Labour for ... what, exactly?

I have just watched the Labour Party broadcast. I know it is the Labour Party's because it said so in the first few seconds. The rest of the broadcast was spent insulting Nick Clegg. It did mention the Labour Party in the last few seconds but we didn't hear anything about their policies.

The theme was that Liberal Democrats were ineffective in Government. Well how does the Labour Party account for the implementation of 75% of the Liberal Democrat manifesto? There was specific mention of tuition fees - now that is obviously part of the 25% which didn't get through the coalition agreement, but that's what it means to have a coalition. It doesn't mean that Liberal Democrats changed their opinion. Are the Labour Party telling us that the other 75% of the manifesto would have got through without a coalition government? I don't think so. Moreover, I am sure that they told us nothing about Labour policy.

If I want to hear what a party is saying then I will take a look at what they say. I will balance this with what the other parties say e.g. the Labour Party supports tuition fees - and introduced them. So much for informed democracy!

Change the world

P.S. I watched the broadcast again . It is simply insulting and wrong. I am happy to debate with anyone who wishes to take up the Labour gauntlet, but the reason for the P.S. is that the initial mention of the Labour Party tells us it is a broadcast for the European elections - it was absolutely nothing to do with the European elections. How do they get away with it?

UKIP against almost everything

As we get nearer to the European elections I think it is a good time to look back on blogs that I have written relating to Europe. I haven't written much about the BNP. They have been very quiet (thankfully) apart from one obnoxious leaflet. I hope it is easy for voters to see how obnoxious they are without too much explanation. The family of Lee Rigby managed to say how sickened they were when one party used his name in order to gain political advantage. Well the BNP have done so too. I haven't written much about the Tory or Labour views on Europe. They have also been quiet. However the Liberal Democrats have been active in our endorsement of the EU despite its faults. It is obvious that improvements can and should be made but that's far from UKIP's position of removing us from the EU.

UKIP have been making headlines, so this year I have written seven blogs about them. I have written many other blogs about UKIP in the past which is a good way of recording their message because there are many people who seem to think that UKIP's simple message is that immigration is bad (it isn't) and that all our problems would be solved in we left the EU and those interfering unelected European bureaucrats. You don't find specific accusations of bureaucracy because specific regulations are welcomed by those that have to deal with them. If you are buying or selling you want to know that safety standards have been met and that you have the right amount of what you are buying in your box. Consumers don't like bananas with too much of a bend. They aren't banned by the EU but if you get a lot of them in a box then you get fewer bananas and less people wanting to buy them.

UKIP are against a free market and  keeping up staffing levels in British industry (4th May). UKIP are against democracy (3rd May). UKIP are denying it is a racist party because its members are often to be found saying racist things (27th April). UKIP are climate change deniers - as well as Nigel Farage claiming women are "worth less" to employers and rejecting the whole of their last manifesto, and how this time it appears UKIP could not balance the countries books (15th Feb). Lord Pearson, UKIP's leader in 2010 didn't know their 2010 manifesto (4th Feb). UKIPs Head of Policy demonstrates that the party is anti-Muslim and does not have a Christian attitude when it comes to asylum policy (3rd Feb). Nigel making comments about race (they aren't racist because Nigel says they aren't a racist party but I can't tell the difference) as black people can't mix with white people because of the numbers involved. It is unstated whether two black people can get along - or 20 or 200 or 2000 which leaves the listener with the simple impression that Nigel is telling them there are too many black people in the country (why aren't UKIP racist?) (8th Jan).

Change the world

UKIP against staffing care homes

The first page of yesterday's UKIP leaflet has the headline 'Our politicians have allowed open-door immigration'. When translated this means that we are a member of Europe which allows the free movement of labour i.e. our ability to work in the rest of Europe, and our ability to find employees for the jobs that English-born people can't or won't do or more simply for the jobs where nobody is applying. This means we can staff our NHS, our care homes, our farms, in fact any industry in areas where we don't have the workforce. UK Employers want that free market and so should we. Immigrants don't come here to claim benefits and they are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting a job.

If you believe that EU immigrants come here to take benefits then you may have been persuaded with phrases like 'open-door'. Oh the door is open, let's get a house and benefits. It doesn't happen but this rhetoric plays on fear.

'Only UKIP will take back control' completes page one of their leaflet. However our economy is stronger for immigration as it stands. If huge control measures (which would mean impositions on the many members of the UK who live in Europe) are imposed then is there any guarantee that our economy would improve? I can guarantee a huge increase in red tape.

Change the world

UKIP against informed democracy

If you had to teach politics to young children then what would you tell them? You might start with the present voting system. It may not be perfect - actually it isn't perfect but it is the method that we have of electing our representatives. The voting system does not reflect the voting intentions of the population as it isn't proportional but at least we have the opportunity to vote. Then I would tell the children how important it is to vote. If we didn't then we may lose democracy completely. Dictatorships have some benefits but there are no checks and balances and dictators can be bad too.

I would tell the children that should vote but if they don't like any of the candidates then they should spoil their vote in order to register their protest. Apathy is the easiest answer for those asking why people don't vote. However the children would need to know what each candidate stands for. I have been a political activist for many years and I occasionally meet supporters of other parties who don't want to know about the opposition. How can they know that their party is the best unless they know what the others are saying?

Today I received my UKIP leaflet for the European elections. They obviously have plenty of money to spend on their leaflets but a large part of it is in the form of a poster. The sub-heading reads 'No More Leaflets Thank You'. It is obviously their party policy that their supporters should not be informed. They are not a party that supports informed democracy. They are the anti-politics party which does no-one who believes in democracy any good.

