Cancel Trump's State Visit

Boris Johnson rejects calls to cancel Donald Trump's state visit.

He should never have had one in the first place.

Change the world.

The Prime Minister is going to publish a Brexit plan, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38224169

Surely nobody tells you their plan when they enter negotiations? Well this is what I've been hearing. However I've always wanted to hear the plan especially when I had a vote in the referendum. Should I vote to stay in or leave? Maybe I'll find out soon! :-)

Change the world

Jeremy Corbyn is right again

The BBC's headline is 'Labour leadership: Corbyn under fire for Bin Laden comments'. So what are these dreadful comments that would cause such criticism? Well Jeremy says it was a "tragedy" that Osama Bin Laden was killed rather than being put on trial. What's wrong with that? It was a tragedy.

I wrote about why Bin Laden should have been taken alive here and here. It made perfect sense at the time and still does.

Change the world

Reject membership applications not votes.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, has had his vote rejected for the Labour leadership contest. He has publicly claimed that he voted Green in 2010 but should that stop him changing your mind? The Labour Party are right to limit voting to supporters but how do they explain this ban? They've also banned other prominent individuals like Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel. I don't know if these comedians are proven enemies of the Labour Party or whether Labour is trying to rig the election but I get the impression it is the latter.

If there are malevolent individuals who wish to join the Labour Party in order to vote for the person whom they feel would make the worst leader, then this is clearly wrong and has no place in British politics or British society. Anyone who tells you it is just a bit of fun is wrong too.

It is also wrong to exclude voters who are genuine members of the Labour Party and wish to see it do well. However my main concern isn't about the exclusion from voting. It is about the exclusion from membership. Why have I heard everything about thousands of votes being rejected and nothing about thousands of cancelled memberships?

Change the world

Ed's Groundhog Day

I shared a video on Facebook yesterday. It was a video of Ed Miliband repeating himself rather than listen to the questions from an interviewer. I would have left it there but I got a comment that the reason why poor Ed had to repeat himself was because of bad interviewing typical of right wing media.

Here is the clip and the responses. You can make up your own mind.

My initial comment was:

I am saddened by this video. W.S. Gilbert told us over a century ago that politicians leave their brains outside the House of Commons. It's still going on.

The reply:

Interviewers ask questions but don't listen to the answers. This is typical of the right wing media. Hence poor Ed having to repeat himself. There has been reckless and provocative government action but the interviewer still doesn't get it!

And my reply:

The first question was about Ed's leadership. The second was about the Tory Party's private and public image. Ed almost answered the third question about whether he has spoken privately with union leaders but then goes on to repeat himself. The fourth question is whether Ed, as a parent has been personally affected and again Ed almost answers the question before repeating himself. I remain saddened and it is Ed who should put aside the rhetoric.

This video is from 2011 and maybe the most surprising aspect is that I haven't seen it before. How did this ignorance and repetition not make headlines? I don't think Ed will have improved with age. In fact he is being backed by his supporters even now. They will say that the tape is obviously fake. Well here is the original BBC video.

It looks like we live in a world in which a potential prime minister can act like a broken record and nobody notices.

Change the world

Hustings

The election campaign has started and leaflets are being delivered, mostly by the post office. So if you get more than one leaflet from a party then the chances are that they have used their free delivery service and they have gone on to pay a lot of money to get their message over to you twice.

There is another way that you can hear about the views of your candidates and that's at a hustings meeting. No individual party can organise this as all the others would refuse to attend. Often these meetings are organised by Churches Together and unlike the TV debates you usually only get one chance to listen to local candidates.

If you live in Morecambe and Lunesdale then your chance is at More Music in Morecambe from 7pm on Tuesday 14th April. I'll be there and so will many of the party faithful of all the candidates. That's the trouble. These hustings don't reach out to the electorate. In fact the sitting MP didn't attend in 2010 probably because there must be a feeling that there are no votes in it.

It is worth attending the hustings meeting as however important this meeting is to the candidates it is the only chance that the electorate gets to see through the party propaganda and let's them make their own mind up.

Change the world 

More Role Models

I've just seen Jonny Evans from Manchester United and Papiss Cisse from Newcastle try to foul each other a few times. I didn't see much of the football. Oh yes and they spat at each other. Louis Van Gall, the Manchester United manager was reported to have said that his player should not be found guilty. On the BBC website he is reported as saying "I don't think Jonny Evans is a spitter. Maybe spitting on the floor, but we were on the bench and you cannot see from there." It's a nonsense quote based on ignorance. Sounds like poor management to me but Lous gets paid a lot for this nonsense.

