and the apparent capitulation of the Lib Dem party in allowing the Tories to get total control of education policy (whilst quite ridiculously a Lib Dem MP sits as schools minister), has lost the party many votes from people in education.
In each and every sphere of education, tried and tested ideas, policy backed by evidential proof, has been axed or scrapped to be replaced by a succession of politically inspired dogmatic policies based on only the evidence of Michael Gove's eyes.
When challenged on the radio about the comments that Ofsted made about the successes and achievements of university based teaching courses, something Mr Gove wants to axed, his response was "I haven't seen that evidence". Instead, he was basing his policies on what he has seen himself.
Again, the Lib Dems like to make out that they have "toned down" the Tories in government, yet I see nothing in Mr Gove's polices that are there because of Lib Dem influence. Instead, I got another email from the Lib Dems banging on about the "pupil premium" again. The Lib Dems are falling in to Labour's trap of re-announcing the same policy over and again, whilst ignoring the fact that the pupil premium was also a Tory policy.
In truth, if the Tories had wanted to reform education they could have reformed Ofsted, turning it back in to a proper inspection system instead of an operation in ticking boxes.
The lack of anything Lib Dem, and the apparent capitulation of the Lib Dem party in allowing the Tories to get total control of education policy (whilst quite ridiculously a Lib Dem MP sits as schools minister), has lost the party many votes from people in education.
11/13/2010
Let's ban these referees who want to be the star of the game - Yes Michael Oliver, I'm talking about you !
Having watched Norwich City be robbed this evening by a 25 year old "fast tracked" referee, who isn't fit to ref a Sunday league pub game, you have to ask what is wrong with the way referees are trained that this man is refereeing a Championship football match.
What was a competitive, but one sided match, was turned on its head by an abysmal decision by Michael Oliver, England's youngest top flight referee, to send of Norwich striker Grant Holt, and in turn see a 3-1 Norwich lead quickly turn in to a 3-3 game, with a dubious penalty given to Reading to aid their cause.
After this game, who are we talking about ? The ref. Well done Michael Oliver. You're the star, You must be very pleased when in truth you should hang your head in shame !
What was a competitive, but one sided match, was turned on its head by an abysmal decision by Michael Oliver, England's youngest top flight referee, to send of Norwich striker Grant Holt, and in turn see a 3-1 Norwich lead quickly turn in to a 3-3 game, with a dubious penalty given to Reading to aid their cause.
After this game, who are we talking about ? The ref. Well done Michael Oliver. You're the star, You must be very pleased when in truth you should hang your head in shame !
11/11/2010
At least Nick Clegg has been exposed for what he is
A few months ago, in the wake of the capitulation coalition agreement with the Tories, I said in an interview with Gavin Esler on the the Today programme on Radio 4 that "Nick Clegg has made us look like liars and fools".
At that time I felt it to be true, and I still do because within days of telling people that the Tories would be a disaster, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in VAT, how only the Lib Dems would oppose further nuclear power, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in tuition fees, we sold out on these policies for the chance of a voting system our leader publicly criticised, and a few other scraps from the Tories table.
So for the last few months I have been an embarrassed and ashamed Lib Dem given the way Nick Clegg and his cronies have hailed every Tory policy as a Lib Dem triumph (an example of this was seen again in the weekly email Nick Clegg sends out), whilst ignoring the fact that policies claimed as Lib Dem successes are peripheral to most people (voting reform), do not reflect party policy (privatisation of the Royal Mail) or were in fact policies in the Tory manifesto anyway (the pupil premium).
I have felt personally to blame for misleading people in my area when I delivered so many leaflets hailing what the Liberal Democrats would do in parliament. I felt the policies were good. I was told they were costed. In short, and call me deluded, I believed what Nick Clegg told me. But today, I have some hope of redemption. Nick Clegg told ITV regarding his broken pledge to students that
Either way, it's not me who was the liar and fool.
At that time I felt it to be true, and I still do because within days of telling people that the Tories would be a disaster, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in VAT, how only the Lib Dems would oppose further nuclear power, how only the Lib Dems would oppose a rise in tuition fees, we sold out on these policies for the chance of a voting system our leader publicly criticised, and a few other scraps from the Tories table.
So for the last few months I have been an embarrassed and ashamed Lib Dem given the way Nick Clegg and his cronies have hailed every Tory policy as a Lib Dem triumph (an example of this was seen again in the weekly email Nick Clegg sends out), whilst ignoring the fact that policies claimed as Lib Dem successes are peripheral to most people (voting reform), do not reflect party policy (privatisation of the Royal Mail) or were in fact policies in the Tory manifesto anyway (the pupil premium).
