Thoughts on politics and life from a liberal perspective

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Labour agreed with Freud's "Therapeutic Work" idea in 2003

Ed Miliband has managed to dominate today's news cycle with his revelation that Lord Freud, speaking at Conservative conference 2 weeks ago made comments implying that some disabled people may be better off if they were not paid the full minimum wage.

Outrage aplenty today from almost everyone on the left and also lots of disability charities.

But in 2003, whilst Labour were in power, the government published an "Information Note" entitled "The Minimum Wage and Therapeutic Work" (opens PDF).

The document seeks to clarify the legal status of certain groups of people such as those who are disabled with reference to the minimum wage.

With reference to potential therapeutic work it states: "There may be no employment contract if there is no mutual obligation between the parties i.e. the individual is genuinely not obliged to perform duties and the employer is genuinely not obliged to provide the activity or pay the individual."

It then goes on to give a number of examples where it considers the minimum wage would probably not apply such as this one:

(c) A trust runs a facility for mental health out patients, who do various activities such as packing and assembly. They are paid varying amounts up to £20 per week. If they do not attend there are no sanctions. If they go along and do not want to do any activity they don’t have to. There is a production line but the speed is set by the users and if they want to they can turn it off;

Surely this idea is not far off what Lord Freud was saying today? That there may be circumstances where disabled people could derive benefit from a working situation where they were not paid the full minimum wage. Of course Freud did not heavily caveat and nuance his statement and it was clearly not properly thought through.

But the fact that when in power Labour clearly recognised there could be cases where disabled people could provide labour in limited circumstances and not be remunerated to the full extent of minimum wage law demonstrates that Freud's is not such an outlandish idea.

That won't of course stop Labour from continuing to attack him until he eventually has to resign which I predict will happen before the weekend. Because seemingly one thing you never have to worry too much about in politics is being consistent.

Not when there's a shitstorm to kick up anyway.

Hattip to Senior Sceptic on Twitter for highlighting this document to me.

Friday, 10 October 2014

Apathy and the attack culture of politics

Ellie Mae O'Hagan wrote a piece for LabourList recently in which she laments political apathy and tries to analyse what the party conference season says about that subject.

Ellie rightly states that "there are large swathes of the electorate who are disillusioned, angry, alienated from politics, and feeling ripped off and unrepresented". Indeed there are and this has been the case for a long old time. So far so obvious as Ellie herself acknowledges.

As to the main question her piece poses she lightly skips over the Labour conference and immediately draws the conclusion from the Tory conference "that they’re aware of high levels of political disillusionment, but they don’t really care as long as the electorate let them get on with it.".

What a shockingly cynical thing to say. And indeed precisely the sort of thing that commentators, activists and politicians saying about political opponents will cause apathy. After all if members of the "Westminster Village" all say that everyone except their own tribe are scoundrels then what do they expect the rest of us to think? I'd say it's pretty uncontroversial to conclude that a good number of them will think all politicians are scoundrels as a result of these sort of tactics.

It gets worse though: "Finally, Nick Clegg branded the Lib Dems 'the party of education,' a claim so ridiculous I won’t even bother to address it.". How utterly, breathtakingly dismissive of a party that has introduced the pupil premium and ensured that millions of primary school aged children now all have free school meals. I am sure Ellie is obliquely referring to the tuition fees debacle which was handled dreadfully but to so sneeringly dismiss everything the Lib Dems have done in government is to again stoke the apathy problem. What is the point of voting for politicians who are so terrible that their opponents don't even feel they need to explain why you shouldn't?

The coup de grace of the Lib Dem section is this little bon mot: "We all know Lib Dem policies are just tokens they redeem in exchange for power anyway.". Yes we all know that Ellie. The Lib Dems are a bunch of unprincipled shysters who crave power so much that they will literally sell their own granny to get their arse on the seat of a ministerial limo. This is despite the fact that for several generations they got nowhere near power. That of course is ignored because we "all" know the dark heart of the Lib Dems now.

I'm singling Ellie out here probably unfairly because all sides do this. It just particularly jarred with me because of the stated intention of the article.

We have a situation where for short term gain, politicos attack the character and motives of their opponents, their opponents do the same back and this carries on month after month, year after year. At the same time trust in politics and politicians keeps falling, people feel more and more disenfranchised and that politicians are "only out for themselves" etc. I know correlation is not necessarily causation but it doesn't take a genius to work out that in this case one has a high probability of affecting the other.

And in this one article we have a very neat, bundled up synopsis of the problem. A bright, articulate Labour activist attempting to write a piece about what we can do regarding political apathy has managed to load it with attacks that are more likely to exacerbate the very problem she is trying to tackle than to help it.