The reason for this post is not Manchester United's poor management. It's not even the spitting - thank goodness we still have some lines that can't be crossed. The reason is not even that we have two players trying to foul each other and nobody mentions that they are doing anything wrong. The reason is that we continually hear that football players are role models. No they aren't.

Change the world

P.S. Jonny comes out fighting. He would never spit at an opponent. It is possible that he has seen the evidence and chooses to ignore it. This makes him (....) fill in your favourite word. Alternatively he did spit at an opponent and this make him (....) fill in your favourite word. Regardless of whether he has any idea of what he has done ignorance is not a defence in law and you don't need a judge to find him guilty of ignorance.

P.P.S. It's the same day and later reports use the word 'deliberately'. It doesn't matter Jonny. It certainly didn't matter to Papiss.

Whoever said footballers were role models?

Chelsea played Liverpool yesterday and the Chelsea player Diego Costa may face retrospective punishment for two stamps on Emre Can and Martin Skrtel that were not seen by the referee. In the press conference Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho did not understand what reporters meant by the word 'stamp'. Let me help him. To stamp means to bring down one's foot heavily on the ground or on something (or someone) on the ground. 

I think Mourinho's point concerned the intention to stamp and this is important when an opponent is on the receiving end but I don't think intention is that important to the person who is being stamped on. Jose Mourinho reckons both incidents were 'absolutely accidental'.  It may be that many people see the stampings as accidental and others may see them as deliberate. What is definite is that Diego Costa knew he stamped on other players and reacted as if they had not been there. 

Am I to presume he knew he had stamped on another player but was so carried away with the game that he could put the possibility of a serious injury out of his mind? Could it be the case that all professional footballers are trained to ignore possible injuries because the game is more important? Could it even be possible that the stampings were intentional, in which case footballers may be trained to carry on as if nothing had happened?

My one certainty is that Diego Costa knew that he had stamped on two players and chose not to react. Whoever said footballers were role models?

Change the world

Andrew Mitchell and 'Plebs'

Andrew Mitchell probably called the police 'plebs'. This is according to Mr Justice Mitting.

It is a shame it has cost £2 million to find this out because I told you over a year ago.

Change the world

GP Appointments

I have to share this wonderful story that I heard two days ago and relates to my last blog entry on the NHS. Bear in mind that this story is third-hand but I bet it resonates with many.

A lady went to the GP surgery and asked for an appointment. She was told that the surgery only accepts telephone appointments and was asked if she had her mobile phone with her. She did. It was switched off because the signs told her to switch it off. She was advised to go outside to phone the surgery. She did and spoke to the receptionist who had given the advice.

This is a story that would make a good comedy sketch. I didn't hear what happened next but for any comedy sketch writers the conclusion could be that there were no appointments left for that day and she could be asked to phone back the following day.

Change the world

NHS: The best in the world?

I have had three conversations in three days that are all linked. Three days ago I was chatting about the NHS and the person with whom I was speaking agreed that it is not popular to criticise the NHS. It is seen as the best provider of health care in the world, looks after us from cradle to grave and is free at the point of access. My point was that the NHS is great if your experience is great but the opposite is also true, and I have heard and read about many bad examples of care.

Just yesterday I was speaking with a mother who was concerned about her daughter who had moved to another county. She had informed all the relevant authorities that she was moving and had even asked for evidence from some of them that they were aware of her change of address due to previous bad experiences. Needless to say things had gone wrong again. Her daughter has a chronic condition which is obvious to even the most casual observer. There is no doubt that treatment is necessary but she was told that there was a question of funding for her treatment.

The treatment is essential. Someone has to pay for it but she was now being told that there was a doubt over funding. Why had she even heard this comment? It had raised her stress levels on top of her medical condition. It also raised the stress levels of her mother, and this is from a service which has 'national' in its title.

My third conversation was earlier today and I was speaking with a doctor. I didn't know he was a doctor at the time but it came into the conversation because he was talking about someone who had been injured and gone to hospital. We also spoke about how maternity procedures had changed in twenty years. When my children were born it was common for mother and baby to stay in hospital six days. Now it is not even a day. This may be seen as a great improvement in efficiency and if this is true then it also makes you consider how inefficient things were not so long ago.

The conversation went on to consider the strengths of the local NHS service. He felt that we had a great maternity service. I was surprised to hear this view because of the recent maternity scandal and subsequent suppression of the CQC report.  I was also aware that earlier this year my local Trust had been placed in special measures. The reply I received was that this was almost entirely due to poor management. However I also know that mortality rates were high and I remembered something about the maternity department at Furness General Hospital, FGH having the highest death rate in the country. I had read that in 2011 "leaked figures revealed that FGH had the worst mortality rate of any hospital in England".