I have felt personally to blame for misleading people in my area when I delivered so many leaflets hailing what the Liberal Democrats would do in parliament. I felt the policies were good. I was told they were costed. In short, and call me deluded, I believed what Nick Clegg told me. But today, I have some hope of redemption. Nick Clegg told ITV regarding his broken pledge to students that
"You need to be careful. I should have been more careful perhaps in signing that pledge at the time. At the time I thought we could do it."If I am putting my own spin on this statement, it appears to me that he is saying he was foolish to sign it. Or in hindsight perhaps he was an idiot to sign it ?
Either way, it's not me who was the liar and fool.
11/09/2010
Labour MPs defend and stand by a liar found guilty in court
What do the electorate make of Labour MPs in "rebellion", as it was put by one reproter today, because they feel the Labour Party should have stood by Phil Woolas, the labour MP stripped of office for being found guilty in court of spreading lies about his opponent ?
It's a ridiculous decision for Labour MPs to make that they feel the electorate want them to stand by someone found guilty in court.
It's a ridiculous decision for Labour MPs to make that they feel the electorate want them to stand by someone found guilty in court.
11/07/2010
Don't let the next generation pay for our mistakes
Yes, that's a phrase used over and over again by coalition MPs to justify their deep and excessive cuts.
So why is it that the next generation are the ones being asked to pay for our mistakes ?
If we weren't making the next generation pay why is funding being cut to High Schools who are PE academies ? Why is funding for School Sports Co-Ordinators (SSCOs) being threatened ? Why is funding for studying at our of school study centres being cut back ? Why are news school building programmes being halted ?
We all accept that some cuts are necessary, but can we please stop all the rubbish about protecting education, and saving the next generation from suffering. Most schools I know about are having severe budget cuts, and the ones who are suffering are the children.
New government, same old bull.
So why is it that the next generation are the ones being asked to pay for our mistakes ?
If we weren't making the next generation pay why is funding being cut to High Schools who are PE academies ? Why is funding for School Sports Co-Ordinators (SSCOs) being threatened ? Why is funding for studying at our of school study centres being cut back ? Why are news school building programmes being halted ?
We all accept that some cuts are necessary, but can we please stop all the rubbish about protecting education, and saving the next generation from suffering. Most schools I know about are having severe budget cuts, and the ones who are suffering are the children.
New government, same old bull.
11/05/2010
The coalition is picking on the wrong targets for cuts
I was very lucky this week to have gone along to the Norwich City Football Club Study Support centre to see 10 children I teach get presented with awards for the extra work they had done over a series of weeks at the study support centre. This centre, attached to Norwich City Football Club, is linked with the football club, but is funded in the main by central government money, with the aim of targeting children who need extra support in an environment which is exciting, and providing them with real life tasks and practical activities.
The children I teach had been asked to design a new product for the club shop. They spent a lot of time in the club shop, asked employees what sort of things sold well, did some work on pricing, and came up with a range of ideas. They then designed a product, explained how it would be used, came up with a marketing campaign, and then pitched it in a Dragons Den style to the club shop manager and other staff.
The whole process was exciting for the children and very beneficial to their education.
So the big question is why on earth is their central government funding being taken away ?
Across the country hundreds of thousands of children have benefited from this extra support at various sports clubs, ranging from football and rugby clubs to indoor ski centres. Yet despite this extra curricular boost children are getting being supported, it is to lose its funding from next year.
Yet again, the short sighted and ridiculous cuts the coalition are pushing (far too quickly) are affecting schemes that do genuine good for very little money.
The children I teach had been asked to design a new product for the club shop. They spent a lot of time in the club shop, asked employees what sort of things sold well, did some work on pricing, and came up with a range of ideas. They then designed a product, explained how it would be used, came up with a marketing campaign, and then pitched it in a Dragons Den style to the club shop manager and other staff.
The whole process was exciting for the children and very beneficial to their education.
So the big question is why on earth is their central government funding being taken away ?
Across the country hundreds of thousands of children have benefited from this extra support at various sports clubs, ranging from football and rugby clubs to indoor ski centres. Yet despite this extra curricular boost children are getting being supported, it is to lose its funding from next year.
Yet again, the short sighted and ridiculous cuts the coalition are pushing (far too quickly) are affecting schemes that do genuine good for very little money.
Why even Labour supporters should be (and are) applauding Woolas losing his seat
Phil Woolas has today been found guilty of knowling telling fibs about his primary opponent at the last general election. A special court met and found that he told lies and that he knew them to be untrue. So why on earth did Mr Woolas then say
Does Mr Woolas think free speech means you can slander anyone you want ?
Can he not see that you can win an election by reporting facts ?
Remember, Mr Woolas fought the 1995 by-election in Littleborough and Saddleworth, as most of this seat was previously known, using a caricature of his Lib Dem opponent as a druggie.
Peter Mandelson, who ran Woolas' campaign in 1995 said “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”
Lord Mandelson went on: “Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.” That “highlighting” of those views on drugs led to the memorable slogan that Mr Davies was ‘high on taxes and soft on drugs.’