It's enough to make you weep.

Sunday, 24 August 2014

It's a disgrace that Alison Goldsworthy has had to leave the Lib Dems

Five years ago when I was a fairly new member of the Lib Dems I was trying to plan my time at my first ever Federal Conference in Bournemouth. I was a little nervous never having attended one of these before and as I was popping fringe events and hall debates into my schedule I realised that I hadn't been invited to anything on the Saturday night which was largely filled with various dinners for local parties and groups. I mentioned this on Twitter and almost immediately Alison Goldsworthy got in touch and insisted that I join her Welsh Lib Dem dinner on the Saturday evening. I pointed out that I am not (nor have never been) Welsh but she was having none of it. I went along and had a really good time being introduced to a number of different movers and shakers in the Welsh party all of whom made me feel very welcome. And despite the fact that I had never met Ali before that evening she treated me as if I was an old friend. I have never forgotten that kindness.

It was clear to me that she was phenomenally well connected within the party, even though she was (and still is) relatively young. She had already stood as a European candidate and was about to stand for a Westminster seat. She was clever, articulate and very funny. Exactly the sort of person you would expect a party like the Lib Dems would want representing them.

But Alison Goldsworthy is no longer a Lib Dem. She left the party in the last few days following the fallout from the Rennard scandal. Ali is one of the women who made allegations about inappropriate behaviour against the peer, allegations that have effectively come to nothing as he was reinstated.

Actually in Ali's case, if what she alleges is true, I would say "inappropriate behaviour" is a severe understatement:

She alleges that in 2004, when she was a 21-year-old candidate in the European elections, she posed for a group photo after a black tie event. She was stood next to Lord Rennard, then Lib Dem chief executive, and was wearing a long, backless dress.
She says that he put his hand down her gown and inside her knickers, past “extremely intimate” areas.
“There was no way it was an accident or that I had invited such an approach,” she claimed. “I couldn’t believe what had happened.”

It is an absolute disgrace that in this situation, Ali is the one who has been left with no choice but to leave the party she loves. In fact all four of the women who made allegations against Rennard which Alistair Webster QC found "broadly credible" have all now left the party.

This is utterly unacceptable. Whatever the Lib Dems think they have done in response to these allegations is nowhere near enough. If the party has any sense it will not consider the "matter is closed" as Rennard so menacingly suggested everyone now needs to do in a recent comment on Lib Dem Voice.

If they don't do something else they frankly deserve the opprobrium being heaped on them and Ali's parting comment that they no longer deserve to be taken seriously.

Friday, 11 July 2014

Which of these is more likely to be true?

1) Nick Clegg is totally spineless

2) Politics is inherently very difficult. Those in leadership positions often have to balance many competing interests both within and without their party and at the same time attempt to try and ensure they can maximise their vote in upcoming elections within the constraints they are faced with at any one time.


Thursday, 26 June 2014

Our celebrity culture facilitated Jimmy Savile's crimes

The litany of abuse perpetrated by Jimmy Savile is now becoming very clear following the reports today on a series of reviews carried out by NHS trusts into his behaviour in 28 different hospitals. This is on top of the many hundreds of instances of abuse that he perpetrated in other places including the BBC.

Like everyone who read these I was shocked and disgusted by what he was allowed to get away with and my heart goes out to all the victims. It is almost unbelievable that he was able to perpetrate these acts unpunished for many decades.

There is one aspect of this that I think warrants closer scrutiny because it goes to the heart of why he was able to get away with it for so long. It was how Savile's status as a celebrity afforded him access and respect way beyond what should have been considered acceptable or reasonable.

Time and again in testimony from victims we have heard how he was too powerful or that they were not believed when they confided in someone about what was happening. Sadly not believing victims of abuse is all too common but Savile's fame seems to have made him essentially bulletproof in this area.

We have seen a similar dynamic at play in the cases of Stuart Hall and Max Clifford both of whom also used their fame as leverage to abuse their victims.

As a culture I think we need to reflect long and hard on this. Because our celebrity culture today is worse than ever in terms of how we bestow status and privilege on those who fall under its auspices.

We see this reflected in how people who are famous for being musicians or sports people are invited onto TV and radio programmes to give their opinions on politics, whether they appear to be well informed or not. We see it in how celebrities are invited to pack out the best seats at all our major sporting and cultural events as VIPs. We see it when someone famous for being a moderately amusing dandy comedian and minor film star is treated as some sort of political savant by the media for writing an incoherent article effectively telling young people to disenfranchise themselves. We see it when people famous for nothing at all are able to earn millions of pounds just by keeping themselves in magazines talking about their love lives.