There is a lot of good and excellent work that is carried out within the NHS. The trouble is that there is also a lot of bad work. I couldn't sum up my feeling any better than by quoting Jackie Daniel, my Trust's chief executive. "The reports reflect the fact we are part-way through a process of significant improvement which is still going to take a number of years to complete...It isn't an overnight job to change the culture of a large, complex organisation." There's something wrong with the NHS culture.

Change the world

Morecambe isn't 'worst'.

In 2003 a book called 'Crap Towns' was published and Morecambe managed to claim third spot in the list. Morecambe did manage to drop out of the list in the next two editions but I have seen no strong defence that Morecambe did not deserve its famous initial third position. I have written previously about how Morecambe could regenerate and a lot of this depended on the link road which is now well under way. There are many other ways to aid regeneration such as a bridge across the bay and there is still plenty of work to do to improve Morecambe.

One method of supporting the local economy is to support local music festivals and Morecambe does have some small festivals. Unfortunately the local council recently failed to support a punk festival which brings many people into the town. There is talk of support in the near future but this must affect planning and confidence in Morecambe. It is therefore not surprising to read in the Independent that Morecambe has been named in another list. This time it relates to the worst places to shop in the UK.

There is no doubt that Morecambe residents often turn elsewhere for their shopping but equally there is no doubt that Morecambe's economy should improve with the link road. A multi-faceted approach will improve Morecambe's fortunes. The problem is that we have been tarnished by many previous decisions and the subsequent lists that name us as 'worst'.

Change the world

Not a pleasant shoot

I saw a pheasant 'shoot' this week. I wasn't invited. I just happened to be there. I guess there were a couple of dozen people with guns and half a dozen people who were running the event. It was held, as you would guess, in the countryside but all these people were wearing fine clothes. One person in particular looked very fine in his suit. The strange thing was that at times he was driving a quad bike. These were not the types of clothes that you would want to get dirty. Having said that I don't think they did get dirty.

I saw the delivery of food and bottles of wine and cans of beer to wash it down. I saw a camaraderie among the shooters. I saw them displaying their trophies. I saw them enjoying themselves. But most of all I saw pheasants being shot.

My guess is that around 60 pheasants flew across a field in the space of five minutes. The first dozen managed to fly across and none were hit. There was a great number of gunshots. The vast majority must have missed their targets. Then one or two slowly landed in the distance. I guessed they had been shot but I wasn't certain as they could have been trying to hide. I soon put two and two together. They had been injured.

I saw pheasants that were hit and then plummet to the ground. They may have been killed instantly. Then I saw a pheasant flying very close to where I was sat. It was hit in the wing and was trying to fly away with it's one remaining wing. It flew straight into a stone wall. I think it died on impact.

I began to wonder what sort of person shoots pheasant. They are bred for this 'sport' so it's not to keep their numbers down. I decided that they must be people with a fairly significant disposable income that don't mind injuring and killing animals, but mostly they are people who use the shoot as a social gathering. It may be that these five minutes were repeated a few times in the day and I only saw one of them but it did take all day.

Then I saw the collection of the carcasses. There were two dogs which were highly trained and they were sent to carry the birds back to their owner. You could see where the birds landed. You didn't need dogs to find them. You didn't need dogs to carry them back as the field was not that big. The bird that hit the stone wall did not land in the field and the dogs were not allowed to enter this area. So the only time when a dog might have been useful to find a bird they were not used. Yes they were highly trained but a shoot is no reason for giving them this training. I am sure they could perform other very useful tasks.

I am not concerned with arguments about whether game birds are bred in captivity, or whether the game birds' natural predators are trapped and killed. I am not bothered if the birds are eaten or if supporters of the shoot are those who maintain the countryside. I am not even concerned about whether shooting is really popular. Any pro-shooting argument is 'shot down' by the shoot itself. I did ask who would do such a thing. Well it's obviously someone who doesn't mind giving pain to these birds.

Change the world

Ebola travel ban: Imagine it's your friend or relative

Here is an interesting photo from Facebook. At first glance it makes sense that Ebola should not be helped to spread around the world. Let's think about it a bit more. Closing borders for any reason means border checks. We can't check for Ebola in other countries so the checks have to be done here and then we have to make sure it isn't cholera or malaria or lots of other diseases.

We have to be prepared to fly patients back to where they came from so we would have to protect the airplane staff. We have seen the extensive personal protective equipment that is needed for this and it would make for a strange extra flight because I wouldn't book a seat on that one.