In another Labour leaflet they led with the story "By-election latest: Lib-Dems drop candidate after drugs vote.”. This story actually related to a candidate in Winchester and had nothing to do with Oldham.
In the same election, the Daily Mirror distributed a special edition for free within the constituency, with plenty of pro-Woolas material in it. Ironically, this was later found to have broken election law, although prosecutors decided it wouldn’t be in the public interest to pursue the case.
In d double dose of irony, Mr Woolas claimed in 2005 that Lib Dem opponent Tony Dawson was "unfit" to be an MP because he claimed that the Lib Dems had altered a photo that appeared in a leaflet. This was never proved and the Lib Dems denied that this had happened. Yet this was one of the charges made against Mr Woolas in 2010, and was something that was proven in court.
It only takes a short visit to http://www.politicalbetting.com/ to see the comments from Labour supporters who welcome the court's findings. Many ordinary Labour voters have found the campaigning from Labour in Oldaham to be distasteful and counter productive. There is a line which many people in politics push against, but few so blatantly step over it (although I feel the Dr Death leaflets distributed in Oxford West and Abingdon - not by Labour - in May 210 against Lib Dem Dr Evan Harris were equally as shameful).
I know some are arguing that this is a pointless by-election because Labour will easily hold it. This may be true, but more important than this, it gets rid of Woolas. I would argue that any new MP would be an improvement on Phil Woolas.
Labour will also be pleased of a by-election which will highlight their objection to the coalition's policies so far. A bad loss too for the Lib Dems would put down a marker to those Lib Dem MPs who have become too obsessed with the trappings of office rather than being Lib Dems.
Perhaps the one question mark is over Ed Miliband. You do have to ask, with the court verdict yet to be heard, and knowing the way Woolas had won his seat, why was he appointed to the Shadow Cabinet ?
"It is vital to our democracy that those who make statements about the political character and conduct of election candidates are not deterred from speaking freely for fear that they may be found in breach of election laws”Is Woolas so stupid as to to be unable to tell the difference between knowingly telling lies and asking legitimate questions ?
Does Mr Woolas think free speech means you can slander anyone you want ?
Can he not see that you can win an election by reporting facts ?
Remember, Mr Woolas fought the 1995 by-election in Littleborough and Saddleworth, as most of this seat was previously known, using a caricature of his Lib Dem opponent as a druggie.
Peter Mandelson, who ran Woolas' campaign in 1995 said “After the campaign was over, not only our opponents but some in Labour would denounce our ‘negative’ tactics in highlighting Lib Dem front-runner Chris Davies’ support for higher taxes and a Royal Commission to liberalise drugs laws. For tactical reasons, I felt we had had little choice.”
Lord Mandelson went on: “Labour was starting from third place, and especially in a by-election, the bulk of Tory tactical voting was always going to flow to the Lib Dems. If we were to win, we would have to make that option as distasteful as possible.” That “highlighting” of those views on drugs led to the memorable slogan that Mr Davies was ‘high on taxes and soft on drugs.’
In another Labour leaflet they led with the story "By-election latest: Lib-Dems drop candidate after drugs vote.”. This story actually related to a candidate in Winchester and had nothing to do with Oldham.
In the same election, the Daily Mirror distributed a special edition for free within the constituency, with plenty of pro-Woolas material in it. Ironically, this was later found to have broken election law, although prosecutors decided it wouldn’t be in the public interest to pursue the case.
In d double dose of irony, Mr Woolas claimed in 2005 that Lib Dem opponent Tony Dawson was "unfit" to be an MP because he claimed that the Lib Dems had altered a photo that appeared in a leaflet. This was never proved and the Lib Dems denied that this had happened. Yet this was one of the charges made against Mr Woolas in 2010, and was something that was proven in court.
It only takes a short visit to http://www.politicalbetting.com/ to see the comments from Labour supporters who welcome the court's findings. Many ordinary Labour voters have found the campaigning from Labour in Oldaham to be distasteful and counter productive. There is a line which many people in politics push against, but few so blatantly step over it (although I feel the Dr Death leaflets distributed in Oxford West and Abingdon - not by Labour - in May 210 against Lib Dem Dr Evan Harris were equally as shameful).
I know some are arguing that this is a pointless by-election because Labour will easily hold it. This may be true, but more important than this, it gets rid of Woolas. I would argue that any new MP would be an improvement on Phil Woolas.
Labour will also be pleased of a by-election which will highlight their objection to the coalition's policies so far. A bad loss too for the Lib Dems would put down a marker to those Lib Dem MPs who have become too obsessed with the trappings of office rather than being Lib Dems.
Perhaps the one question mark is over Ed Miliband. You do have to ask, with the court verdict yet to be heard, and knowing the way Woolas had won his seat, why was he appointed to the Shadow Cabinet ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)