We see it in the eulogies and special retrospective TV and radio shows that the famous are granted when they retire or die (both Savile and Hall were given these in their positions as "national treasures" when they respectively died and retired).

Most industries and professions have anywhere from one to a handful of awards ceremonies each year to recognise achievements. Celebrities have dozens of them plenty of which are televised and most of which are reported on. They afford great opportunities for them to slap each other on the back for being so wonderful.

Of course as a country we have had centuries of inculcation in the art of deferring to our "betters". The monarchy down the ages has taught us this. See this recent ridiculous example where the BBC, reported on how Prince George behaved amongst other children:

"Eight-month-old Prince George appeared to remain calm even though there were tears from some of a similar age."
That's our nation's public broadcaster essentially pointing out how George is better than other children his own age already. Of course he's been a celebrity since birth.

I appreciate that me pointing all of this out might seem a bit beside the point. There are hundreds of victims who will never get justice and surely they should be the focus. Of course they should be and whatever reparations can be made should be.

But we cannot ignore how Savile, Hall, Clifford and perhaps others were able to use the shield of celebrity to commit, perpetuate and in the case of Savile within his lifetime completely get away with their crimes.

Just because somebody is famous, whatever the reason, does not been they are better than anyone else. Respect needs to be earned and nobody should ever be considered to be unlikely to be capable of terrible or criminal behaviour because of any perceived position within society.

Celebrity is not real, it's simply a construct. But the victims of these crimes are real. I hope the legacy of these cases is that the shield these men used has no power in future to hide the guilty.

We all need to make sure it does not.

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Why Labour will not be trusted on the economy

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been doing their best in recent times to try and convince that they can be trusted on the economy. They have tried to push the message that they will be tough and things are likely to be very tight for years to come and that if they are in government they will have to cut too.

Andrew Rawnsley wrote last week about how difficult it will be for them to do this not least in convincing their own side of the necessity.

But there is another more fundamental aspect of this that is problematic for Labour, perhaps terminally so. It is encapsulated by the following links:

"Tory led government has ideological agenda on cuts" - Angela Eagle (Labour Party Website)

Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson says coalition cuts are "ideological" (Guardian October 2010)

"Be in no doubt - these cuts are ideological" (Seb Dance - Labour Euro candidate LabourList October 2010)

These were just gleaned from two minutes' googling using the keywords "cuts" "ideological" and "Labour". But I remember there being way more than these three instances. Indeed almost every cut the government has ever announced has been opposed as "cruel", "ideological" or "unnecessary" by some Labour party spokesperson or other.

So the idea that they can suddenly in the last few months of the parliament get credibility on the economy by claiming they will be "tough" is laughable, unless they wish to renounce almost everything any spokesperson has ever said about the current government's cuts.

But maybe all of these calls were by lower level people like junior shadow ministers or those such as Johnson who have now left front bench politics....

"Ed Miliband says planned cuts are choice, not necessity" (BBC Website December 2010)

Uh oh spaghettios.

Saturday, 14 June 2014

Death of 75 cuts for Clegg?

I am starting to see reports (e.g. here) that small numbers of Lib Dem local parties have held meetings to decide whether to vote to trigger a leadership election for the party. There have only been 4 so far and only 2 of them have voted to trigger the contest. It will take 75 local parties to vote for a contest before it happens.

I also understand that at least a couple of dozen other local Lib Dem parties have arranged such meetings and will hold them in the near future.

One of the problems is that many local parties are playing their cards close to their chest and the information is only leaking out in dribs and drabs.

At first when I heard parties were organising I thought it unlikely the 75 threshold would be reached and that Clegg is probably safe. However that ignores two factors. Firstly, momentum. If we start to reach say 10 or 15 parties voting for a contest and this becomes widely known this could start to feed upon itself. Local parties who hadn't got round to organising a meeting, perhaps because they thought it wouldn't make any difference might just do so. The media may help feed this too. If they start to see a real chance that significant numbers of parties could vote to effectively oust Clegg they are likely to cover the story in more detail and this could cause a feedback loop as described above spurring the undecided or reluctant to action.

The second point is that 75 parties may not be needed. If the momentum is clearly in that direction and it is becoming clear that lots of local parties are voting for a contest we could see a "men in grey suits" moment for Clegg from his senior colleagues who don't want to see the party further damaged by a "death of 75 cuts".

We have seen how ruthless the Lib Dems can be about their leaders once the writing is on the wall. Just ask Charles Kennedy or Ming Campbell whether they have any doubts about their colleague's ability to wield knives...