Then we have to turn away British subjects returning with the disease. Where do they go? Back to where they came in order to die? Imagine that is your friend or relative. Do you still want to share this photo?

Disease doesn't stop at national borders. Do we stop flights from particular areas? What about the possibility that a sick person has taken two flights to get to Britain. Do we want to stop all border movement?

My first thought was that if my relative was coming back to the country and was ill then I want them to receive care. This photo tells us to let them die. It's not a nice photo and it's not nice to share.

Change the world

Selling Out The Staff

I had a conversation today with someone whose relation works in the courts. She was given a 12-month contract and then had to apply for her job again and she was successful, if that is the right word. She received another contract for three months with £100 less pay per month. Her new employer was an agency, so the courts were paying more for the same person who had to be re-employed. I believe it when I am told that all the other staff tell her she is doing a good job and want her on a permanent contract and she couldn't have a mortgage on this contract even if the government built thousands of 'affordable' housing.

Competitive tendering in the NHS means keeping the internal markets efficient and effective, or so they tell us. I know someone who was a manager in the laundry. He was doing his job efficiently and effectively but another company tendered for this role and won. He lost his job and left the NHS. He lost it because time and motion people had come in from outside companies and laid down the plans to give employees worse terms and conditions and to offer a cheaper service - I use the term cheaper in the financial and the quality sense.

I have worked in the NHS when governments of different colours, including red were selling it off. I use the phrase 'selling it off' because this is what Labour banners now tell us they don't want. It is hard to believe them. We do want an efficient and effective service. We don't want chopping and changing for the sake of worsening terms and conditions, for that is what it amounts to. Mostly, we don't want to see an apathetic workforce caused by political whim. 

Change the world

Who Is This We Exactly?

Yesterday's party political broadcast by the Conservative Party reminds us of the 13 years of Labour government and how it felt to see businesses close and (other) people lose their jobs. Britain was down, but "we rolled up our sleeves" and we are making progress again. 1.8 million more people are in work after four years of coalition, and "providing for their families". The trouble is that many people will still relate to businesses closing. Many are still out of work. The unemployment rate  was 7.8% at the last general election and 6.5% now. Sounds great but not if you are part of the 6.5%, and what about the manipulations of the figures like zero-hours contracts?

The broadcast has the audacity to suggest (sorry that should be tell us) that "our children can grow up without mountains of debt". When I grew up I went to university and I received a grant and no debt. Now almost half of our children go to university and end up with a mountain of debt.

Vote Conservative and hard-working families will be rewarded. David Cameron tells us that our "debts will be paid down" whatever that means. I won't say he has confused the deficit and debt (again), but we really have to get rid of the deficit before we can even think about debt. I would have thought that he should have learned his lesson.

It is quite clear where this broadcast is directed. It is for the 'hard workers'. It is for those in employment. It is for families that are still together. What about those who work hard but don't get paid for it? What about the unemployed? What about those from broken families? Well  I suppose David has given up on their vote so why bother asking?

Change the world

Blackpool Airport, a Gold Mine?

It is sad to read that Blackpool Airport may be closing if no buyer is found. I have worked within a stone's throw of the airport and I have met many people who used it. It is twenty years since I worked there but I think I was told that parking was free. This would have been a big bonus to flying from Blackpool but the main benefit to those who use it is that it saves them a drive to Manchester, Liverpool, or further afield.

It is a lovely location by the Irish Sea and between Blackpool and Lytham St Annes and with those two towns either side there must be a good chance that developers could move in and build houses. We need houses and there can be few complaints as there is a good road in and out. It has to be a good road as it caters for the holiday traffic. In my humble opinion this large site is ripe for development.

So who owns the airport? I was a little surprised to find that 95% of it was owned by Balfour Beatty and the other 5% by Blackpool Council. This is great news. Balfour Beatty, only need the council's permission and they are sitting on a gold mine. The council is also likely to pass the land for building because of all the extra revenue when the houses are built, and of course they have a vested interest in the 5% stake. That's lucky for both the owners.

It's also nice to read that  Blackpool council and Balfour Beatty have had a good working relationship over the past 14 years. Wait a minute. Isn't the council supposed to have no bias when it comes to planning? Are we less likely to hear any concerns about any future development in which the council has a vested interest?

When I was working in Blackpool there were houses on East Park Drive near Stanley Park which were not fit to live in. These houses were new. I seem to remember the council and the builders were strongly criticised and I also vaguely remember an out-of-court settlement. Does anyone remember these houses as I have spent twenty minutes searching and can't find a thing? I remember that it did make Look North West and the Sunday Politics but it could well have been in the days before everything was written into the internet.