Change the world

Lenny Henry and the Black Country vote

I have just returned from my brother's house in France. I was doing some work on the house and I did manage to meet a few of the neighbours and practice my French. If the people in his village are anything like the English, according to recent reports, then I was quite lucky that I didn't meet anyone who told me that I am taking their jobs and that he is taking their houses. In fact I received a very nice welcome.

Compare that to the former BNP voters who feel "swamped" by immigrants. Compare that to UKIP employing an Irish actor telling us that "British workers are hit hard by unlimited cheap Labour". Compare that to a UKIP candidate tweeting that Lenny Henry should emigrate to a "black country".

UKIP said it was a "non-racist, non-sectarian party whose members are expected to uphold these values". UKIP could get away with this defence if they didn't have form. I have already written some blogs about their rogues. They could get away with this defence if their policies bore no relationship to the policies of their mavericks. I have criticised many of their policies in my previous blogs but the one policy that dominates is closing the gates on immigration regardless of how important it is to keep them open. I have written blogs about this too.

You can't feel swamped by immigrants that you can't recognise. There has to be some distinguishing feature that makes people feel swamped - perhaps colour of skin. UKIP shouldn't employ a foreign worker to tell people that you shouldn't employ foreign workers. In fact the immigrant work force strengthens our economy. British workers are not "hit". Their message is wrong in practice and wrong in meaning. Why should it strike a chord and allow UKIP to top polls for the European election?

UKIP has a leader that doesn't know it's last manifesto and he finds the idea that he should know party policy irrelevant. Their party is a farce but still they will get votes. At least they won't get Lenny Henry's vote. Wouldn't it be nice if we gave a warm welcome to immigrants who are strengthening our economy - a bit like the welcome we would like to receive in another country?

Change the world

Holidays: The staggering question

I was speaking with some teachers this week and one mentioned that her holidays did not coincide with other members of the family. This reminded me of the recent debate on this subject by MPs and their suggestion that school holidays should be staggered. At first glance staggering holidays is a good thing. Think of the wakes weeks (if you are old enough). Towns did not take the same weeks as their neighbours for many reasons. Think of the implications on the transport system as well as the holidays that are available.

However the staggering of holidays would not help couples who work in different schools. It may be alright in the summer holidays but I don't think they will be happy if they have two weeks off and don't see each other. I don't think that any teacher would be happy if their holiday did not coincide with those of their children.

The major concern for MPs was the cost of taking a holiday during school vacations. You can't blame the travel companies for increasing the prices. It is their job to maximise profits and if there is a greater demand then prices go up - that's capitalism. I am glad that MPs dismissed the idea of suspending airport passenger duty. If this happened then we would be saying "please take your holidays abroad and fly there". This is not a good use of the earth's resources especially if holidaymakers spend their time lying in the sun. Firstly the sun is (generally) not good for you, and secondly we may have to wait but the sun does shine in England.

The conversation turned to whether parents may take children out of school in order to buy a cheaper holiday and I was surprised to hear the argument put forward by teachers that children are able to learn more by going on holiday and learning from the experience. This may be true of some parents but not of others, and equality of opportunity is an important principle for all children. My immediate response related to the effort that teachers had gone to in preparing their lessons as well as taking the lesson. The children would miss this lesson and any subsequent lesson that built on this learning experience.

There is an underlying suggestion that holidays (that are slightly more expensive that the family can afford) are more important than school attendance. We have to question the importance of foreign holidays, the widespread use of air travel and most importantly the value we place on our schools. It may be that the teachers that I spoke with are humble people who have high regard for the pedagogical abilities of  parents. There is no doubt that education has an important role within the family but there is a more important factor in how we value education and taking children out of school lowers that value. Fundamentally we have to see what is important about holidays and it is not the ability to take children out of school, to travel across the world or to have a better holiday than our neighbour. If we hold higher values on such things as relationships, shared experience and learning then there would be no thought of taking children out of school.

Change the world.

Beer and bingo for the patronised

One definition of the word 'patronising' from the Collins dictionary is 'having a superior manner, condescending'. You may prefer a definition that tells you about an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority but however you define the word you need to know something about the feelings of others if you are going to call them patronising.

Consider the wording of the latest Conservative advert: "Bingo! Cutting the bingo tax & beer duty to help hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy."

Not only do we save a whole penny on a pint of beer, we get a pat on the head for being hardworking too! I think they imagined that we'd feel good about that. I suppose their thinking was that the sort of people who drink beer and play bingo wouldn't notice if they were being patronised.

I find this puzzling because there must be some Tories who do such things. Let's presume it is just those Tories who make decisions - about policy, about adverts - who don't drink beer and play bingo. Then it becomes easier to understand. There's still one other puzzle though - the wording of the ad does not appear to include themselves among the hard working. Can that be right? I doubt it - even the ones who've never done a day's work in their lives because they have servants to do everything for them will still claim to be hardworking, I'm sure.

I would think that Tories don't usually drink beer - why have beer when you can have champagne? - but they still need to have the occasional pint as a prop for photo opportunities in bistro pubs on the campaign trail. Even if you only take a sip of the disgusting brew it still has to be paid for.  And if you save a penny on each pint, those pennies soon mount up.

If you feel that the general opinion of Tory policy makers is that drinking wine is superior to drinking beer, or playing croquet (or whatever pastime they prefer) is superior to playing bingo then they are being condescending. It is a badly written advert simply because it confirms what we all know. It is patronising.

I suspect that the Tories took what was presumably initially a good idea and messed it up, getting it completely the wrong way round. After all, while the advert was pure Tory, the actual policy behind it had Lib Dem input.

Change the world