Change the world

Compelling Arguments For Military Action?

If I had to vote on whether we take part in air strikes against ISIL in Iraq then at the moment I would definitely abstain. It is a decision that cannot be taken lightly so there have to be compelling arguments. Let's look at those arguments.

Firstly the attacks would be legal because the government has asked for them. I'm not sure about the justification of what make this legal because if Saddam Hussein had asked for air strikes against the Kurds then would this have been legal? The answer is clearly no. There is a lot more information that I need before I change my mind about abstaining.

Secondly this is a very big coalition. If the whole class shouts "fight" does it make it alright to fight.

Thirdly there will be no British combat forces on the ground, not now and not in the future. Does this mean that there are never any convincing arguments to use troops? What about all the compelling arguments that politicians have used in the recent past? What about all the compelling arguments put forward in the recent past by our military leaders? And they should know.

Fourthly this decision is good because it has to be voted on in the House of Commons. The trouble is that I remember the vote when we went to war in Iraq. That was the House of Commons too, and wait a minute, David Cameron is telling us that the decision has already been made.

Will this decision to take part in air strikes make the world a safer place? Well it didn't make it a safer place for one French tourist,  Hervé Gourdel in Algeria. He was beheaded because of French military intervention against ISIS.

Change The World

Ed Balls - not quite affordable and fair

In his speech today at the Labour Party conference Ed Balls told us he wants pay settlements that are affordable and fair. "Private and public sector workers should all share in rising prosperity. So Labour will not undermine fairness and the independent review bodies by rejecting their advice out of hand". Good point well made Ed. Unfortunately I did hear you, a few minutes earlier, talking about  ministerial pay rises. If you win the election the pay for every government minister will be cut by 5% and ministerial pay will be frozen each year until they have balanced the nation's books.

This makes me think two things. Firstly that you have undermined fairness for the sake of applause at conference. You see, for the working man (and woman) government ministers earn unimaginable amount and a freeze for a few years (because surely you can't guarantee fiscal restraint for longer than a government's term in office) is not that important. Sure - it's a nice sign but that's all it is. And if we are to take this sign seriously then Labour is saying that you should not earn the right wage as a politician. Following this logic then you are stopping many entering politics. That's probably the case anyway but shouldn't we be concerned about equality and diversity and getting people from underprivileged backgrounds into politics. Secondly, we have an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to review pay. Would it save a lot of money if and should Labour be saying that they would scrap IPSA? Surely not, as then we would be back to MPs giving themselves rises.

It makes me think that MPs can afford wage cuts and Labour MPs would do this to win votes. This may then lead to a Dutch auction to see who can take the least pay in order to win votes. If IPSA say a pay rise is fair then accept it. Don't try to win votes by telling us you will take a pay cut. That road leads to MPs who are only from a certain background. So those with plenty of money like Nigel Farage will be the model for future candidates.

Change the world

Poor to be hit hardest by Labour

It was good to see one head shaking in the audience for Ed Balls' speech at the Labour Party Conference today. Here's the background. Ed wants to see child benefit rising again in line with inflation but he won't spend money that he can't afford. So if Labour get back to power they will cap the rise in child benefit to 1% which will save £400,000,000. Sounds like a lot but that's when I saw the one incredulous female face. You see large figures do sound large but this delegate was thinking that she relies on her child benefit to keep her head above water and related to inflation she sees it is now going to be cut. She is thinking how can she manage.

The good news, in the next breath Ed told us that all the savings will go towards cutting the deficit, but this lady's expression didn't change. In fact the person next to her also pulled a face as if to say that the deficit  was one thing but her child benefit was another. Ed went on to reassure us that "unlike the Tories, we will ask those who have the most to make the bigger contribution". Hang on Ed, I thought you were talking about a benefit not a tax. You know, it's a bit like calling the bedroom tax a tax when it's a subsidy. (just in case you are wondering about my view on the spare room subsidy, there is nothing wrong with the idea of getting the right-sized families into the right-sized homes. It's implementation has not been good but moves by Liberal Democrat Andrew George should sort this out.

Ed goes on to talk about the 50p tax cut and makes a complicated issue very simple. A Labour government will reverse this tax cut. However, I am confused (and so are two members of the audience). If Labour propose to reduce child benefit (which is the effect of a 1% rise if inflation is higher than 1%) then a something and nothing reduction for the rich will certainly be hurting the poor. So Ed is not asking "those who have the most to make the bigger contribution". He is asking them to take the biggest hit.

Change the world